collecting art online

31 views
Skip to first unread message

sobriquet

unread,
Sep 27, 2022, 7:36:01 PMSep 27
to
For a long time I've been collecting art online.
The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
to obtain the best quality version of images.
Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
search results?

Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
that are not that difficult to find?

Whisky-dave

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 8:10:48 AMSep 28
to
On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> For a long time I've been collecting art online.
> The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
> images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
> But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
> to obtain the best quality version of images.
> Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
> https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
>
> It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
> https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
>
> But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
> have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
> search results?

First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.

Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.


>
> Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> that are not that difficult to find?

If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?

I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?


sobriquet

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 11:50:48 AMSep 28
to
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:10:48 PM UTC+2, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> > For a long time I've been collecting art online.
> > The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
> > images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
> > But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
> > to obtain the best quality version of images.
> > Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
> > https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
> >
> > It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
> > https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
> >
> > But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
> > have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
> > search results?
> First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.

Images that are not blurred/artificially inflated with low jpg compression settings.
As well as more user control to exclude unwanted search results (like watermarked
images that people might want to avoid).

>
> Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.

Part of the problem is indeed the copyright myth that causes people to share crap
versions of artworks which should somehow motivate people to buy art. Or they
make it difficult to save an image. People can decide to share art or not, but if they
do share it, it's generally not very effective to try to prevent people from downloading
the art.

> >
> > Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> > that are not that difficult to find?
> If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?

Google offers a service to find things online, so I think it's fair to criticize them if they
do a lousy job. In other respects google does a good job, like when I use google maps,
I like the way street view offers pictures to see what it looks like in a wide range of
locations on the map.

I guess google just shows pictures that they happen to find without any quality
control, so ultimately the blame is also with people who share inferior quality
images.
Maybe in the future AI can differentiate between good and bad quality images with
minimal computational resources, so it becomes more cost effective to provide a
free image search service that yields the best possible quality images in the search
results.
In any case there is a lot of amazing and awesome art available online, it's just that
I wish they wouldn't make you go through unnecessary effort to obtain good quality
images for an art slideshow on the computer.

>
> I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?

Yeah, it's all relative.. I'm just a bit puzzled why google provides inconsistent services
(some good and some not so good).

Alfred Molon

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 12:19:51 PMSep 28
to
Am 28.09.2022 um 01:35 schrieb sobriquet:
> Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> that are not that difficult to find?

There is something wrong with search engines nowadays. You often do not
get the most relevant result.
What is usually served is the website with the better SEO or which
perhaps paid some money to the search engine.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site


nospam

unread,
Sep 28, 2022, 12:50:45 PMSep 28
to
In article <zu_YK.345662$G_96....@fx13.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is something wrong with search engines nowadays.

no there isn't. they work exceptionally well.

> You often do not
> get the most relevant result.

you do with proper search queries.

as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.

> What is usually served is the website with the better SEO or which
> perhaps paid some money to the search engine.

those may rank higher, however, it's not difficult to refine the query
to get exactly what you want.

Whisky-dave

unread,
Sep 29, 2022, 9:11:44 AMSep 29
to
On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 16:50:48 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:10:48 PM UTC+2, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> > > For a long time I've been collecting art online.
> > > The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
> > > images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
> > > But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
> > > to obtain the best quality version of images.
> > > Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
> > > https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
> > >
> > > It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
> > > https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
> > >
> > > But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
> > > have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
> > > search results?
> > First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.
> Images that are not blurred/artificially inflated with low jpg compression settings.
> As well as more user control to exclude unwanted search results (like watermarked
> images that people might want to avoid).

Doesn't sound like a very good description of good quality image.

> > Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.
> Part of the problem is indeed the copyright myth that causes people to share crap
> versions of artworks which should somehow motivate people to buy art. Or they
> make it difficult to save an image. People can decide to share art or not, but if they
> do share it, it's generally not very effective to try to prevent people from downloading
> the art.

Then whats the problem ?

Maybe it's because you don;t understand copyright.


> > >
> > > Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> > > that are not that difficult to find?
> > If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?
> Google offers a service to find things online, so I think it's fair to criticize them if they
> do a lousy job.

What do you mean by a lousy job..
If yuo can do a better job of it then do it and stop complaining.



>In other respects google does a good job, like when I use google maps,
> I like the way street view offers pictures to see what it looks like in a wide range of
> locations on the map.

It's not perfect I can;'t see most street door numbers and the picture of my friend sitting outsiude a pub is almost unrecognisable.
I expect each image to be perfect and at least the quality of medium format digital camera can do.

>
> I guess google just shows pictures that they happen to find without any quality
> control, so ultimately the blame is also with people who share inferior quality
> images.

Maybe they shouldn;t share them then is that whayt you are saying.

> Maybe in the future AI can differentiate between good and bad quality images with
> minimal computational resources, so it becomes more cost effective to provide a
> free image search service that yields the best possible quality images in the search
> results.

Again depends what you mean by quality.
How about some of the original footage of the moon landings , in ultra hi def.
They could add an alien or two to the video.
Would that make the moon landing images better quality ?


> In any case there is a lot of amazing and awesome art available online, it's just that
> I wish they wouldn't make you go through unnecessary effort to obtain good quality
> images for an art slideshow on the computer.

Then do something about it, create you're own search engine and make it availible to everyone.
why don't you do that.


> >
> > I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?
> Yeah, it's all relative.. I'm just a bit puzzled why google provides inconsistent services
> (some good and some not so good).

Because that's how life is, some people are good some are shit.
People have differing options on what is good or bad too.

David Brooks

unread,
Oct 1, 2022, 10:48:47 AMOct 1
to
I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain
really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.

Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg

I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ

--
Kind regards,
David

Shared with my ACW group

sobriquet

unread,
Oct 1, 2022, 8:34:10 PMOct 1
to
On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 4:48:47 PM UTC+2, David Brooks wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 00:35, sobriquet wrote:
> > For a long time I've been collecting art online.
> > The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
> > images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
> > But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
> > to obtain the best quality version of images.
> > Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
> > https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
> >
> > It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
> > https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
> >
> > But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
> > have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
> > search results?
> >
> > Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> > that are not that difficult to find?
> I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain
> really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.

Yes, often they have good quality images, but it's probably more suitable to obtain
images of classical art as opposed to modern art.

>
> Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:-
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg
>
> I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
> put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
> of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ

My overall impression is that it's pretty good art, although I tend to have a strong
preference for abstract art:

https://imgbox.com/g/vvAuVrPvZs

I also like to recreate famous existing abstract artworks myself with
mathematics:

https://sites.google.com/view/math4abstractart/home

David Brooks

unread,
Oct 2, 2022, 2:39:05 PMOct 2
to
On 02/10/2022 01:34, sobriquet wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 4:48:47 PM UTC+2, David Brooks wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 00:35, sobriquet wrote:
>>> For a long time I've been collecting art online.
>>> The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
>>> images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
>>> But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
>>> to obtain the best quality version of images.
>>> Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
>>> https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
>>>
>>> It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
>>> https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
>>>
>>> But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
>>> have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
>>> search results?
>>>
>>> Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
>>> that are not that difficult to find?
>> I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain
>> really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.
>
> Yes, often they have good quality images, but it's probably more suitable to obtain
> images of classical art as opposed to modern art.

Agreed. But here's one!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Vassily_Kandinsky%2C_1923_-_On_White_II.jpg

>> Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:-
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg
>>
>> I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
>> put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
>> of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ
>
> My overall impression is that it's pretty good art, although I tend to have a strong
> preference for abstract art:

Thank you. I know I'm biased, but I think her work is of a excellent
standard.

> https://imgbox.com/g/vvAuVrPvZs
>
> I also like to recreate famous existing abstract artworks myself with
> mathematics:
>
> https://sites.google.com/view/math4abstractart/home

Thank you for sharing that information. Interesting!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages