Really interesting idea! I was thinking this might be a neat color name-to-rgb tool, but the resulting color deviates substantially from expected colors (which, given the algorithm, is to be expected):
By the website's definition, which is right on the main page, it is not wrong. The website uses the "average color across the approximately 25 image results".
And for that purpose this site works fantastically, and I would say it's a pretty hilarious idea.
For example searching for Dolphin doesn't return grey but instead a shade of blue, because most dolphin pictures are dolphins in water.
I think the website takes our expectations and instead shows us the reality. And I think it does a fantastic job.
What I would like to see is an option to maybe increase the number of images to average from, maybe to 50, 100, etc. I would also love to see the source released so I can this instance locally.
I agree. The problem has to do with not recognizing the background of the image. That'd explain why ketchup and solo cup are pink -- the first 25 pictures all have white backgrounds.
I feel like it would only be right for this kind of project to not "stoop" to background-removal, but instead do something more ridiclous by throwing even more ML at the problem:
1. classify the image
2. use word-net to figure out what "container" word is most closely associated with the image's classification
3. search the container word, and pull out its dominant colors
4. return the colors that are in the image but not in its classificatory container. Unless that set is empty (e.g. a polar bear in snow), in which case return the colors you'd have given without all these extra steps ;)
I (and probably a few others) searched for "Hacker News" and it comes up with a really nice colour that is probably a cross between the top bar and the background, but not a colour I'd associate with the site in general.
I would contend that if the suggest color is more than X away from the traditionally named color (as defined in rgb.txt), then it needs to be reconsidered to see if its "right" or not.
In this case, it could be reasonably argued that the CSS/X11 definition of “coral” is just as wrong, and a quick image search provides all the proof we need. ;)
This site is an image search query tool, not a CSS color reference. We knew that before querying. It would be reasonable, and a great idea even, to return multiple results, and include the CSS color if the query matches that name. But maybe I really do want to query for pictures of coral and not the CSS color names. The CSS “coral” was someone’s arbitrary choice, and not the only right answer. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that CSS color names should be considered the authority on color names- to the exclusion of any other use of the word - outside of HTML or X11 contexts, or even within those contexts.
https://alexbeals.com/projects/colorize/search.php?q=coral
https://alexbeals.com/projects/colorize/search.php?q=goldenr...
https://alexbeals.com/projects/colorize/search.php?q=eggplan...
I don't believe just switching from average to dominant color will actually fix this.
(Edit: s/more often wrong than not/<diplomatic verbiage>/)