Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I absolutely concur with Peter. To my way of thinking, 90% of the image
quality deterioration occurs at the press. It seems that all but few
journals work with agencies that know how to print largely black, and
largely out-of-gamut primary colors. These require specific changes to
colors and dynamic range in order to obtain adequate reproduction.
Jerry
Peter Humphreys wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> It would be quite helpful if journals could decide a clear and simple
> standard for figures. Many papers are a little light on detail of the
> manipulations used, but we frequently see vague and contradictory
> information in the instructions for authors.
> Since the journals usually insist on CMYK and we usually image RGB, the
> colourspace conversion also alters the image. As it is almost impossible to
> find which colour profile a journal uses, it is very difficult to get and
> accurate conversion (photoshop usually does the conversion poorly); surely
> the journals should take some of the responsibility for this part of the
> publication process. Over the years I've seen the journals require more and
> more formatting from our end.
>
> Peter
>
>
> Peter Humphreys
> Imaging Facility
> Centre for Stem Cell Research
> Cambridge
> CB2 1QA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Tina Carvalho
> Sent: 24 June 2008 01:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>
>> As they say in Hungary (or so I was told), every good action gets its
>> punishment. I think that people with a PhD, or about to get one,
>> should know the difference between enhancing an image for display or
>> publication, and misrepresentation (or fraud). If they are in doubt,
>> they should also be smart enough to ask for advice.
>>
>
> I agree here, as long as whomever they ask knows...
>
> By trying to
>
>> protect everybody against themselves, I am somewhat worried that out
>> of all this, NIH or other agency will come up with a 1,500-page
>> manual full with regulations and guidelines that will only make our
>> lives just a little bit more complicated, probably with little impact
>> on the amount of misconduct or cluelessness...
>>
>
> Which is why MSA is trying (or at least I am, anyway) to come up with
> guidelines that are easy to implement and make sense, to stave off further
> complicated regulations. Input invited.
>
>
>> I am currently analyzing cells labeled by FISH, and counting those
>> that have nuclear and/or cytoplasmic staining. Nuclear spots are
>> maybe 20-40 times brighter than the diffuse cytoplasmic signal. My
>> eyes, camera, and computer monitor, all have different dynamic ranges
>> and response curves. To see on the monitor what I see at the
>> microscope, or to be able to print it, I need a pretty severe gamma
>> adjustment to enhance the low intensities, otherwise I just will miss
>> a lot of cells. This procedure however will change pixel intensities
>> non-linearly, will not preserve intensity ratios between different
>> regions of the image, and is pretty irreversible once applied. But
>> that's OK... I know what I am doing and why I am doing it (and
>> keeping the original data). On the other hand, without this gamma
>> adjustment, the pictures I get on the screen (or paper) will just not
>> match what I see at the microscope. We certainly don't want
>> regulators telling us that non-linear contrast adjustment is no
>> longer allowed.
>>
>
> Same here, which is why I still think that our guidelines of being able to
> adjust contrast, brightness, and levels/gamma makes sense.
>
> Recap: The Microscopy Society of America's whitepaper says you can adjust
> brightness and contrast, and levels/gamma over the entire image. Anything
> else should be reported as manipulation or enhancement. And you need to
> store the "original" as uncompressed TIFF on archival media. We haven't
> lately looked at other formats, like RAW, so the latter may change. Again,
> if anyone wants to make an argument for another format, just dive in.
>
> Aloha, Tina
>
>
>> --
>> Julio Vazquez, PhD
>> Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>> 1100 Fairview Ave. N., mailstop DE-512
>> Seattle, WA 98109-1024
>>
>>
>> http://www.fhcrc.org/
>>
>>
>>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho * [log in to unmask] *
>
> * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808) 956-6251 *
> * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf*
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
--
Jerry (Gerald) Sedgewick
Program Director, Biomedical Image Processing Lab (BIPL)
Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota
312 Church St. SE, 1-205 Hasselmo Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 624-6607
[log in to unmask]
http://www.bipl.umn.edu
Author: "Scientific Imaging with Photoshop: Methods, Measurement and Output."
Rawlight.com (dba Sedgewick Initiatives)
965 Cromwell Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55114
[log in to unmask]
(651) 308-1466
http://www.quickphotoshop.com
http://www.heartFROMstone.com
http://www.rawlight.com
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
|
