Posted by
Eric Scarfone on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p592874.html
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocalHello
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
> >>
>
>