Tag: images

Flickr launches Flickr Galleries

Originally posted on Digital Curation class blog, 9/16/09

Sept. 14th, I found out on Mashable that Flickr launched a Galleries application: http://mashable.com/2009/09/14/flickr-galleries/. What interests me the most is that it differs strongly from the already existing “favorites” ability (which is more the accumulating of images that interest one than “curating” of images). Their Galleries limit one to only 18 images (pulled from available images on Flickr), and one may title and write about what one finds meaningful about them.

Please explore the Galleries that people have created here: http://www.flickr.com/galleries. One can comment on the gallery, but not rate it or add it (which I think would be great features). Two of my favorites are Moleskinerie and tea. I would love the ability to enter metadata on gallery collections as a whole – as part of cataloging a curated exhibit goes beyond each individual image to address the relationship the images have to each other and how they interact.

The architect that I code metadata in his image database for – has been explaining to me his vision for a metadata hierarchy or schema. His vision seems to be one that is personal, intuitive and based upon his own use of images as visual inspiration. It is fascinating to work through and help develop this kind of metadata functionality in a workable way. For example: He wants a category called “Activities” – in which would include courtyards, outdoor cafes, public squares, people. He would like a category “Skylines” which would include architectural facades against the sky.

Going back to the Galleries on Flickr – I am inspired by seeing the arrangements and limited selections selected by individuals, named brief and poetic titles. I find these to be creative and mental exercises that not only allow others a glimpse into how others see the world, but allow others the chance to craft and curate one’s own expression through the pairing, juxtoposition, arranging and poetic guidance of images that speak to us.

Flickr user “nonac” has created numerous Galleries on Flickr and what I especially love about them is that they contain written text – the voice of the curator. The eyes have it.

I expect to follow great things on Flickr because of this new capability – but would like to see gallery-specific tagging in addition to the ability to favorite these collections. The potential to comment on and discuss these arrangements as well as the possibility for artists to collaborate via this application is very exciting.

Can this creative use of digital/social-tagging and curating be extended to other creative uses of digital content online? I find YouTube ripe with creative usability problems. Amazon.com allows one to create book lists. I am very interested in how one might move beyond the “accumulation” level of online content collection to the “curating” level – and how that might play out in other creative online platforms.

Image socialbookmarking sites as Digital Curation?

Originally published on Digital Curation class blog, 9/8/09.

Recently I have been intrigued by sites such as http://imgfave.com that aggregate photos/images through socialbookmarking and personal uploading. Imgfave allows the user to ‘favorite’ what image appeals to them, and then displays the collections of others who have fave’ed that particular image.

One may add those images to particular ‘collections’, and one may become a ‘fan’ of (or you may ‘follow’) other users. There are different “feeds”: “Popular” (most fave’ed), “Everyone,” “Friends,” and “My Profile” that one may browse and work from. One also may link images or one’s profile to Facebook.

The only major drawback with the site is that it lacks metadata. That is, until I discovered its rival: http://vi.sualize.us/.

Visualize uses metadata heirarchies – It has a section of Popular tags with general categories such as: photography, illustration, design, nature, art. Each contain sub-categories of qualities from: “vintage” and “humor” to elements or examples such as “typography” or “landscape.”

There is also a section “Most used tags” to guide one. These are listed in alphabetical order, with most used ones in bolder, larger font. You can view (and RSS subscribe to) “popular pictures feed” and “recent pictures feed.”

Each image displays a file name or title, when it was added, how often it’s been “liked,” comments on it, and its tags. And it appears that not only the ‘creator’ or person who uploaded the image, but everyone can tag the image.

This blog article gives a list of 10 social bookmarking visual sites: including also Picocool, We love typography, and others.

At a glance – the browsability seems more enjoyable and sublime with imgfave.com than with vi.sualize.us/. I am not sure if this is because the thumbnail images are smaller with vi.sualize.us/ or because the random, metadata-lacking feed in imgfave makes the experience more prone to serendipity and thus feel more direct and personal than one mediated by a metadata schema.

I think in regards to the size of the image, what imgfave does best is feature larger images that one needs to scroll down to view. So in scrolling down, one is discovering the images, experiencing them each individually. In vi.sualize.us/, on the other hand, one is presented with rows of smaller images, displayed three across, and typically 2 1/2 rows will fill one’s screen. This in combination with all of the text lends itself to a visually overwhelming experience, whereas imgfave feels far more like a poetic and artistic discovery. In imgfave one does not know what one is “looking for” but favorites those visual items when one sees them. Yet, the only real drawback is then, once having found that image (or others like it), the lack of metadata makes it difficult to further seek out these kinds of pictures.

Another feature in imgfave that I enjoy is its bookmarklet widget: Similar to the del.icio.us widget in the toolbar, when one sees an image online one clicks the <3imgfave text in the toolbar and all the images on that page become surrounded with a red border with a button in the center prompting one to ‘add to imgfave.”

An interesting argument in this comparative discussion might be: “What about Flickr?” Why was Flickr not mentioned as a “visual social bookmarking site?” Flickr has marvelous social networking features, from the ability to add contacts and create communities and image pools. It also has a tagging dimension (although one far less standardized than vi.sualize.us’s fine art/design metadata schema (although vi.sualize.us’s IS customizable). There is a component in Flickr whereby one can ‘favorite’ other people’s images. However, when one clicks on one of the images that one has favorited, one does not see recommendations of images from others who have favorited that same image. This is one of the things that intrigues me – following this trail. Does it yield reliable “data?” Sometimes, there is still a signal to noise ratio – but it provides a slightly more relevant result than searching randomly or by ranking.

The most important question however – “Is all this Digital Curation?” This is something I am still investigating. I believe personally that digital curation in these examples would necessitate a combination of the associative discovery factor in imgfave with the aesthetic metadata elements of vi.sualize.us, along with the social networking/collaborative potential in Flickr – and ultimately, the ability in using these features to observe and discover emergent visual trends and patterns, and to not only come up with innovative stylistic metadata to describe these things, but to have that information emerge via tag ranking as an influence to how we communicate about contemporary visual culture as a whole.