Posted by
Bill Oliver-3 on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p1308360.html
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.htmWhy 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