A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 21, 09:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sobriquet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?


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

Yet, there exist much better quality versions of that image:

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

How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality
versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage
versions instead?

Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of
useless junk?

Kind regards and thanks for feedback on this topic!
  #2  
Old January 1st 21, 10:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Melanie van Buren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?

On 01/01/2021 20:52, sobriquet wrote:

How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality
versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage
versions instead?

Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of
useless junk?


General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess. I'm not aware that
Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either
technically or critically. The same is true for movies. If you did, for
example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones
suggested are simply the most promoted. There may also be a backlash
from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images
always came out top.

Found with Tineye sorted by image size.

https://imgpile.com/i/8A8qh

--
Melanie van Buren
  #3  
Old January 1st 21, 10:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?

On 01/01/2021 21.52, sobriquet wrote:

Hi.
Suppose you encounter an image online and you want to find a good
version of it.


Try Yandex.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #4  
Old January 1st 21, 10:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

In article , Melanie van Buren
wrote:


How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality
versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage
versions instead?

Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality
version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of
useless junk?


General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess.


it's nothing more than his inability to figure out how to properly do
an image search and then blame it on everything other than his own
ineptness.

I'm not aware that
Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either
technically or critically.


they absolutely do, and not just images.

The same is true for movies. If you did, for
example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones
suggested are simply the most promoted.


that depends on what someone searches for and how easily they give up
and then blame the search engine for not finding what they want.

There may also be a backlash
from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images
always came out top.


there was and they lost.
  #5  
Old January 2nd 21, 02:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sobriquet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?

On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 10:09:57 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 01/01/2021 20:52, sobriquet wrote:

How come google isn't able to quickly point you to such quality
versions and comes up with countless pages of useless garbage
versions instead?

Are there any useful tools that actually work to find you a *good* quality version of an image instead of bringing you countless pages of
useless junk?

General algorithmic criteria and SEO at a guess. I'm not aware that
Google or any other search engine rates images by quality either
technically or critically. The same is true for movies. If you did, for
example, a search on "thrillers movies 2020" you'd find most of the ones
suggested are simply the most promoted. There may also be a backlash
from copyright owners and copyright licensees if the best quality images
always came out top.

Found with Tineye sorted by image size.

https://imgpile.com/i/8A8qh

--
Melanie van Buren


Ah great, at least Tineye provides information about the actual filesize of the images.
That's probably most useful to quickly identify whether images have been artificially
bloated to high-resolution pixel soup.
  #6  
Old January 2nd 21, 03:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Melanie van Buren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

On 02/01/2021 01:02, sobriquet wrote:
On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 10:09:57 PM UTC+1, Melanie van Buren wrote:

Ah great, at least Tineye provides information about the actual filesize of the images.
That's probably most useful to quickly identify whether images have been artificially
bloated to high-resolution pixel soup.


A thankyou would have been nicer than shifting the goalposts for another
moan.


--
Melanie van Buren
  #7  
Old January 2nd 21, 10:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

In article d4e042b5-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?
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #8  
Old January 2nd 21, 12:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sobriquet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version ofan image?

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article d4e042b5-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

--
Alfred Molon

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

  #9  
Old January 2nd 21, 03:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default why is google images so useless to find a good quality version of an image?

In article a7360651-c1f7-4e95-8531-
, says...

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 at 10:23:56 AM UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article d4e042b5-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?

--
Alfred Molon

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan Nikolaj Winther 35mm Photo Equipment 9 March 4th 05 11:06 AM
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan Nikolaj Winther 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 17th 05 02:08 PM
Poor quality images on projector despite high quality scan Nikolaj Winther 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 17th 05 02:08 PM
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams Richard Lee Digital Photography 21 August 23rd 04 07:04 PM
THE Difference Between Good Quality and Poor Quality Pictures! N.E.1. Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 3 September 23rd 03 03:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.