Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

TOTW: Human Eyes

Displaying 1 to 12 of 12 matches.
emyerson
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistForum Moderator
Posted Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51PM

Welcome to the return of TOTW threads. This time around, guest TOTWer emigee takes us on a tour of the good and bad uses of the term "Human Eyes".


 


 

“The eyes are the mirror of the soul”
Yiddish proverb


"Human Eyes" is a term that we see in many images featuring people and one that is often used inappropriately. While it is almost a given that a model in a shot has eyes, an image tagged with "Human Eyes" should prominently feature the eyes as the subject of the image. When a buyer searches for "Human Eyes", they are looking for images of eyes themselves or where the eyes stand out. Think of it this way: if every image of a human subject had the term "Human Eyes" on it, a search for "Human Eyes" would become, essentially meaningless.

First, let's take a look at some great uses of "Human Eyes":

file_thumbview_approve 
"Human Eyes" is a perfect term for these peepers.

file_thumbview_approve 
This scan of a medical illustration is undeniably and unquestionably about the "Human Eye".


file_thumbview_approve 
Again, the eye plays a prominent role in the image. If this were just a straight portrait without the magnification, "Human Eye" might not be such a great fit, but the photographer has chosen to build an image whose whole purpose is that great big eyeball.



Here are examples of common misuses of the term. Please note that none of these images actually contains the term "Human Eye", but if they had it would be a misuse and would be removed.

file_thumbview_approve 
A lot of photographers will include "Human Eyes" in an image like this presumably because the model has eyes. But, again, the eyes are neither the subject of the image nor stand out. Imagine if a search for "Human Eyes" returned every portrait of this nature; you'd never find the actual shots of "Human Eyes"!

file_thumbview_approve 
The eyes of this baby are visible but do not merit the use of "Human Eyes"


file_thumbview_approve 
Though glasses play an important role in human vision, tagging a pair of frames on a table with Human Eyes is not appropriate as there are no actual eyes in the image.

As you might imagine, the same principle applies to other body parts: most models have "Human Hair", "Human Lips", and "Human Skin", but unless those parts are the subject of the image, or are featured prominently in the image, they're probably not the best choices.



 
eyeidea
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 12,500 - 99,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:31PM
good points
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:17AM
I see. Thank you!
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:56AM
¬°Ay, caramba!
SoopySue
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:56AM

Call me thick, but I don't understand why the artificial eyes at the top are 'human eyes' - they clearly are not human eyes, even if they are made as prosthetics.


'artificial eye' maps to "Glass Eye (Prosthetic Equipment)", so I'm guessing that the CV recognises that there is a difference.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:58AM
I was a bit taken aback, too. Is a wooden leg a human leg?
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:42AM

Saw this this morning, and thought, "They're not actually human eyes" Then thought it was just me.


Somewhere down the line it has to be decided (if it hasn't been already) whether terms need to be entirely and strictly factual, or whether "Would I mind this turning up in a search for X" needs to be applied in some cases.


 
SoopySue
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:04AM
Posted By Difydave:

Saw this this morning, and thought, "They're not actually human eyes" Then thought it was just me.

Somewhere down the line it has to be decided (if it hasn't been already) whether terms need to be entirely and strictly factual, or whether "Would I mind this turning up in a search for X" needs to be applied in some cases.

Same old, same old ...

A BM search on "human Eye" does show up some prosthetic eyes, but far more 'eyes in a face' of the type which the OP says would be removed. (so why hasn't a bulk wiki been done?) Several of these, randomly clicked on, show 'human eye' as their 'top' reordered keyword. Several of these are Vetta, and some have been recently approved.

So if BM shows the preferences of buyers, and submit a portrait not keyworded 'human eyes', you could be losing out to all the existing images which have these words. Very unfair to remove apparently popular words from newly approved images unless there has already been a bulk wiki.
emyerson
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistForum Moderator
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:14AM
Posted By SoopySue:



... Very unfair to remove apparently popular words from newly approved images unless there has already been a bulk wiki.

There has been a bulk edit, and there will be more. As was mentioned, keywording a trivially present bodypart is one of the biggest areas of misunderstanding in keywording. We're mentioning it here as one component in the plan to get this term in shape.
SoopySue
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:17AM
Posted By emyerson:


Posted By SoopySue:

... Very unfair to remove apparently popular words from newly approved images unless there has already been a bulk wiki.


There has been a bulk edit, and there will be more. As was mentioned, keywording a trivially present bodypart is one of the biggest areas of misunderstanding in keywording. We're mentioning it here as one component in the plan to get this term in shape.


So, what about artificial eyes? "Human eye" or "glass eye (Prosthetic equipment)".

(Edited on 2010-03-20 08:18:36 by SoopySue)
emyerson
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistForum Moderator
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:59AM
Posted By Difydave:

Saw this this morning, and thought, "They're not actually human eyes" Then thought it was just me.


Somewhere down the line it has to be decided (if it hasn't been already) whether terms need to be entirely and strictly factual, or whether "Would I mind this turning up in a search for X" needs to be applied in some cases.




We went back and forth on this one for a while, but ultimately decided "Human Eyes" was suitable here even though these are representational. The heuristic is exactly as Dave suggests: "As a buyer, would I be upset if this showed up in my search results?" For head-and-shoulder portraits, where the eyes are as incidental as the eyebrows, nose, and hairline, "Human Eyes" just has no place. For an image like this, representational of "Human Eyes", we felt it was a good way to illustrate that it is possible to be illustrative without being literal.


There are scores of other examples of representational keywording. A painting or sculpture of a horse, for instance, can be keyworded "Horse". Hands forming the shape of a house can get the "House" keyword, and so on.
SoopySue
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:23AM

Well, you're the experts, even though this seems odd to me. I do understand the 'almost everyone has two eyes' argument, and agree fully (I don't put 'animal eyes' on the majority of my animal images), but it seems that buyers are happy with 'human eyes' to appear in general portraits. Heck, searching by BM on 'human eyes' has a fairly highly placed Vetta image where the 'human eyes' can't actually be seen, yet 'human eyes' has risen to the top of the keywords. Having 'artificial eyes' as human eyes is totally counter-intuitive to me, especially when there is a valid alernative in the CV. Maybe change the mapping, then? Eye mapping to 'human eye', 'animal eye' or 'glass eye (Prosthetic equipment)' ... and then you're got 'eye of the storm' or 'eye of a needle'.


Oh, there's another one to add to your bulk edit list - eye needle. Eye storm has far fewer.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 12 of 12 matches.
Not a member?Join