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
|
