it seems difficult to argue that a 512 × 512 image produced with a 1970s-era analog scanner is the best we have to offer as an image quality test standard
This is the part I don’t get. How has the picture not changed with the times due to camera advances.
As long as the cropped picture contains the required colour variety, fine by me.
Now, the real remarkable thing is the fact that you think those two settings are comparable, or that it somehow makes a valid argument.
edit or that you posted this argument so many times. You might have some repressed issues. Honestly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, it’s okay to like what you like.
Maybe the mousey girl in class might get uncomfortable knowing its from a porn mag when it’s thrown up on the big screen for the class to see? Maybe it’s about more than just Lena herself? Maybe women don’t feel comfortable going in those spaces because they feel like they’ll be sexualized or worse. Why wouldn’t they expect that when the men involved think its totally appropriate to use the top-half of a nude photo of a woman?
I love for you that what you just said is literally the definition of what I’m talking about. Attitudes like “well what’s her problem” are why women don’t want to be in STEM fields. You even immediately came up with a diminutive nickname for her, to make sure this woman would feel chided and demeaned. Stay classy.
The point is that the point is stupid. All there is to the image is a girl with a hat and an exposed shoulder. The image came from a porn magazine, so what? All the nudity is taken out. That image doesn’t even impact. A child. It takes a very fragile snowflake to be hurt by a normal portrait that just so happens to be from a nude image.
The imaged is cropped, but cropping doesn’t remove the context of the image, and it isn’t worth the risk of making women feel less welcome in tech, which is a big problem already.
If I may, why is it so important to you that the image continues to be used over other images, against the wishes of Lena and IEEE?
Okay, your comment is stupid just by itself, but the fact that you used it many times just to prove some point that’s clear only to your little brain really speaks volume about you.
While that should certainly be a bright line, it’s more that from the very beginning of computer graphics, the “perfect” image for testing algorithms and showing off and laboring over and analyzing is a Playboy centerfold. I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong [EDIT: or cropped from such a pic]. It was used specifically because they liked it and thought that anyone who didn’t feel the same needed to stay in their lane and STFU because this is “normal” and fine but any other type of sexual material wouldn’t be.
I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dongheadshot of a male model
FTFY. If you’re going to make a comparison, don’t be fucking dishonest about it.
Fine, a headshot of a male model cropped from a Playgirl centerfold and making bedroom eyes and visibly shirtless, because it was a shot from a spank mag, and then justified as an ongoing thing because it’s such a “perfect” image.
It was obscure and tame enough to last for a long time, but it was always creepy and its continued use as a quasi-official test pattern said more about the tech community than people would like to admit.
Headshot of a male model selectively cropped so you don’t see the hanging dong, you mean. I wonder if that context has any relevance. Hmmmmm. I wonder how many men might go “ick” if they knew the source?
As a dude, I certainly wouldn’t care. As long as the content itself (the crop) isn’t offensive, I don’t really care where it was cropped from, provided they it satisfied fair use at least (or they had permission).
I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong.
No shit, but apparently all the fellas in this thread seem to think it would have totally been the same. Either that or they just continue to ignore that as an option.
Yeah, I remember learning about it in a CS class and, specifically, the claim that it’s an ideal standard candle kind of image. I always wondered if we couldn’t have found a better reference shot of a smooth flower growing in front of a rough stone or something.
I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I read it very carefully. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it’s arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I’m not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
Fucking jesus christ it only took 50 years for it to happen.
And people wonder why women don’t feel welcome in these disciplines.
It’s not like they were using the uncropped centerfold. There’s nothing wrong with the headshot. It’s a woman in a hat.
But the image is from a photoshoot for playboy so its inherently dirty and offensive, even if they only use the cropped version. /s
Well, according to the Wikipedia article that’s exactly the criticism (but without sarcasm).
This is the part I don’t get. How has the picture not changed with the times due to camera advances.
Same reason the length of a meter hasn’t changed despite measurement advances. It was used as a benchmark.
You were born out of a vagina. You are inherently dirty and offensive.
So does that mean my son is not? (He was a C-section)
He is pure and clean
Her hair is showing, this offends Muslim engineers.
Removed by mod
As long as the cropped picture contains the required colour variety, fine by me.
Now, the real remarkable thing is the fact that you think those two settings are comparable, or that it somehow makes a valid argument.
edit or that you posted this argument so many times. You might have some repressed issues. Honestly, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, it’s okay to like what you like.
I mean, the model in question was quoted as recently as 2019 as saying she had no problem with it, so hardly 50 years.
Maybe the mousey girl in class might get uncomfortable knowing its from a porn mag when it’s thrown up on the big screen for the class to see? Maybe it’s about more than just Lena herself? Maybe women don’t feel comfortable going in those spaces because they feel like they’ll be sexualized or worse. Why wouldn’t they expect that when the men involved think its totally appropriate to use the top-half of a nude photo of a woman?
Well if Mousey Mina feels squeamish seeing a bare shoulder then I think the problem is elsewhere… literally feels like much ado for nothing.
I love for you that what you just said is literally the definition of what I’m talking about. Attitudes like “well what’s her problem” are why women don’t want to be in STEM fields. You even immediately came up with a diminutive nickname for her, to make sure this woman would feel chided and demeaned. Stay classy.
Anyone that gets worked up at the sight of a human shoulder needs to reasses themselves, regardless of gender
If you think this is about an exposed shoulder, you missed the point.
The point is that the point is stupid. All there is to the image is a girl with a hat and an exposed shoulder. The image came from a porn magazine, so what? All the nudity is taken out. That image doesn’t even impact. A child. It takes a very fragile snowflake to be hurt by a normal portrait that just so happens to be from a nude image.
The imaged is cropped, but cropping doesn’t remove the context of the image, and it isn’t worth the risk of making women feel less welcome in tech, which is a big problem already.
If I may, why is it so important to you that the image continues to be used over other images, against the wishes of Lena and IEEE?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Okay, your comment is stupid just by itself, but the fact that you used it many times just to prove some point that’s clear only to your little brain really speaks volume about you.
While that should certainly be a bright line, it’s more that from the very beginning of computer graphics, the “perfect” image for testing algorithms and showing off and laboring over and analyzing is a Playboy centerfold. I don’t imagine most of those computer scientists would have been nearly as accepting of a photo with “high contrast and varied detail” if it had been a naked dude hanging dong [EDIT: or cropped from such a pic]. It was used specifically because they liked it and thought that anyone who didn’t feel the same needed to stay in their lane and STFU because this is “normal” and fine but any other type of sexual material wouldn’t be.
FTFY. If you’re going to make a comparison, don’t be fucking dishonest about it.
Fine, a headshot of a male model cropped from a Playgirl centerfold and making bedroom eyes and visibly shirtless, because it was a shot from a spank mag, and then justified as an ongoing thing because it’s such a “perfect” image.
It was obscure and tame enough to last for a long time, but it was always creepy and its continued use as a quasi-official test pattern said more about the tech community than people would like to admit.
Headshot of a male model selectively cropped so you don’t see the hanging dong, you mean. I wonder if that context has any relevance. Hmmmmm. I wonder how many men might go “ick” if they knew the source?
As a dude, I certainly wouldn’t care. As long as the content itself (the crop) isn’t offensive, I don’t really care where it was cropped from, provided they it satisfied fair use at least (or they had permission).
No shit, but apparently all the fellas in this thread seem to think it would have totally been the same. Either that or they just continue to ignore that as an option.
Yeah, I remember learning about it in a CS class and, specifically, the claim that it’s an ideal standard candle kind of image. I always wondered if we couldn’t have found a better reference shot of a smooth flower growing in front of a rough stone or something.
“The shadows and highlighting on the oiled ball hairs are immaculate on this shot…”
As recently as 2019, huh… How does she feel about it since then?
Exactly the same, I’d assume by your phrasing here?
I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I read it very carefully. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it’s arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
censor
cen·sor ˈsen(t)-sər
2 of 2
verb
censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
[Edit: formatting]
Removed by mod
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I’m not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
No she doesn’t. Playboy owns the image and have the sole right to control how it is used
She has the right to have her own opinion. Others have the right to choose to respect her opinion.
Removed by mod
TBH from article it seems that woman on photo (Forsén) decided that’s enough of sharing her photo.
Yeah, you’re right.
But I’m a little optimistic. The image being widely used for decades is a symptom, not the cause of women being unwelcome.
With it being finally banned, it seems like this is changing. Hopefully this means the root cause, misogyny in tech, is at an all time low.
Fully agreed, it was a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. I hope in professional circles this trend continues.