View Single Post
  #10  
Old January 2nd 21, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

On Jan 2, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net):

In articlea7360651-c1f7-4e95-8531-
, says...

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
In articled4e042b5-bf51-4a66-9907-
, says...
Hi.
Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good
version of it.

https://i.imgur.com/XbGAsus.png

How come google images is such a useless tool when it comes to
finding a good quality version of an image?

Like for instance, if you search for this image via google images:

https://i.imgur.com/QlQtopa.jpg

Google will find countless versions of that image online, but they are all
garbage quality.

https://i.imgur.com/w1Ctu5N.png
Isn't the second search result 1920x1080?


The resolution isn't the only aspect that matters for image quality. It should
be pretty obvious if you compare the two versions I've shown in the original
thread at 100% zoomlevel. On the left side you can even make out detail
like the surface texture of the canvas and on the right side is ugly pixel soup.

https://i.imgur.com/EBKXKG1.jpg


How would Google (or any other search engine) be able to
automatically detect such a quality difference?


Google provides multiple versions at different sizes, resolutions,& quality from multiple sources if they are available. The quality control for consumer acceptance is left to the viewer’s eyeball. Google doesn’t much care one way, or the other.

Usually if you want a high resolution, good quality image file you are going to have to pay for it, and we all know that “Sobriquet" doesn’t like to pay for anything.

--
Regards,
Savageduck