Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I think that people who are worried about post processing with image
software doesn't know much about the history of scientific photography and
photographic processing in paper..
When the photography was done on paper, you a negative film then you HAD to
choose the type photographic paper intensity of constrast that you wanted,
you could expose the paper less or more time, you could overexpose a region
of the photo to show better something that was underexposed in the negative
and vice-versa, you could cut regions of the borders of the photograph if it
was not interesting or if there was an artifact in this area etc. etc. etc.
A master photography professional could do miracles with otherwise ruined
negatives only working in the dark room. Of course I am only speaking of
black and white photography. Constrast and brightness in black and white
photography was and is a PERSONAL DECISION that was/is made in the moment of
reproduction of the negative.
The color photography was and is the same. Colours could be adjusted as
wished during the reproduction process in paper.
I donīt see any problem if we adjust brightness or contrast or color
intensity by software, It was always done in the time of photography on
paper.
Someone really does believe that the journals editors at that time didn' t
know that the paper photography was "processed" and "improved" in the
darkroom?
"Photoshop and like programs shouldn't be touched
under any circumstance (and if you're capable on a microscope, you don't
need it)"
Lets say, if you are capable on a microscope and if you know the software of
you camera. Because if you change the settings of the camera, you may get
any color intensity, contrast, brightnes, luminescence, gamma etc ect that
you wish. You don' t need a photosomething software, you may alter the image
BEFORE it is taken.
I would like to know the opinion of the real professionals of photography.
The problem is not in the software or if it is used or not, the problem is
how it is used. And I think that the same ethics of the time of paper
photography applies to numeric images. Nothing changed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Sedgewick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: The use of Photoshop
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Hello All,
>
> I am writing to open a can of worms in regard to the use of Photoshop and
> other post-processing software programs along the lines of ethical use.
> The journals in which efforts have been made to detect post processing
> alterations of images, along with those in which ethical use is spelled
> out (such as "Nature"), both regard unethical alteration of images under
> the heading of "misrepresentation" of visual data.
>
> To my way of thinking, these efforts have led to polarization: either
> researchers believe that Photoshop and like programs shouldn't be touched
> under any circumstance (and if you're capable on a microscope, you don't
> need it); or Photoshop is used discreetly (don't tell anyone, but, you
> know, everyone does it anyway).
>
> The troubling thing in all of this is that of an elephant in the living
> room: one major and absolutely compelling point is completely missed.
> True, efforts should be made to prevent misrepresentation, but--and here's
> the crux of the matter--efforts should also be made to prevent
> misrepresentation WHEN IMAGES ARE REPRODUCED. Given the number of images
> published in journals in which the printing presses have completely
> botched color and contrast of perfectly exposed and highly detailed
> images, it's a wonder the editors of major journals aren't looking inward
> rather than outward.
>
> This is NOT a wholesale condemnation of editors: I am simply pointing out
> that the concern of image reproduction is completely off the radar screen,
> as though nothing can be done. After all, it's the art departments of
> printing presses who are responsible for faithful reproduction, and which
> editor has the time, energy and wherewithal to personally oversee art
> department personnel. Furthermore, proofs are sent to researchers for
> approval.
>
> Yet, in this scenario, too often misrepresentations of colors and
> contrasts are accepted anyway, with the idea that we're not the experts at
> reproduction: isn't that the expertise of those at printing presses?
>
> It is. But many of the colors used in research comprise the pure primaries
> of light: 100% green, 100% blue, and 100% red. These colors simply cannot
> be reproduced from the primaries of light to pigments, and scientists
> should not expect that printing presses can solve the problem. The problem
> of reproduction has to be solved BY SCIENTISTS to prevent
> misrepresentation as a result of reproduction. In the latter scenario,
> EVERY image MUST be "altered" to prevent misrepresentation. Few images are
> adapted to every kind of reproduction (e.g., printing press, deskjet,
> video projection, video, web).
>
> Furthermore, because color cameras inherently suffer from color shifts
> even with white balancing (note: brightfield images, most notably with
> mosaic chips), the argument can be made that NO image is "correct" in the
> raw state from these cameras. Every image must be color balanced to
> correct for color shift, to create an image that is NOT a
> misrepresentation.
>
> Ultimately, the point is that colors can be chosen for better
> reproduction, especially along the lines of colorized images. Those who
> choose cyan for colorization instead of blue have discovered that cyan
> reproduces well with just about any device. Greens are more difficult, but
> shifting greens toward yellow really helps.
>
> The essential point to note is that a post-processing program is essential
> for CONFORMING images to the reproduction device. Otherwise, images are
> "misrepresented via reproduction."
>
> Please comment with your views on this subject (need I cajole?). You may
> also contact me privately, but please use my non-university email to avoid
> aggressive spamming filters: sedge(at)umn(dot)edu.
>
> Carpe Friday (or Saturday),
>
> Jerry Sedgewick
> Biomedical Image Processing Lab
> University of Minnesota
> sedge001(at)umn(dot)edu
>
>
>
>
|
