The Algorithm That 'Sees' Beauty In Photographic Portraits

KentuckyFC (1144503) writes "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But what if the beholder is a machine? Scientists from Yahoo Labs in Barcelona have trained a machine learning algorithm to pick out beautiful photographic portraits from a collection of not-so-beautiful ones. They began with a set of 10,000 portraits that have been rated by humans and then allowed the algorithm to "learn" the difference by taking into account personal factors such as the age, sex and race of the subject as well as technical factors such as the sharpness of the image, the exposure and the contrast between the face and the background and so on. The trained algorithm was then able to reliably pick out the most beautiful portraits. Curiously, the algorithm does this by ignoring personal details such as age, sex, race, eye colour and so on and instead focuses only on technical details such as sharpness, exposure and contrast. The team say this suggests that any subject can be part of a stunning portrait regardless of their looks. It also suggests that "perfect portrait" algorithms could be built in to the next generation of cameras, rather like the smile-capturing algorithms of today."

Comments

Great....

[funwithBSD]

Now all pictures will tend to be the same with the algorithm telling the amateur photographer how to frame the shot.

Re:Great....

[gstoddart]

You know, if amateur photographers would learn how to frame shots, that would be great. It would make most pictures suck less. The framing has been well described for decades. But there's more to it than just that.

But if you think all of the hacks with iPhones are suddenly going to make beautiful portrait photography, you underestimate just how bad most amateurs are.

In a world where the selfie stick is a real thing, I'm pretty sure the pros have nothing to worry about it your average person with a cell phone magically learned how to frame a portrait.

Indeed, the single most important factor is the sharpness of the image. But other important factors include the contrast between the face and background. Curiously, exposure quality is negatively correlated with beauty suggesting that photographers can create beautiful images by playing with under and overexposed images.

By the time you're talking about professional (or really good) photographers doing "fine art" photography, and understanding the mechanics of cameras it's simply a different thing.

And, I say this not as a "pro", but someone who has been taking pictures for much of his life -- taking decent pictures is more than just pointing the camera, and taking beautiful pictures involves a lot of technique.

Even gear isn't a guarantee ... I've seen people take shit pictures with an SLR, and I've seen people take quite good shots with a point and shoot.

Re:Great....

[TuringTest]

Now all pictures will tend to be the same with the algorithm telling the amateur photographer how to frame the shot.

You say that as if it was a bad thing.

Re:Great....

[Cederic]

When it comes to portraits, framing is piss easy. I know, even I can manage it.

The pros earn their money because of the lighting.

Re:Great....

[tlhIngan]

Even gear isn't a guarantee ... I've seen people take shit pictures with an SLR, and I've seen people take quite good shots with a point and shoot.

Generally speaking, this has always been true. A good photographer can take excellent photos with a cellphone or a disposable. While a good camera cannot turn a snapshot into a photo.

The same rules of composition, lighting, framing, etc., apply whether or not you use a dSLR, a point and shoot, or a cellphone camera. While limitations in each may make taking some kinds of photos hard (e.g., low depth of field shots in anything but a dSLR with beautiful bokeh), it just means one has to creatively come up with another way to turn that shot into a good one.

Beauty of the photo, not the subject

[hcs_$reboot]

From TFA

The good news for many of us is that that the visual qualities of the person in the photographic have little impact on the beauty of the resulting portrait. “We find that race, gender, and age are largely uncorrelated with photographic beauty,” Instead, many of the factors that do correlate with beauty relate to the technical quality of the image. “Aesthetic score is related to sharpness of facial landmarks, image contrast, exposure, homogeneity, illumination pattern, uniqueness, and originality,”

So, no worries, here.

a wasted effort.

[nimbius]

We should be teaching machines to help us, not emulate our flaws and biases. beauty and ugliness, rich and poor, black and white, these are all concepts that in technology hold no relevance or meaning because theyre metrics by which we categorize and qualify people in often arbitrary and flawed ways.

Re:a wasted effort.

[Translation Error]

We should be teaching machines to help us, not emulate our flaws and biases.

To help us, they must know us.

Re:a wasted effort.

[squiggleslash]

Except during the 1920s, when the ratio was closer to 1, and during Rueben's time when, well... and actually are you sure about that "the world over" thing? Or even in just America? I mean, look at different cultures within the US.

Definitions of physical beauty are constantly changing, and seem to be inherently based upon social, not biological, processes.

Re:a wasted effort.

[oodaloop]

The ratio holds for all body types, skinny or fat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio

Re:a wasted effort.

[bws111]

Did you actually read all the way through the summary? For that matter, did you even read the title? It finds beautiful PORTRAITS, not beautiful SUBJECTS. It does this by IGNORING age, sex, etc and concentrates on sharpness, contrast, and exposure. What exactly is the problem?

did they account for cultural differences?

[alen]

i know some asian people and their idea of beauty is different than european. but for us europeans, this is old news. most models used on magazine covers and beauty queens have had similar facial shapes and features for decades. i remember seeing feminists on Maury and other talk shows in the 80's complaining how the media had a narrow view of beauty.

Re:Does not make sense

[bws111]

Why? They asked people to rate the images based on personal factors AND technical factors, and found you could get the same ratings using only technical factors. What is wrong with that?

Re:Marilyn Monroe could pull off a potato sack

[wonkey_monkey]

Marilyn Monroe could pull off a potato sack

She could, but for some reason she's kept it on in all of those photos.

What this proves...

[davidwr]

... is that by and large, there are some technical features that most humans - or at least most humans that the scientists from Yahoo Labs in Barcelona used to train this computer - agree create a beautiful image.

Uninteresting correlation

[JMZero]

My guess is what they've really determined is that:

1. Better photographers take better pictures, and also are more competent technically (ie. they take sharp, well-lit pictures)
2. People put more effort into getting technicals right when they're shooting something beautiful

Taking sharper photos of dull objects will only get you so far; the correlation is due to stuff that's deeper and harder to control: the subject and the photographer's skill/effort.

If (RND(1)0.5),"beautiful", "not beautiful";

[grumpyman]

If (RND(1)>0.5),"beautiful", "not beautiful";