Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Jerry's question about the problems of going from an additive color
space (RGB/monitors) to a subtractive color space (CYMK/print) is
important. However, since we don't have a list of Pantone colors for
confocal images, I'm not sure what to say. My sister is a graphics
professional and she can't always get printers to reproduce the colors
she wants and she does have access to Pantone colors. Many journals
(e.g., JCB and others) are starting to consider the on-line versions of
images (RGB color space) to be the images of record. This is a step in
the right direction.
[Pantone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantone]
As far as the wonders of what can and/or could be done in the darkroom,
all I can say is the number of people who could successfully pull most
of that stuff off was small and hopefully they were honest enough about
their science to not misrepresent the data. Also, it typically cost a
certain amount of time and money to do feats of darkroom wizardry, which
the boss often had to sign off on. The problem with Photoshop is that
users typically have little or no training, and once there's a copy of
the program in the lab there is no additional financial cost to trying
any number of different ways to "fix" an image. Sadly, there is often a
significant gap between the familiarity of senior investigators with
digital imaging and the younger students/staff in the lab. This means
it's often up to people like us to train both students and professors
about what is or isn't appropriate.
As for ethics standards, JCB and Nature have pretty explicit ones for
digital images (records of acquisition microscope settings and
post-acquisition processing are requested). The Microscopy Society of
America has a policy statement about digital imaging for several years
now. If I can be mildly self-promoting, I have had a list of ethical
digital imaging guidelines on-line since 2001. They are available at:
http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/micro/digimage_ethics.html
Doug Cromey
University of Arizona
Sven Terclavers wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Image "purification", adjustment, pre- & post-processing has been
> something from all times. Even famous painters, such as Rubens, Van
> Eyck etc., long before the first camera was built or the first photo
> was taken, adjusted their 'images' not to show scars, facial
> imperfections etc. Ok, digital imaging and computers made this easier
> for us, but it happened, and very often.
>
> Ever since photography exists, the same happens: in a dark room
> different types of papers, exposure times, development times play an
> important role in the final image (post-processing), different
> exposure times, diaphragm settings and filters (green/red/yellow)
> play(ed) an important role in the acquisition. A lot of variables have
> undoubtfully a large impact on an image, from acquisition until
> printing, leaving us only one type of "true image": the one we see
> ourselves through the camera or microscope. And yet another problem
> pops up here: do we al "see" the same way, the same contrasts, and
> intensities? No...
>
> Basically, all this leaves us one solution: images can and should only
> be used as "decoration of articles" and cannot be used as scientific
> proof (if you strictly follow the previous thoughts). Hmmm...I must
> say I'm pulling a little too hard the strings here obviously, but I'm
> sure some will follow my thoughts while I combine all I've heard
> before from colleague photographers and microscopists.
>
> Personally, I'd say, image processing can be very useful and should be
> allowed, until a certain level, and at least should be mentioned in
> the text. As long as it is not used to prove what one thinks how it
> SHOULD be, but to prove or show how something actually is, I don't see
> a problem. Other experiments accompany and support images, seldom an
> image stands on its own to prove/show something.
>
> I think the time has come for the microscopy (and photography)
> community to set up standards for this, and then this whole discussion
> will be solved. Maybe a study-group should be formed to work on this
> problem and define the standards. Nowadays with email &
> videoconferencing, it should not be a problem to gather a
> heterogeneous group with members from all over the world...
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sven Terclavers
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Francico J. Hernandez Blazquez
> Sent: 15 June 2007 17:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CONFOCAL] The use of Photoshop
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Exactly!
>
> Prof. Dr. Francisco Javier Hernandez Blazquez
> University of São Paulo
> School of Veterinary Medicine
> Departament of Surgery, Anatomy
> Av. Prof. Dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87
> 05508-270 - São Paulo (SP) - Brazil
> http://www.fmvz.usp.br/index.php/site/docentes/lista_de_docentes/francisco_javier_hernandez_blazquez
>
> Tel..55 (11) 3091 1374 Fax 55 (11) 3091 7805
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Cammer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: The use of Photoshop
>
>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>> Before digital imaging, were there discussions about how terrible
>> darkrooms were? I remember the Graphic Arts service here printing
>> all bw negatives to the same density print regardless of exposure on
>> the original film. And people shooting photos at different exposure
>> times or comparing same exposure times of films developed in
>> different batches (for those of you post-chemistry, for typical film
>> a 50% longer development time is equivalent to doubling the ASA or a
>> slight change in temperature can shift density significantly too).
>> And people often brought their color films to commercial labs that
>> made prints with autoadjustments based on people standing in a field
>> of green with a blue sky. More knowledgeable people could burn and
>> dodge in the darkroom (I once fixed a poor EM filament alignment by
>> hand in the darkroom, but I didn't change the biology the print
>> described). And the publishing issues were the same. Essentially,
>> the lowest 10% of grays all dropped into the black and halftones
>> destroyed spatial resolution and subtlety in the grays. So what's new?
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Michael Cammer Analytical Imaging Facility Albert Einstein Coll.
>> of Med.
>> URL: http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/
>
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
>
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Douglas W. Cromey, M.S. - Assistant Scientific Investigator
Dept. of Cell Biology & Anatomy, University of Arizona
1501 N. Campbell Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724-5044 USA
office: AHSC 4212 email: [log in to unmask]
voice: 520-626-2824 fax: 520-626-2097
http://swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/exppath/
Home of: "Microscopy and Imaging Resources on the WWW"
|
