Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

In my opinion people should send a copy of their original image and  
the sexy doctored up image they want their peers to see. (of course  
with a log of everything they did to "doctor up" the image) Then you  
wouldn't have this problem. The Journal can post what they think is  
the "correct" image


On Jun 15, 2007, at 10:34 PM, 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