Re: Ana alarming amount of image manipulation
Locked
12
12
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without
creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the
pun).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html
-- Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D.
Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health Oral Infection and Immunity Branch Bldg 30, Room 310 30 Convent Drive Bethesda MD 20892 ph 301-594-0025 fax 301-402-0396 |
 
|
Dale Callaham |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot thickens
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Dear Robert and others, I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it is likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me wonder about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently "original" right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of the dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right missle dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2 duds as only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in the dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left missle in the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in one or the other image. Dale Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without creating > a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html > > -- > > Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. > Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health > Oral Infection and Immunity Branch > Bldg 30, Room 310 > 30 Convent Drive > Bethesda MD 20892 > ph 301-594-0025 > fax 301-402-0396 |
|
|
Eric Scarfone |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot thickens
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Following Dale's observation That was my impression too until I went to see the original image: http://www.daylife.com/photo/0guG4uX12E4bT/Sepah_News The straight line cutting the smoke at the right side of the truck on the low res image of the WP page is an artefact of the destructive comprseeion used (probably Jpeg). Take home message, image manipulation also comes unwillingly, thus always go back, to original image! Cheers Eric Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, Center for Hearing and communication Research Department of Clinical Neuroscience Karolinska Institutet Postal Address: CFH, M1:02 Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 email: [hidden email] http://www.ki.se/cfh/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Dale Callaham <[hidden email]> Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:39 pm Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot thickens To: [hidden email] > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Dear Robert and others, > > I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it > is > likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me > wonder > about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently > "original" > right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of > the > dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right > missle > dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2 > duds as > only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in > the > dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left > missle in > the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in > one > or the other image. > > Dale > > Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without > creating > > a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html> > > -- > > > > Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. > > Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health > > Oral Infection and Immunity Branch > > Bldg 30, Room 310 > > 30 Convent Drive > > Bethesda MD 20892 > > ph 301-594-0025 > > fax 301-402-0396 > |
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal I think the most interesting thing about the whole story is, at least according to Al Kamen (the writer of the column at WP), that what is apparently the identical image was published in the Post in 2006. I guess a certain military press releases are even better the second (or third or fourth) time around. >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >Following Dale's observation >That was my impression too until I went to see the original image: >http://www.daylife.com/photo/0guG4uX12E4bT/Sepah_News > >The straight line cutting the smoke at the right side of the truck on >the low res image of the WP page is an artefact of the destructive >comprseeion used (probably Jpeg). > >Take home message, image manipulation also comes unwillingly, thus >always go back, to original image! >Cheers >Eric > > > >Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, >Center for Hearing and communication Research >Department of Clinical Neuroscience >Karolinska Institutet > >Postal Address: >CFH, M1:02 >Karolinska Hospital, >SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden > >Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, >Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 >Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 > >email: [hidden email] >http://www.ki.se/cfh/ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Dale Callaham <[hidden email]> >Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:39 pm >Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot >thickens >To: [hidden email] > >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >> Dear Robert and others, >> >> I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it >> is >> likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me >> wonder >> about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently >> "original" >> right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of >> the >> dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right >> missle >> dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2 >> duds as >> only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in >> the >> dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left >> missle in >> the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in >> one >> or the other image. >> >> Dale >> >> Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: >> > Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> > Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without >> creating >> > a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). >> > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >> dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html> >> > -- >> > >> > Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. >> > Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health >> > Oral Infection and Immunity Branch >> > Bldg 30, Room 310 >> > 30 Convent Drive >> > Bethesda MD 20892 >> > ph 301-594-0025 >> > fax 301-402-0396 >> -- Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health Oral Infection and Immunity Branch Bldg 30, Room 310 30 Convent Drive Bethesda MD 20892 ph 301-594-0025 fax 301-402-0396 |
|
|
Michael Cammer |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
In reply to this post by rjpalmer
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without > creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html So now the Iranians know that the West has sophisticated image decoding technologies. This was just a first test of many. Somebody should do analysis like this on the pictures Colin Powell showed the UN arguing that Iraq had WMD. Furthermore, perhaps the gov't should release all the raw data so that we may have the opportunity to reanalyze them using our favorite tools. Why stop at imaging in scientific research? _________________________________________ Michael Cammer http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/ |
|
|
Julio Vazquez |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot thickens
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Scarfone
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
-
If you look carefully, you'll also notice that besides the launched/not launched rocket, the two images are not truly identical. For instance, the ratio of white/dark smoke on the rightmost rocket is different in the two pictures. Therefore, saying that one is a doctored version of the other is also incorrect. For all I can tell, they could have been taken on different days. What is really interesting, though, is the psychology behind all this. If the point to make is that Iran is able to launch missiles, even if only three out of four can launch successfully, the point is made... why bother doctoring the picture and risking being ridiculed? Just to show they are perfect? On the other hand, If the picture is correct (not doctored), why bother trying to discredit them by incorrectly stating that it was? Are politicians just little kids playing "my daddy is better than your daddy"? And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions is "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to believe whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our own preconceptions, without regard for reality? -- Julio Vazquez, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle, WA 98109-1024 On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Eric Scarfone wrote:
|
|
|
Bill Oliver-3 |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Cammer
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Michael Cammer wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without >> creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html > > So now the Iranians know that the West has sophisticated image decoding > technologies. This was just a first test of many. Hah. Well no, it wasn't "sophisticated image decoding technologies." It was Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who does it mostly by inspection. See: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30602_Reality_vs._Photoshop See also: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30606_New_York_Times_Belatedly_Credits_LGF Further, it's not the first test of many. It's one of a gazillion that's come out of the region. For one list from 2006, see: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only This has become sort of a hobby for folk who hold AFP, Reuters, NYT, et al in contempt because they are so willing to play useful idiots for these guys -- when 13-year-olds are capable of seeing some of the errors, but Reuters can't. The most amusing was when the AP published a story of a US soldier being held hostage (see: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1333909 -- the original AP story is no longer easily available ). It turned out to be an action figure: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1703 It's gotten so bad that "Reutered" is now part of the Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reutered When I worked for the military, this kind of thing was a repeated problem. Al Quaeda and its affiliates regularly provided falsified imagery as propaganda. More irritatingly, they kept providing videos of *real* beheadings claiming they were killing American captives -- but they were actually beheadings of Russian captives from Chechnya. There are, in fact, some new methods in development for this kind of stuff, but they are mostly of ancillary value. The work by Harin Farid at Dartmouth is particularly intriguing. See: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/ > > Somebody should do analysis like this on the pictures Colin Powell showed > the UN arguing that Iraq had WMD. Actually, though I don't know why you want to play these political games in a scientific forum, our data were pretty good. The claim that we knowingly projected wrong data is simply untrue, however personally satisfying you find it to inject your perspective into this forum. I was involved in planning for biological/chemical fatalities in the invasion of Iraq. We were scared to death -- and planning for up to 30,000 biological/chemical casualties. The biggest fear we had involved smallpox, anthrax and persistent chem weapons. Smallpox remains viable for as much as 13 years in cadavers, for instance, and we simply could not return contaminated bodies back to the US until they had been decontaminated. That is a nontrivial thing to do when there are thousands of casualties. This wasn't a trivial political game, no matter how much you try to reduce it to that. I won't bore you with what we planned, but dealing with a few tens of thousands of infectious bodies is a nontrivial task. You can't burn the bodies, for instance, without aersolizing the agents. You can't fly the bodies back in cargo holds because the change in pressure may cause outgassing and contamination of the airplane. The bottom line, however, is if you look at the interrogation records of Saddam after his capture made by George Piro, Saddam knowingly mislead the US into thinking there were WMDs because he fundamentally didn't think that Bush would invade. Oh, I know, it doesn't serve your taste to differentiate between being fooled by another intelligence agency and "lying," but in most of the rest of the world, folk can comprehend it. > > Furthermore, perhaps the gov't should release all the raw data so that we > may have the opportunity to reanalyze them using our favorite tools. > > Why stop at imaging in scientific research? In fact, that's done all the time. billo http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog |
|
|
lechristophe |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
As they say, it is always easier to fool someone who wants to be fooled. Speaking of political perspectives on a scientific mailing list, the personal blog you promote in the signature of your emails to this mailing list is a very interesting reading, particularily the christian martyrs in muslim countries part.
Christophe
|
|
|
Michael Cammer |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal It has nothing to do with my "taste". You're making assumptions about my politics and you jumped to the conclusion that I think Powell lied, although I obviously think that what he presented was wrong. What my comments do have everything to do with is misinterpretation of data without adequate review leading to expensive social policies. This is right on target with the discussion, although now that the discussion is ranging far from confocal, perhaps we should stop this particular direction in this forum. -Michael >> Oh, I know, it doesn't serve your taste to differentiate between being >> fooled by another intelligence agency and "lying," but in most of the >> rest >> of the world, folk can comprehend it. _________________________________________ Michael Cammer http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/ |
|
|
John J. Lemasters |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Please take this line of discussion off the list. It is appropriate for
another venue.
Michael Cammer wrote: Search the CONFOCAL archive at http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal It has nothing to do with my "taste". You're making assumptions about my politics and you jumped to the conclusion that I think Powell lied, although I obviously think that what he presented was wrong. What my comments do have everything to do with is misinterpretation of data without adequate review leading to expensive social policies. This is right on target with the discussion, although now that the discussion is ranging far from confocal, perhaps we should stop this particular direction in this forum. -Michael -- John J. Lemasters, MD, PhD Professor and South Carolina COEE Endowed Chair Director, Center for Cell Death, Injury and Regeneration Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Medical University of South Carolina QF308 Quadrangle Building 280 Calhoun Street, MSC 140 Charleston, SC 29425 Office: 843-792-2153 Lab: 843-792-3530 Fax: 843-792-1617 Email: [hidden email] |
|
|
Eric Scarfone |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight back
|
|
In reply to this post by Julio Vazquez
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Hello Actually, the last sentence in Julio's post (see bellow) is perfectly in line with what we are confronted with daily as scientists. It is extremely hard to put aside preconceptions. Hence there are many evidences of the fact that it is easier to make people believe in fake facts that go along the main stream than in true facts that go against it. Unfortunately lots of those "evidences" are published. This goes beyond purposedly fraudulous manipulation since experimentators often convince themselves of the veracity of what they think they've seen when it matches with their idea of what they think they "should" see! Hence I once saw a colleague patiently pasting out of her images what she had deemed as artefacts. I pointed out to her that for an artefact this was strangely repetitive (ie each cell contained the "artefact" in approximately the same location). She repeated the experiment and ended up publishing the observation as a possible new structure. New techniques make the job of manipulators very easy and this must be fought against by stringent reinforcement of verifications or every published pictures whether in science or elsewhere (news but think also advertising for exemple). Manipulation of images should clearly be stated and methods to detect them should be inplemented, access to original data should be warranted etc.... I believe we as a profession should put pressure on software developers so that image manipulation is automatically signalled, perhaps not even knowingly to the experimentator. Every signalled image that is attempted to be published would call for extra care in the part of the reviewers and details of manipulation as well as originall data sets would be asked for... or something like that! Eric >>And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions is "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to believe whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our own preconceptions, without regard for reality?<< Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, Center for Hearing and communication Research Department of Clinical Neuroscience Karolinska Institutet Postal Address: CFH, M1:02 Karolinska Hospital, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 email: [hidden email] http://www.ki.se/cfh/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Julio Vazquez <[hidden email]> Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:27 pm Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot thickens To: [hidden email] > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > - > If you look carefully, you'll also notice that besides the > launched/ > not launched rocket, the two images are not truly identical. For > instance, the ratio of white/dark smoke on the rightmost rocket is > > different in the two pictures. Therefore, saying that one is a > doctored version of the other is also incorrect. For all I can > tell, > they could have been taken on different days. > > What is really interesting, though, is the psychology behind all > this. If the point to make is that Iran is able to launch > missiles, > even if only three out of four can launch successfully, the point > is > made... why bother doctoring the picture and risking being > ridiculed? > Just to show they are perfect? On the other hand, If the picture > is > correct (not doctored), why bother trying to discredit them by > incorrectly stating that it was? Are politicians just little kids > playing "my daddy is better than your daddy"? > > And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the > absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions is > "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to > believe > whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our > own > preconceptions, without regard for reality? > > > > -- > Julio Vazquez, > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Eric Scarfone wrote: > > > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > > > Following Dale's observation > > That was my impression too until I went to see the original image: > > http://www.daylife.com/photo/0guG4uX12E4bT/Sepah_News > > > > The straight line cutting the smoke at the right side of the > truck on > > the low res image of the WP page is an artefact of the destructive > > comprseeion used (probably Jpeg). > > > > Take home message, image manipulation also comes unwillingly, thus > > always go back, to original image! > > Cheers > > Eric > > > > > > > > Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, > > Center for Hearing and communication Research > > Department of Clinical Neuroscience > > Karolinska Institutet > > > > Postal Address: > > CFH, M1:02 > > Karolinska Hospital, > > SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden > > > > Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, > > Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 > > Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 > > > > email: [hidden email] > > http://www.ki.se/cfh/ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Dale Callaham <[hidden email]> > > Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:39 pm > > Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot > > thickens > > To: [hidden email] > > > >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at > >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >> > >> Dear Robert and others, > >> > >> I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it > >> is > >> likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me > >> wonder > >> about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently > >> "original" > >> right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of > >> the > >> dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right > >> missle > >> dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2 > >> duds as > >> only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in > >> the > >> dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left > >> missle in > >> the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in > >> one > >> or the other image. > >> > >> Dale > >> > >> Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > >>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at > >>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >>> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without > >> creating > >>> a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). > >>> > >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- > >> dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. > >>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health > >>> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch > >>> Bldg 30, Room 310 > >>> 30 Convent Drive > >>> Bethesda MD 20892 > >>> ph 301-594-0025 > >>> fax 301-402-0396 > >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bill Oliver-3
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Glad to hear that there is not the ghost of a chance that the Iraqis or the Americans don't "Reuter" things themselves (which in the Urban Dictionary is also defined as being "jewed" out of something - I guess that's using one urban term to define another). I think the fact that Colin Powell reportedly felt pretty dirty about the UN thing says a lot - biowarfare was only part of his guilt. Maybe he was feeling like he was involved in something like the story on your "Fauxtography" link about the Israeli chemical weapons. Also glad to hear we were prepared for anything from this dastardly enemy about to wipe US off the face of the earth using technology we supplied. Especially when we're the ones who will get blasted during our inevitable attack. Ye gads - this must now a possibility anywhere so one might be prudent and invest at least as much in defensive chemical and biological mitigators as one does in offensive delivery technology (General Dynamics may have to branch out a bit). I do however agree that politics has reached the limit in this thread so this is my last salvo on the monster I created. Maybe I should start blogging. >Search the CONFOCAL archive at >http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > >On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Michael Cammer wrote: > >>Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >>>Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without >>>creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). >>> >>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html >> >>So now the Iranians know that the West has sophisticated image decoding >>technologies. This was just a first test of many. > >Hah. Well no, it wasn't "sophisticated image decoding technologies." >It was Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who does it mostly by >inspection. See: > >http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30602_Reality_vs._Photoshop > >See also: > >http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30606_New_York_Times_Belatedly_Credits_LGF > > >Further, it's not the first test of many. It's one of a gazillion >that's come out of the region. For one list from 2006, see: > >http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only > >This has become sort of a hobby for folk who hold AFP, Reuters, NYT, >et al in contempt because they are so willing to play useful idiots >for these guys -- when 13-year-olds are capable of seeing some of >the errors, but Reuters can't. > > >The most amusing was when the AP published a story of a US soldier >being held hostage (see: >http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1333909 -- the >original AP story is no longer easily available ). > >It turned out to be an action figure: > >http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1703 > >It's gotten so bad that "Reutered" is now part of the Urban Dictionary: > >http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reutered > > >When I worked for the military, this kind of thing was a repeated >problem. Al Quaeda and its affiliates regularly provided falsified >imagery as propaganda. More irritatingly, they kept providing >videos of *real* beheadings claiming they were killing American >captives -- but they were actually beheadings of Russian captives >from Chechnya. > >There are, in fact, some new methods in development for this kind of >stuff, but they are mostly of ancillary value. The work by Harin >Farid at Dartmouth is particularly intriguing. See: > >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/ > >> >>Somebody should do analysis like this on the pictures Colin Powell showed >>the UN arguing that Iraq had WMD. > > >Actually, though I don't know why you want to play these political >games in a scientific forum, our data were pretty good. The claim >that we knowingly projected wrong data is simply untrue, however >personally satisfying you find it to inject your perspective into >this forum. > >I was involved in planning for biological/chemical fatalities in the >invasion of Iraq. We were scared to death -- and planning for up to >30,000 biological/chemical casualties. The biggest fear we had >involved smallpox, anthrax and persistent chem weapons. Smallpox >remains viable for as much as 13 years in cadavers, for instance, >and we simply could not return contaminated bodies back to the US >until they had been decontaminated. That is a nontrivial thing to >do when there are thousands of casualties. This wasn't a trivial >political game, no matter how much you try to reduce it to that. I >won't bore you with what we planned, but dealing with a few tens of >thousands of infectious bodies is a nontrivial task. You can't burn >the bodies, for instance, without aersolizing the agents. You can't >fly the bodies back in cargo holds because the change in pressure >may cause outgassing and contamination of the airplane. > >The bottom line, however, is if you look at the interrogation >records of Saddam after his capture made by George Piro, Saddam >knowingly mislead the US into thinking there were WMDs because he >fundamentally didn't think that Bush would invade. > >Oh, I know, it doesn't serve your taste to differentiate between >being fooled by another intelligence agency and "lying," but in most >of the rest of the world, folk can comprehend it. > >> >>Furthermore, perhaps the gov't should release all the raw data so that we >>may have the opportunity to reanalyze them using our favorite tools. >> >>Why stop at imaging in scientific research? > > >In fact, that's done all the time. > > >billo >http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog -- Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health Oral Infection and Immunity Branch Bldg 30, Room 310 30 Convent Drive Bethesda MD 20892 ph 301-594-0025 fax 301-402-0396 |
|
|
John J. Lemasters |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal Is there anyway to get this crap off the list. The anti-semitic, anti-Jewish stereotypic wisecrack is especially objectionable. Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Glad to hear that there is not the ghost of a chance that the Iraqis > or the Americans don't "Reuter" things themselves (which in the Urban > Dictionary is also defined as being "jewed" out of something - I guess > that's using one urban term to define another). I think the fact that > Colin Powell reportedly felt pretty dirty about the UN thing says a > lot - biowarfare was only part of his guilt. Maybe he was feeling > like he was involved in something like the story on your > "Fauxtography" link about the Israeli chemical weapons. Also glad to > hear we were prepared for anything from this dastardly enemy about to > wipe US off the face of the earth using technology we supplied. > Especially when we're the ones who will get blasted during our > inevitable attack. Ye gads - this must now a possibility anywhere so > one might be prudent and invest at least as much in defensive chemical > and biological mitigators as one does in offensive delivery technology > (General Dynamics may have to branch out a bit). I do however agree > that politics has reached the limit in this thread so this is my last > salvo on the monster I created. Maybe I should start blogging. > >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Michael Cammer wrote: >> >>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>> >>>> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without >>>> creating a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html >>>> >>> >>> So now the Iranians know that the West has sophisticated image decoding >>> technologies. This was just a first test of many. >> >> Hah. Well no, it wasn't "sophisticated image decoding technologies." >> It was Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, who does it mostly by >> inspection. See: >> >> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30602_Reality_vs._Photoshop >> >> See also: >> >> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30606_New_York_Times_Belatedly_Credits_LGF >> >> >> >> Further, it's not the first test of many. It's one of a gazillion >> that's come out of the region. For one list from 2006, see: >> >> http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only >> >> >> This has become sort of a hobby for folk who hold AFP, Reuters, NYT, >> et al in contempt because they are so willing to play useful idiots >> for these guys -- when 13-year-olds are capable of seeing some of the >> errors, but Reuters can't. >> >> >> The most amusing was when the AP published a story of a US soldier >> being held hostage (see: >> http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1333909 -- the >> original AP story is no longer easily available ). >> >> It turned out to be an action figure: >> >> http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1703 >> >> It's gotten so bad that "Reutered" is now part of the Urban Dictionary: >> >> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Reutered >> >> >> When I worked for the military, this kind of thing was a repeated >> problem. Al Quaeda and its affiliates regularly provided falsified >> imagery as propaganda. More irritatingly, they kept providing videos >> of *real* beheadings claiming they were killing American captives -- >> but they were actually beheadings of Russian captives from Chechnya. >> >> There are, in fact, some new methods in development for this kind of >> stuff, but they are mostly of ancillary value. The work by Harin >> Farid at Dartmouth is particularly intriguing. See: >> >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/publications/ >> >>> >>> Somebody should do analysis like this on the pictures Colin Powell >>> showed >>> the UN arguing that Iraq had WMD. >> >> >> Actually, though I don't know why you want to play these political >> games in a scientific forum, our data were pretty good. The claim >> that we knowingly projected wrong data is simply untrue, however >> personally satisfying you find it to inject your perspective into >> this forum. >> >> I was involved in planning for biological/chemical fatalities in the >> invasion of Iraq. We were scared to death -- and planning for up to >> 30,000 biological/chemical casualties. The biggest fear we had >> involved smallpox, anthrax and persistent chem weapons. Smallpox >> remains viable for as much as 13 years in cadavers, for instance, and >> we simply could not return contaminated bodies back to the US until >> they had been decontaminated. That is a nontrivial thing to do when >> there are thousands of casualties. This wasn't a trivial political >> game, no matter how much you try to reduce it to that. I won't bore >> you with what we planned, but dealing with a few tens of thousands of >> infectious bodies is a nontrivial task. You can't burn the bodies, >> for instance, without aersolizing the agents. You can't fly the >> bodies back in cargo holds because the change in pressure may cause >> outgassing and contamination of the airplane. >> >> The bottom line, however, is if you look at the interrogation records >> of Saddam after his capture made by George Piro, Saddam knowingly >> mislead the US into thinking there were WMDs because he fundamentally >> didn't think that Bush would invade. >> >> Oh, I know, it doesn't serve your taste to differentiate between >> being fooled by another intelligence agency and "lying," but in most >> of the rest of the world, folk can comprehend it. >> >>> >>> Furthermore, perhaps the gov't should release all the raw data so >>> that we >>> may have the opportunity to reanalyze them using our favorite tools. >>> >>> Why stop at imaging in scientific research? >> >> >> In fact, that's done all the time. >> >> >> billo >> http://www.billoblog.com/billoblog > > -- John J. Lemasters, MD, PhD Professor and South Carolina COEE Endowed Chair Director, Center for Cell Death, Injury and Regeneration Departments of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Medical University of South Carolina QF308 Quadrangle Building 280 Calhoun Street, MSC 140 Charleston, SC 29425 Office: 843-792-2153 Lab: 843-792-3530 Fax: 843-792-1617 Email: [hidden email] |
|
|
lechristophe |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Cammer
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal I think most of these iranian missile photos are obviously 'shopped : http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/attack-of-the-p.html Christophe |
|
|
John Oreopoulos |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight back
|
|
In reply to this post by Eric Scarfone
My apologies again if this discussion thread becomes heated. I
thought I'd pass on another news bit about image manipulation, this time revolving around brightness and contrast: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081008/ stemcell_study_081008/20081008?hub=Health Is this not something the journal should specify and the reviewers should be looking for in the first place? It seems to me again that all of this could be avoided if the authors simply state and describe all image manipulations when submitting for publication John Oreopoulos On 12-Jul-08, at 1:19 PM, Eric Scarfone wrote: > Search the CONFOCAL archive at > http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal > > Hello > > Actually, the last sentence in Julio's post (see bellow) is perfectly > in line with what we are confronted with daily as scientists. > > It is extremely hard to put aside preconceptions. Hence there are many > evidences of the fact that it is easier to make people believe in fake > facts that go along the main stream than in true facts that go against > it. Unfortunately lots of those "evidences" are published. > > This goes beyond purposedly fraudulous manipulation since > experimentators often convince themselves of the veracity of what they > think they've seen when it matches with their idea of what they think > they "should" see! > > Hence I once saw a colleague patiently pasting out of her images what > she had deemed as artefacts. I pointed out to her that for an artefact > this was strangely repetitive (ie each cell contained the "artefact" > in approximately the same location). She repeated the experiment and > ended up publishing the observation as a possible new structure. > > New techniques make the job of manipulators very easy and this must be > fought against by stringent reinforcement of verifications or every > published pictures whether in science or elsewhere (news but think > also advertising for exemple). Manipulation of images should clearly > be stated and methods to detect them should be inplemented, access to > original data should be warranted etc.... I believe we as a profession > should put pressure on software developers so that image manipulation > is automatically signalled, perhaps not even knowingly to the > experimentator. Every signalled image that is attempted to be > published would call for extra care in the part of the reviewers and > details of manipulation as well as originall data sets would be asked > for... or something like that! > > Eric > >>> And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the > absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions > is "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to believe > whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our own > preconceptions, without regard for reality?<< > > > Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, > Center for Hearing and communication Research > Department of Clinical Neuroscience > Karolinska Institutet > > Postal Address: > CFH, M1:02 > Karolinska Hospital, > SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden > > Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, > Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 > Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 > > email: [hidden email] > http://www.ki.se/cfh/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Julio Vazquez <[hidden email]> > Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:27 pm > Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot > thickens > To: [hidden email] > >> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >> >> - >> If you look carefully, you'll also notice that besides the >> launched/ >> not launched rocket, the two images are not truly identical. For >> instance, the ratio of white/dark smoke on the rightmost rocket is >> >> different in the two pictures. Therefore, saying that one is a >> doctored version of the other is also incorrect. For all I can >> tell, >> they could have been taken on different days. >> >> What is really interesting, though, is the psychology behind all >> this. If the point to make is that Iran is able to launch >> missiles, >> even if only three out of four can launch successfully, the point >> is >> made... why bother doctoring the picture and risking being >> ridiculed? >> Just to show they are perfect? On the other hand, If the picture >> is >> correct (not doctored), why bother trying to discredit them by >> incorrectly stating that it was? Are politicians just little kids >> playing "my daddy is better than your daddy"? >> >> And how about all the fuss being made about the pictures, in the >> absence of any clear evidence as to which of the two versions is >> "true"? What does that tell about us? That we can choose to >> believe >> whatever version is presented to us, as long as it fits with our >> own >> preconceptions, without regard for reality? >> >> >> >> -- >> Julio Vazquez, >> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center >> Seattle, WA 98109-1024 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Eric Scarfone wrote: >> >>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>> >>> Following Dale's observation >>> That was my impression too until I went to see the original image: >>> http://www.daylife.com/photo/0guG4uX12E4bT/Sepah_News >>> >>> The straight line cutting the smoke at the right side of the >> truck on >>> the low res image of the WP page is an artefact of the destructive >>> comprseeion used (probably Jpeg). >>> >>> Take home message, image manipulation also comes unwillingly, thus >>> always go back, to original image! >>> Cheers >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric Scarfone, PhD, CNRS, >>> Center for Hearing and communication Research >>> Department of Clinical Neuroscience >>> Karolinska Institutet >>> >>> Postal Address: >>> CFH, M1:02 >>> Karolinska Hospital, >>> SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden >>> >>> Work: +46 (0)8-517 79343, >>> Cell: +46 (0)70 888 2352 >>> Fax: +46 (0)8-301876 >>> >>> email: [hidden email] >>> http://www.ki.se/cfh/ >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Dale Callaham <[hidden email]> >>> Date: Friday, July 11, 2008 3:39 pm >>> Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - the plot >>> thickens >>> To: [hidden email] >>> >>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>>> >>>> Dear Robert and others, >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what is going on with the images, but I think that it >>>> is >>>> likely that the image on the RIGHT has been tampered, making me >>>> wonder >>>> about the validity of either of the images. On the apparently >>>> "original" >>>> right member image there is a vertical line at the left limit of >>>> the >>>> dust/smoke of the rightmost rocket - was the second from right >>>> missle >>>> dud pasted in or was the rightmost rocket pasted in covering 2 >>>> duds as >>>> only one? Is someone trying to discredit the Iranians by adding in >>>> the >>>> dud over a launch? And the smoke trail of the second-from-left >>>> missle in >>>> the 2 images does not match so that image area is also modified in >>>> one >>>> or the other image. >>>> >>>> Dale >>>> >>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr. wrote: >>>>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at >>>>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal >>>>> Not sure if one can view this Washington Post web page without >>>> creating >>>>> a free user account, but give it a shot (pardon the pun). >>>>> >>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >>>> dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002709.html> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Robert J. Palmer Jr., Ph.D. >>>>> Natl Inst Dental Craniofacial Res - Natl Insts Health >>>>> Oral Infection and Immunity Branch >>>>> Bldg 30, Room 310 >>>>> 30 Convent Drive >>>>> Bethesda MD 20892 >>>>> ph 301-594-0025 >>>>> fax 301-402-0396 >>>> >> >> |
|
|
Bill Oliver-3 |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight back
|
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, John Oreopoulos wrote:
> My apologies again if this discussion thread becomes heated. I thought I'd > pass on another news bit about image manipulation, this time revolving around > brightness and contrast: > > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081008/stemcell_study_081008/20081008?hub=Health > > Is this not something the journal should specify and the reviewers should be > looking for in the first place? It seems to me again that all of this could > be avoided if the authors simply state and describe all image manipulations > when submitting for publication > > John Oreopoulos > From the story you reference, the researcher did some minimal image processing that in no way altered the conclusions of the paper, and was hit on a religious objection that has no practical basis. Doesn't sound to clever to me. The position these purists are taking is simply silly. Were the same criteria in place before digital imaging, it would be "unethical" to produce prints from negatives -- or for that matter to even *develop* negatives at all -- since all development and all printing *necessarily* involve "image processing." When was the last time you created a print without affecting contrast and brightness? Never? Hmmm.... Can someone please tell me why adjusting contrast in a darkroom is OK (in fact, it is *necessary* to produce decent prints) but it is "unethical" to do the *exact same thing* digitally? Why is it OK to bracket photo exposures, but "unethical" to accomplish the same thing digitally? Why is it OK to manipulate lighting and color balance to create the best image during composition, but "unethical" to accomplish the same thing digitally? Why is it OK to manipulate contrast and brightness *in the digital camera* but bad to do the exact same thing outside the camera? Virtually every pro or semipro digital camera *requires* that a huge number of parameters be applied in the aquisition process and before the archival image is saved. Why is it OK to set the white balance in the camera but "unethical" to set it outside the camera? Why is it perfectly acceptable to manipulate picture control settings in a camera, but "unethical" to do the exact same thing outside of the camera? see: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300/picture-control.htm Why is it perfectly acceptable to change the firmware in a camera to get rid of banding artifacts but "unethical" to get rid of them using software *outside* of the camera? (see: http://gizmodo.com/356092/nikon-d300-firmware-update ) Is it the position of the image processing hysterics that folk are morally obligated to take the *worst possible* image possible? Or is their position that it's OK to take a good image, but all image processing must be done using in-camera software? Doing the *exact same thing* outside of the camera is "unethical?" Anybody who thinks that going from the camera back to the saved image does not *necessarily* involve image processing is simply wrong. Just as in creating a print from a negative, it is fundamentally *necessary* to set brightness and contrast parameters when creating an image -- even just to go from a RAW format to a usable format. There's still a lot of cameras, for instance that still do automatic unsharp masking without the user even knowing it. Oh dear God. I guess we just can't use digital cameras at all. Is it fundamentally unethical to use a Nikon D3, or is it only ethical to use it incompetently? billo |
|
|
Tina Carvalho |
Image manipulation - your voices have been heard
|
|
In reply to this post by John Oreopoulos
Hi, All-
As a direct result of this thread on this List earlier this year (Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation, numbering 100 posts), this will be the subject of a symposium at Microscopy & Microanalysis 2009. The Microscopy Society of America has a Focused Inerest Group (FIG) on Facilities Operation & Management (FOM). We have been trying to get an acutal syposium slot for a few years, and Council finally granted us one for 2009, but asked for a symposium title on very short notice. Chris Gilpin is the new head of this FIG and, having been a participant in this Confocal List thread, suggested that image manipulation, metadata, etc. be the topic. I'm not sure what title he finally submitted. Chris had attended a workshop at NIST in May where this was under discussion. You can see his post in the archives from June 23, 2008. MSA has a Committee on the Ethics of Digital Imaging. We came up with some really minimal guidelines a few years ago, but I guess now it's time to go further. There are several topics to consider. I think image acquisition, manipulation and integrity are hot topics, but there are other considerations, such as image and spectral metadata, data (image) tagging and mining, and the development of the "semantic web". My personal nightmare is that we'll be asked to come up with an entirely new image format, but I am relieved to see that the Open Microscopy Environment (OME) group has already done a lot of the groundwork. This topic has the potential to run off in all kinds of directions, but let's generate a discussion and see where it leads. This is the kind of community that should have some kind of input rather than waiting to have something imposed on them. Aloha, Tina **************************************************************************** * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [hidden email] * * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 * * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf* **************************************************************************** |
|
|
In reply to this post by Bill Oliver-3
[hidden email] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, John Oreopoulos wrote: > >> My apologies again if this discussion thread becomes heated. I >> thought I'd pass on another news bit about image manipulation, this >> time revolving around brightness and contrast: >> >> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081008/stemcell_study_081008/20081008?hub=Health >> >> >> Is this not something the journal should specify and the reviewers >> should be looking for in the first place? It seems to me again that >> all of this could be avoided if the authors simply state and describe >> all image manipulations when submitting for publication >> >> John Oreopoulos >> > > From the story you reference, the researcher did some minimal image > processing that in no way altered the conclusions of the paper, and > was hit on a religious objection that has no practical basis. Doesn't > sound to clever to me. > > The position these purists are taking is simply silly. Were the same > criteria in place before digital imaging, it would be "unethical" to > produce prints from negatives -- or for that matter to even *develop* > negatives at all -- since all development and all printing > *necessarily* involve "image processing." When was the last time you > created a print without affecting contrast and brightness? Never? > Hmmm.... table of sensor readouts in the supplementary material. I wonder who would be happy about that. my stand point here is firm, any image manipulation is allowed. it is better by *default* to assume image processing. but the original image should always be made available in that case. the method description should come in form of a script to redo the operation using an open source package. I think this is how biologists should work with their data anyway because it allows them to redo the operation very easily on other images. as an additional advantage, checking correctedness can be almost automatic, the journal simply reruns the script. the only thing left to argue about is the choice of operations, left to the reviewers. currently we have too many black boxes; deconvolution operations is one group of very important but hard to describe algorithms (the number of biologists here who has implemented it, raise your hand). I would not in any way be satisfied with a method description "was deconvolved with XXX" because I most likely do not have the package. you cannot expect a reviewer to suddenly shell out 10k usd just to verify a picture. /Johan -- -- ------------------------------------------------ Johan Henriksson MSc Engineering PhD student, Karolinska Institutet http://mahogny.areta.org http://www.endrov.net |
|
|
Jerry Sedgewick-2 |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight back
|
|
The issue of the recent request by the University of Minnesota to have
Catherine Verfaillie retract her publication is worse than tragic: it has all the elements of a Puritanical witch-hunt, and all for the charge of changing the brightness level of three images. Let me be quick to say that Morayma Reyes, the graduate student who was picked out for the "offense," changed brightness levels to conform the image for publication, exactly what a printer at the printing press would do (but somehow comes clean), and exactly what I advised her to do. Believe me, no list of ethical rules by the Microscopy Society could EVER be written to have changed this outcome--which was clearly an investigation for political reasons--except one rule: no post-processing period (which is done anyway at the press: are they accountable, too?). It is especially disheartening because Dr. Reyes is among the best researchers I have worked with. I cannot forget the day when she called me into a room long after regular working hours and asked me to look through the microscope. I saw a beating heart before this had ever been done with the use of stem cells. I turned to her and commented, "This is too large for a rat heart and too small for a rabbit. What is it?" She smiled triumphantly and said, "We made it on a scaffold." I agree wholeheartedly with Johan: fight back. Especially for this so-called violation on research that has since been corroborated by other labs. Jerry Johan Henriksson wrote: > [hidden email] wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, John Oreopoulos wrote: >> >> >>> My apologies again if this discussion thread becomes heated. I >>> thought I'd pass on another news bit about image manipulation, this >>> time revolving around brightness and contrast: >>> >>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081008/stemcell_study_081008/20081008?hub=Health >>> >>> >>> Is this not something the journal should specify and the reviewers >>> should be looking for in the first place? It seems to me again that >>> all of this could be avoided if the authors simply state and describe >>> all image manipulations when submitting for publication >>> >>> John Oreopoulos >>> >>> >> From the story you reference, the researcher did some minimal image >> processing that in no way altered the conclusions of the paper, and >> was hit on a religious objection that has no practical basis. Doesn't >> sound to clever to me. >> >> The position these purists are taking is simply silly. Were the same >> criteria in place before digital imaging, it would be "unethical" to >> produce prints from negatives -- or for that matter to even *develop* >> negatives at all -- since all development and all printing >> *necessarily* involve "image processing." When was the last time you >> created a print without affecting contrast and brightness? Never? >> Hmmm.... >> > by this logic, the only "ethical" way to include images would be as a > table of sensor readouts in the supplementary material. I wonder who > would be happy about that. > > my stand point here is firm, any image manipulation is allowed. it is > better by *default* to assume image processing. but the original image > should always be made available in that case. the method description > should come in form of a script to redo the operation using an open > source package. I think this is how biologists should work with their > data anyway because it allows them to redo the operation very easily on > other images. as an additional advantage, checking correctedness can be > almost automatic, the journal simply reruns the script. the only thing > left to argue about is the choice of operations, left to the reviewers. > > currently we have too many black boxes; deconvolution operations is one > group of very important but hard to describe algorithms (the number of > biologists here who has implemented it, raise your hand). I would not in > any way be satisfied with a method description "was deconvolved with > XXX" because I most likely do not have the package. you cannot expect a > reviewer to suddenly shell out 10k usd just to verify a picture. > > /Johan > > -- Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL) Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota 312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall Minneapolis, MN 55455 (612) 624-6607 [hidden email] http://www.bipl.umn.edu Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and Output." Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives) 965 Cromwell Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55114 [hidden email] (651) 308-1466 http://www.quickphotoshop.com http://www.heartFROMstone.com http://www.rawlight.com --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- |
|
|
Julio Vazquez |
Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight back
|
|
= Yes, indeed.... the stories of Catherine Verfaillie and Douglas Prasher are sobering reminders that our cozy little world of Science is not immune to the vagaries, irrationalities, and injustices of the other big world out there... On the other hand, it is heartening to see that this list also cares about those more human issues, and it's not all about PMT's and PSF's... Julio. -- Julio Vazquez Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle, WA 98109-1024 On Oct 9, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Jerry Sedgewick wrote:
|
«
Return to Confocal Microscopy List
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |