Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I couldn't agree more. Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) for these reasons has switched to the online version of their journal being the prime publishing format. If you triple stain, you probably use red, green and blue dyes. The image capture is usually with RGB filter sets. Your data is saved as RGB images. With JCB at least, you submit RGB, and they publish on line in RGB. The paper version is seen as of secondary importance, and it's up to the printer to work with the image to get it to print correctly. Presumably publishing online avoids much of the need for "upsizing" as well. Editorials on this matter have already been published in JCB.
They also have quite strict rules on what you can and can't do to an image. I don't want to open old debates, but I think declaring what was done, and having to submit raw images, as well as the final images to the reviewers and editors for inspection should be the preferred solution.
See editorial in JCB by Mike Rossner http://www.jcb.org/cgi/reprint/166/1/11 <http://www.jcb.org/cgi/reprint/166/1/11>
No commercial interest in JCB
Steve
Stephen H. Cody
Microscopy Manager
Central Resource for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital
Parkville, Victoria, 3050
Australia
Tel: 61 3 9341 3155 Fax: 61 3 9341 3104
email: [log in to unmask]
www.ludwig.edu.au/labs/confocal.html
www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal
Tip: Learn how to receive reminders about you microscope booking:
http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Local/Booking_Hint.htm Type your signature here
________________________________
From: Confocal Microscopy List on behalf of Grant MacGregor
Sent: Thu 07/08/2008 4:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Resolution vs pixelation whinge
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I agree with the concerns and frustration. One potential solution is
for a few independent folks to band together, write a brief 'report'
with data that will help to educate the publishing houses, then to
find an editor at a suitable journal, who has a sympathetic ear and
ask that this be reviewed and published. Then, when this next
happens, you can forward the 'minimum dpi request issue' to the editor
of which ever journal you're dealing with, along with the citation or
reprint of your report. This is the sort of thing that is required to
educate and make a change in the publishing field.
Grant MacGregor D. Phil.,
Associate Director,
Optical Biology Core, Developmental Biology Center
Associate Professor,
Department of Developmental and Cell Biology,
Center for Molecular & Mitochondrial Medicine & Genetics,
Developmental Biology Center,
University of California, Irvine
2042 Hewitt Hall
Irvine, CA 92697-3940
e-mail [log in to unmask]
On Aug 6, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Phillips, Thomas E. wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Even worse in my opinion, a major journal that I publish in requires
> Tiff formatted RGB images for review but once the paper is accepted,
> they want the final submitted images in CMYK. The conversion changes
> the images from what the reviewers approved but they never see them
> again. Crazy.
>
> Thomas E. Phillips, Ph.D
> Professor of Biological Sciences
> Chair, MU Faculty Council
> Director, Molecular Cytology Core
> 2 Tucker Hall
> University of Missouri
> Columbia, MO 65211-7400
> 573-882-4712 (office)
> 573-882-0123 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.biology.missouri.edu/faculty/phillips.html
> http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/mcc/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steffen Dietzel
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Resolution vs pixelation whinge
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> been there, done that.
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> nope, it's not just you. I that situation I first
> try to get away with upscaling with the nearest
> neighbor algorithm with a power of two or four in
> Photoshop. Looks just as pixelated as the
> original but has a higher dpi (I also use this
> sometimes to show blow-ups of details in the same
> figure as the rest of the image). Once a journal,
> actually a so called "top journal", wouldn't let
> me get away with that, so I had to interpolate
> (i.e: make up) the missing pixels.
>
> Looks like the figure art department guys don't have physics
> education.
>
> I am not sure this eases your pain though....
>
> Steffen
>
> At 17:49 06.08.2008, you wrote:
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>> Is it just me, or does anyone else get annoyed when a journal
>> requests higher resolution images for
>> publication? Typical requests are "FigX is
>> not at the required 300 dpi. We require a higher resolution
>> version of this
>> figure" or "Your cover submission is not at the required
>> resolution, you must
>> supply a higher resolution version?".
>> Well no, I can't. I've acquired the image with
>> an optimal pixel size to satisfy
>> Nyquist-Shannon theorem. Just because you want to print the image
>> at a
>> size where it might look pixelated does not allow me to break the
>> laws of
>> physics. The result is invariably resubmission of a Photoshop
>> upsampled
>> version of the image, which yes looks less
>> pixelated, but no, is not at a higher
>> resolution. Presumably the publishers are just as capable of doing
>> this as I
>> am. [/whinge]
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steffen Dietzel, PD Dr. rer. nat
> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
> Walter-Brendel-Zentrum für experimentelle Medizin (WBex)
> Head of light microscopy
>
> Mail room (for letters etc.):
> Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377 München
>
> Building location and address for courier, parcel services etc:
> Marchioninistr. 27, D-81377 München (Großhadern)
>
> Phone: +49/89/2180-76509
> Fax-to-email: +49/89/2180-9976509
> skype: steffendietzel
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
|
