I’m curious about what correlation there might be between memorable images and images that a photographer or other viewers might like (memorable or not).
- As a first step I ran 68 of my photos through the MIT algorithm.
- These photos were from my on-line gallery where, from 2004 to 2009, I posted a photo-a-day (PAD)
- They were from my gallery’s PAD Favorites collection
- Each month the daily photo that got the most views was the month’s favorite
- These 68 were representative of what both I, and viewers, thought were “good”
- I asked the MIT algorithm “How memorable are they?”
- I added the Memorability Score to each photo as shown below
- Click on this next image to see the entire collection
The first thing I learned from my PAD experiment is that landscapes are not memorable. You can see in the image above that two classics, photographed millions of times, are near the bottom of the memorability scale. This next photo of mine received Freeman Patterson’s (world acclaimed photographer) highest accolade. Another “good” but not too memorable photo.
The most memorable landscape that emerged from my PAD favorite experiment just happened to be my photo that won an award for the
- Advanced Color Print of the Year (from >1000+ entries over the course of a year)
This correlation between “good” (the PAD collection) and “memorable” (MIT) is what I am curious about. Could it be that:
- Good image + Memorable image = Winning image (??)
Tomorrow I’ll show images with a perfect memorability score of 1.0.