I am sorry but I need to be brutally frank here. What the heck were you thinking by integrating that dumb AI evaluation score to all photos? Letting an AI decide about the quality of an image and let it rate everything into a crude percentage score is an insult to every artist that once trusted an unique curation system that made 1x.com so special. It worked perfectly because trustworthy and experienced human curators made the final decision if an image was worth getting into the front page. And now you are giving us such AI crap. What the heck are you doing with this site !?

Let's take a look at my latest awarded image, "minor pains":

https://1x.com/photo/2226278

92% from member curators, 93% from expert curators, finally published and awarded to the front page.

Your so-called "advanced AI" rates this image at 7%. Yeah, a whopping 7%.

You can see everything in this screenshot:

https://1x.com/photo/2234014

You know what? I'll tell you why that AI rates this awarded photo by only 7%. Because an AI is dumb. An AI cannot rate or see emotions. An AI is so dumb it cannot see what a human sees and feels in this image: the emotion and the atmosphere. But what does it see? It sees the grain, it sees it is unsharp, it sees it's blurry, somewhat unclear, it cannot compare it with anything in it's database, and it even has scratches! So the "advanced AI" decides: that's an image with a lot of technical faults. And yet this bad technical quality image evokes emotions in the viewer. So much emotion that it got awarded. It was awarded by human curators, because unlike your stupid AI they had understood that the grain and the blur is not a technical fault but something that adds up to the whole message of this photo.

Delete this AI crap immediately. It is an insult to every artist.

Sorry for the rant. But 1x.com is not heading into the right direction. I accept such crap from youpic, Instagram, 500px or eyeem, but not from 1x.com.

Hi Adam,

It obviously didn't yet have much weight in curation and hasn't been rolled out widely, therefore it appears to be experimental... the unique curation system seems to be still in place, so how serious should we take it?

I don't think it can and will ever take over the subjective part of the process, therefore I consider it a funny feature for objective parameters for the time being.

Enjoy your Sunday!

Kind regards,

Gerda

Dear Gerda,

meet a new curator. :-)

Have a nice Sunday.

Best regards to all,

Francesco

Francesco Del Santo PRO

Dear Gerda,

meet a new curator. :-)

 

Have a nice Sunday.

 

Best regards to all,

 

Francesco

Sooo handsome! ;-)

Hi Adam,

Algorithms can only measure what is measurable.  They can only be part of the equation.  "That is not logical, Captain Kirk" -- Spock.

Al

Hello everyone,

I think Gerda explained quite well what this is about. Actually the AI does not have any weight in the decision making at all, 0%, it's just extra feedback to our members to give you another way to evaluate and get more information about our photos. We are soon going to publish an article in the magazine which better explains how it works. It's being developed by 1x photographer and AI professor Yan Zhang and it's extremely sophisticated. Can an AI learn to evaluate feelings in a photo? Yes, most likely by analazying thousands or millions of other photos with strong or weak feelings. It's a good question though and a very interesting field of research. It's certainly one of the hardest applications for making an AI and therefore a very interesting challenge.

Anyway, 100% of all final decisions are still being made by the head curator team.

Hello,

I'm new here and I can see that obviously there is a problem with this way to work 

My 2 first try have been refused although technically at least correct ... so after 20years of photography it's weird... more weird is that I don't see any way to contact someone to understand why a picture liked on others app is refused here

So like I have already said, I can find lot of things to deserve a good image, it's that the game we are played here ?

I would like to be refunded thx 

Hi Cedric.

Ralf Stelander pretty much said it all. It is an experimental feature aimed to help YOU (the photographer) evaluate your photo. It has ZERO bearing on the curation process. One can always argue about the validity of the evaluation of an AI, and I for one am looking forward to a more detailed description.

My fear - about such an AI evaluation - is, that it ends up encouraging photographers to be their own editors, in that we become encouraged to "please" the evaluation of an AI rather than share that which we find pleasing ourselves.

It could easily become like the algorhytm on Facebook that only shows you things, that it has previously found you indicated an interest for. We end up in each our own echo-chamber only seing the things we like. Except on 1x the risk is we all end up seeing the things that the majority likes.

The beauty of an editorial approach, where a news editor decides what we should- and should not be exposed to, based on what is deemed of importance, not based on what we individually engage with. We are constantly challenged to think about new things, new viewpoints and perhaps even news that are beyond our normal sphere of interest.

If an algoryhm for image curation is implemented, it has to be self-correcting, in that it will evaluate it's own performance against it's success in picking images that people engage with. And one could ask: Is the goal of 1x to showcase images that are uniformly evaluated with the aid of an AI by the photographers to be "pleasing", or is the goal to showcase the best of phtography, that oftentimes can not be avaluated by a cookie cutter method. If we take this to the extreeme, we will eventually all be uploading images that conform to the same basic principles that we - without even knowing - become accustomed to follow, in order to get a high evaluation score.

It may not be obvious - but logic dictates, that if someone (be that an AI or a communal curating process) tells you that one image is "better" than the other, or more likely to be published or awarded - most photographers will aim to 'please' the process, because why else do we share our work?

Best regards

Henrik

Yes I understand the I.A. Subject

But my problem stil the same, I see my pictures rejected 

After 20 years of photography I can tell you what is a good picture and why ... and be large with type of pictures that I don't really appreciate (for style or subject...) but here when I see critics it's deserve just for deserve or to try to have a infographic job to be payed... I don't know... I will try again for 1 or two pictures... but I will not continue like this... 

Cédric,

The Curators don't explain why they choose 'Publish' or 'Reject', but there is a section of the site where you can get an in-depth evaluation of a photo and usually some suggestions/opinions/ideas that you might find useful.  It's the Senior Critics section.  It's been around much longer than the new, Gamma versionof the site, but harder to find now after the changes.  Three ways to get there, if you'd like to take a look.

* Click the blue button, 'Discussion Forum' that appears on some pages

* Click 'Forums' from the dropdown menu on the left of the page, then click 'Critique' in Sections.  (usually top on the list)

* Use the URL to go there directly  . . . . https://1x.com/forum/critique

All members can post photos and join in the discussions.  We're not anonymous so you'll know who is commenting, and we tend to go into more detail than the other critique section - the one with the green button, 'Request Critique'.   That is where the general membership is invited to comment on your photo. 

I'm looking forward to seeing some of your work.

. . . . Steven, senior critic

Hi Cedric.

I've been active for a little more than a month now, and have had a couple of images rejected as well. I am not shooting a lot of landscapes, and therefore don't upload a lot of landscape images.

But I can easily identify the markers of a great portrait or photographs that get rejected as well as what type of portraits are accepted. And this is simply due to the way member curation is working.

I can also see that I am tempted to accept and reject images that fit into this "mold" of 1x, simply because I know that I am "rated" as I am curating. I am tempted to vote accept for images that I know is representative of 1x and not really voting based on my OWN thoughts on, what is great photography or what I think is an interesting photograph with a story that relates emotions more than technical perfection.

HOWEVER... Whle I am tempted, I do NOT give into this temptation. And I wonder how many others that are tempted but DO give in to the temptation, or don't even think of the bias the images shown on 1x.com places on the way they vote.

I havent spent a lot of time thinking about this and can't - off the top of my head - think of a better way than 1x, but maybee the powers that bee, will make adjustments to the process as the systematic bias becomes more and more evident. It would be sad indeed if 1x stops being a platform showcasing the best of Fine Art Photography, to be an algorithm (be that AI or human driven process) that ends up only showcasing images that fit a certain "mold".

Best regards

Henrik

Hi Henrik,

I agree with most of what you said with a couple of caveats.

I think initially most photographers should be their own editors in culling out bad photos.  A lot of photographers have a problem doing this and as a result bad photos are submitted to be judged.  The 'best" photos of photographers are not the "best" photos of curators.    It reminds me of an incident when I was selling photos in art galleries: One of my best sellers was an upside-down photo.  It was the photo content that sold it, not the tech quality.

I don't think you give enough credit to photographers in general for staying on the course with their photo themes or styles and caving in to 1x just to get points.  For inexperienced photographers, this would likely fail anyway since 1x publishes only about 5% of photos.

The issues with AI are more concerning. I agree that the program should be more self-learning (recursive).  But it seems to be too narrowly defined when it compares against other photos parameters and the category list.

AL

Al,

I'll take the risk you'll feel offended. SInce you participated in critique, I'm familiar with a few shots you posted. We usually review a portfolio before we comment, if we get the chance. So exactly what you say others do - not having a realistic view of own work - applies to probably all of us, including yourself. 

We have different preferences, taste, we often have memories attached to photos we took, remember which efforts we took to get these. None of this is visible to "neutral" viewers, apart from glitches we might oversee because we see that "one thing" in our own photo. 

Being very concrete now, and I hope you don't kill me for that. Your "Location Simulation" is one of these photos I would never have posted. I don't like the quality of light, I don't like this "Venice" replicate in Vegas. Because it was taken in low-light conditions, moving elements are washed out, blurry. The only thing in focus is the bridge, which is only a side element in my thinking. I also think the crop does not make sense at all. Hence, I would never post it on 1x. You did, and I can only wonder what you like about this photo. Neither the subject nor the execution attracts me. But, as mentioned in the beginning, there is probably a reason you like this photo and you expect others to feel the same. And that's for me just one example in your portfolio. You may feel the same about photos in mine, I can't know.

You see where I am going, I hope. There are for sure "bad" photos posted, we see them in the curation queue, where photographers seem to have a long way to go before they have control about technology and master light, the "material" photography consists mainly of. At the end it doesn't harm anybody, does it? I don't agree to photos that made it through curation, you may not agree to others. What's the damage, we see photos we don't want to see? Well, that happens in the real world we live in all day, advertisement, facebook posts, cigarette boxes :-)

I wouldn't bother too much,

Mike

Hi Mike,

You have not offended me, but I am a little confused by your response or rebuttal to my two sentences in your response post.

Your first paragraph is about the subjective nature of critiquing.  Your second paragraph gives an example illustrating that.  In your third paragraph you use yourself to confirm your point of view.  I don't disagree with this.

I was mainly referring to a photographer doing initial editing of bad photos based on photo content and clearly out of focus areas.  Zooming in enough or using a loupe can always result in finding problems. In practical reality, some aspects of photos (resolution, perfect focus and dynamic range) are overrated especially regarding prints.  Anyone who has visited a physical gallery showing prints by major photographers of today (such as Peter Lik) or some photographers of the past, will understand this.

"Bad", "Good" and "Better" are subjective and not absolute.  I was not referring to any damage that might be done by posting "bad" photos, except maybe wasting the time of the curators.  A bad photo on 1x might be a good photo on another site.

I thought my photo "Location Simulation" was worthy of being sent to curation.  At least it was good enough to be published.

AL

Hi Al,

Glad to read that, because I really take the position everybody can give it a try with what he or she thinks is good photography - and potentially belongs to the heart. I just returned form a photo exhibition of Ragnar Axelsson this morning. Very impressive photos, which also include motion blur and in some cases, ICM. He very obviously has an admiration for polar dogs, and the motion blur underlines the dynamics in his shots, as tilted horizons do. There I totally accept his intention and artistic take of unsharp elements. In yours I didn't because it's more a tranquil scene, the blur does not help with anything, it rather gave me the impression of a photographic shortfall. 

But never mind, it's published and you're happy wih it. That's the most important.

Best regards,

Mike

Hi Al.

As photographers, we will always be terrible at curating our own photographs. A good piece of advice has often been given to writers: "Kill your own darlings", and this is definitely easier said than done.

The following comments are not made to you specifically, nor directed at you. I deliberately haven't seen the specific images Mike is referrring to, as I don't want my comments to be about your images rather of the general process that we all - as photographers - evolve through. So please do not take the following comments or observations personal, as they are more a reflection of me and my own journey with photography, and the way I have come to understand my own limitations in curating my own work in general.

Photographers often evolve through a really strange process, where at first we absolutely loathe our own images. Then we figure something out (for example how to focus or expose properly) and we fall in love with our own images. Some even think their images are the greatest thing, sinse sliced bread was invented, at this stage. Then we discover (or something is pointed out to us), that we completely missed the boat on certain aspects of our images and again we dislike what we create. We then figure something NEW out (perhaps something about composition like "the rule of thirds" - which NEVER should be a compositional rule in the first place) and we begin liking what we create again.

This "back and forth" of either loving what we create or loathing it, is simply the learning "curve" of photography, which is not really a "curve" but rather an endless series of increasingly taller steps. 

And for some - being stuck at the foot of a specific seemingly impossibly steep step - becomes a stumbling block, and they never progress past that point. They will begin to argue with anyone else that does not see their images as incredible, perhaps simply by commenting that "they do not understand" my intention. In doing so they fail to understand that it is NOT the recipient of a message that is responsible for understanding that message, but the sender of that message. If people do not understand a photograph of mine, it is not THEIR problem, it is MINE. And we also need to accept that it is OK for people not to understand my art, the way I present it. I can - as an artist - either choose to stick to my guns, or I can conform to the way other people think.

For at artist, this will - I think - always be at the heart of creating art that doesn't "fit the mould". Sometime our work provokes, other times it appeases. The  question we should ask ourselves. Do we create art because of an inert belief that our way of seeing the world is right, do we create art because we want to change the way others experience the world, or do we simply confirm the way the world is percieved with our art?

Even the incredible portrait photographer Diane Arbus struggle with this. In 1969 (just a few years before her death) she wrote a letter to her ex-husband stating: "Some of the ... pictures are exciting but I must go back a lot. I am plagued by mysterious technical problems, like trying to make my sharp pictures blurred but not too much so." and "A thousand misses, but when it suddenly works, I can see, it was exactly that, which I wanted to achieve, without really knowing, that I wanted to achieve anything at all."

Coming back to curating our own work, this is at the heart of the matter, and why artists are usually the worst in curating their own works of art. We stumple, we struggle, we hate our own work, find a solution, and fall in love all over again.

Curation is not a matter of me picking amongst my own, the images I like the most, but precisely having someone else picking the images out that speak to them. I relenquish controle, and I have to accept their "judgement". The only reason for me to argue with them, is for me to stroke my own ego. I will accomplish nothing.

For me, my images are not merely the finished photograph, but the whole process of creating that image. It could be the way an idea evolved in my head, the people that have influenced my thinking, the model I worked with and my relationship with him or her, it can be the fluidity with which the image was made or even the struggle going through the creative process of creating the final photograph. My relationship is with the complete process and not just the finished "product", and while the finished product hopefully brings forth some of the thoughts that has gone into the process, we cannot be sure others will unearth the deeper meaning of one of our photographs. A photograps (or any other work of art) - in the end - has to be able to stand on its own, and we have to allow it to be "judged" by the ones who looks at it. We can only hope that some of what went into creating that photograph translates to the viewer, and even if they find, what they see, disgusting, bewildering, interesting, scary, beautiful, confusing or any other sort of feeling, what they feel is what we intended.

But there are no guarantees, and we HAVE to leave it with the viewer to draw whatever conclusion they want about our photograph. As much as we love a photograph we made, and as much as we understand it, we cannot expect others will feel the same, we can only try.

And while curation is a matter of trust in someone knowledgable about the type of work they are curating, it can never really be an editorial process if it is done by majority vote. There is a reason a "curator" (singular) is responsible for a single collection or a single exhibition.

But alas... I cannot think of a better way to do it on a site like 1x, so this is the way it is done. If we cannot accept an image being rejected because "... cant see what the image is of" or "... don't understand the image", this is really not the placefor us to share our images.

My apologies for the long-winded response.

With best regards

Henrik Delfer

Hi Henrik,

Your post covers a lot of ground and primarily refers to one type of photographer, but I think 1x has many types.  I am responding to your post by breaking it into three parts: 1. Photographers, 2.  Editing and 3. Art in general and photography.

To me there are three kinds of photographers: 1. Those that eat, sleep and think photography.  2.  Those that think of it primarily as a job to pay the bills and 3.  The hobbyist.

Photographers:

I think 1x contains primarily photographers in the third group.  They take photos as a hobby and hope that one is published.

I also believe most photographers on 1x are there because they need confirmation of their work.  Sometimes this can take the form of photography as their reason for living.  They do not necessarily take pictures for themselves, but for someone to tell them that their photos are "great" for ego building.  In the past, there were some photographers who became extremely upset when nothing was published for a long time.

When I was doing a lot of travelling to take photos for the galleries I was with, I was in the first group.  I have never been in the second group.  Now I am mostly in the third group.  I take and make pictures for myself because I like the process.  I am not out to prove anything.

Editing:

"Your first 10, 000 photos are your worst." -- Henry Cartier-Bresson.

Every amateur and pro photographer that I have known does self-editing.  Some do it drastically.

Some of the greatest photographers in the world such as Jay Maisel and Pete Turner have teams that do initial editing.  There are old pictures of them with slides thrown all over the floor.

The sports pro Scott Kelby gave an example of his work flow where he shot over 3000 photos at an event, but only sent about 100 to his service bureau for editing.

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -- H.C.B.

Preferably a curator should do the final editing.  Critics who give opinions are a-dime-a-dozen.  Sometimes editing results in a drastic change in the photo completely changing the photos' theme or what the photographer was trying to "say".  The "improvements" by curator suggestions result in a photo that does not look like the photographer's original.

Art:

Art has no rules and is highly subjective.  Some art is not meant to be "understood".  It is not the job of the artist to make his audience "understand" is art.  It is the job of an artist to create art, nothing else.  I think all abstract artists would agree with this.

It was not long ago when reporters thought it was their job to only report the news.  Now they want to be sociologists and change the world.  A dangerous attitude to have in my opinion.

This post only contains my own opinions.

Sorry for its length, but your post was somewhat involved,

AL

Hi Al.

This has certainly become an interesting conversation 😊

I don't really see a need to categorize photographers. I am photographer, that makes my living shooting portraits, a bit of editorial work as well as advertisements. Some would label me a commenrcial photographer but only to the extent that they only see that part of my work. I am not a purist. I shoot a little bit of everything, and even do film- and video-work as a DP or as a Director from time to time. I shoot weddings but only for friends, and I also do the occational family portrait sessions. All of this makes it possible for me to pay my bills, rent, insurance, my own salery, etc., but more than anything it allows me to take time out every month, where i work with what is my TRUE passion: fine art photography.

When I'm not working, I shoot a lot of snapshots of my own family. My wife, our three daughters and two granddaughters are some of my favorite subjects. This is clearly to save moments of our life as a family, that I want to preserve. They are not nescessarily great images,  but they are meaningful to us as a family.

In a way - you could easily say that I am all three kinds of photographer, and while I may be so a bit "more" than others, that has no real merit in itself. What is the unifying factor in all of this - and why I dont think classifying different kinds of photographers - is this:

We are all on a journey in love with creating images. ALL of us! Some are further ahead of others, some are stuck and have no idea how to move on. Some even give up and leave the "trail". I for one have been stuck more times than I care to remember, and I have been contemplating giving up. But for some reason - at JUST the right time - I have either found a solution, encouragement to let something go and move on, or simply decided to change direction.

I think this is true for all photographers. Wherever we find ourselves on this wonderful journey, that does not define us. Simply because we are constantly "on the move", or at least we should be!

Relating this to the original topic here, every photographer that is looking for praise and a pat on the shoulder for his or her work will inevitably end up conforming to a cookie cutter mould of photography. The ONLY exception being the images that we shoot for ourselves, be that family snapshots or other photographs we shoot because we cannot do anything else.

Agreed - but lets make sure our definitions are clear. A publishing house or media outlet has image editors, and their job is not to "edit" a specific image but to decide which image makes it into the publication or newspaper. Editing in this respect becomes more a process of curation, and it has nothing to do with making changes (small or drastic) to individual images. In the following I take it, that we are talking about "editing" as the process of picking the "keepers".

It has been said to many emerging as well as established photographers: "Be your own worst critic". Much the same way as the importance of being willing to "kill your darlings" has been proposed to writers. It has also been said that the difference between the pro and the amateur is that the pro shooter ONLY shows his best work. But this is also true of some amateur- or enthusiast photographers. And for hobbyist, it is perhaps true that they ONLY share the few images they really think are their best, but perhaps they are simply not great photographers yet.

As photographers (no matter the label) we evolve over time. We become more discerning as the bar is raised for the work we do. Once we have learned to focus, it becomes natural to expect that all our images should be in focus, and should we have the audacity to share an image that is not tac-sharp, it is easy to assume that this is a flaw that should be corerected. Once we learn how to properly expose an image, it is assumed that burned out highlights or shadows that close to black are a mistake that should be corrected and it is NOT assumed this was a deliberate choice made by the photographer.

We also evolve over time and become more critical of our own work. But it takes time, and editing is hard. This is the wonder of a website like 1x as you can get someone else to look at your work.

Circling back to the initial discission about AI evaluation and curating at large, the problem - as I see it - is that there is a high risk of curating becoming a matter of conforming to a specific type of images, rather than looking at each submitted image on their own.

To a certain extent I agree, but not entirely. Art can broaden our insight and move borders of understanding by framing an issue or introducing a new way of thinking. While the job of an artist is to create art, it doesn't mean art does not serve a specific purpose. Some might be provocative in nature, not for the sake of provoking, but because through provocation we are forced to see things in a new perspective. Art does not nesccesarily have to be beautiful and art can never be all things to everyone.

And while art is not always easily understood, most of the art that actually move us, is made with intention and thought. You can throw your camera into the air under a long exposure and call it art, but just because you may think of it as art, does not nescessarily make it so, and to some, it may simply be a blurry mess. Adding a bit of thought to the process of camera-throwing can give it a perspective that becomes more evident in carefull editing (selecting) the images that more clearly reflect on a throught behind creating those images. Perhaps the intention is to depict the turmoil of a distressed mind? Perhaps the intention is to encourage the viewer to find their own "expplanation" in a chaotic context? Maybee the intention is to offer imagery that depict the mind of an agressor or a victom of a violent incident? Maybe we will never know what is the real intention, but when we spend time contemplating what we see, we do so based on an unspoken understanding that the artist created the work with intention... or that the intention that there was no intention behind it.

A painter that thows or splashes paint on a canvas... is that art? Sure it is... or maybe not. Who decides? Those that take the time to look at it.

Rather than saying art has no rules, lets say that art does not have to conform, and circling back to the initial topic here, the problem with the current curation process is that it inevitably results in conformity.

With best regards

Henrik

Hi Henrik,

Thanks for expanding on my points.

I categorized photographers, because I knew some within each category.

In mentioning editing, I was referring to both culling and changing the photo.

By saying art has no rules, I meant in its creation not in the implication of the result.  It reminded me of the time I was in MOMA (San Francisco) and saw a men's urinal hanging on the wall in the sculpture wing.  I would like to know the curator's rationale for choosing that nonconformist piece.

The best to you

AL

Hi Al.

Perhaps for that VERY reason: To make you wonder as to the rationale of the placement and inclusion? Perhaps to place into question, why something SO natural for all is treated with such seclusion and an aura of taboo? Perhaps to question the rationale of making urinating a private issue when everybody does it? 😉

I honestly don't know, but I have seen it elswhere, and it made me wonder as well 😊

Thank you for a good discussion and sharing af viewpoints.

Best regards

- Henrik

In theory, AI can be a very useful tool, but as every thing else if it as lousy teachers, the results it gives will also be lousy. In case you have not noticed yet, every judgement on a photo is subjective, period. So it would be nice to have an objective evaluation, but it's almost impossible. 

I'm not saying this would be or not a good criterion, but in music, producers have something, possibly from AI that give them a score or something similar, on the potential of a song to be a good investment. All the greatest hits of all time fall within a relatively small range of the "perfect" curve. 

I wonder if something similar exist for painting, if not then it shouldn't be long, way too much money in play. Most likely it will be AI base.

As for photograph, well we’ll have to wait a bit more, as it seems the one propose here is not very good, or it's very good at something the curators are not looking at? Unfortunately, we don't know what it is.

Food for thought,

~Yves

So far, at least for my landscape images, the AI result appears to be rather random, often  far away from what expert curators think ( eg 92%/92%,17% for a picture without fog, all foggy pictures also with large discrepancies, as mentioned in the Article best regards Ulrikr