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

In my experience, when somebody shows up with micrographs that have cells
pasted in or background "distractions" stamp tooled out and I suggest
maybe taking more pictures or doing the experiment again, they complain
that this would cost more and delay them.  "The data are what they are and
I'm just showing people and if I don't make it look good, then they won't
publish it."  Sometimes junior lab members will go back to their PIs and
say that I wasn't helpful; I become the problem.  I will not apologize for
refusing to use the lasso tool around a band on a gel and S curve adjust
it in Photoshop Curves or for refusing to paint out "an anomalous bad cell
off in the corner of the image".  Yes, both these requests have come
through our facility along with a bunch of other egregious ones.  Some
scientists really feel justified because the competition does it.  "Hey,
everybody does it," they say.  Although, more often (and a search will
show that we've discussed this before), people simply don;t understand
what they are doing.  They simply misuse the tools for making figures.  As
with example of film, before you can begin to alter images in an
intentional manner or make even reasonably good pictures of anything, you
need to be at least knowledgeable of darkroom technique.  But with the new
digital tools, any dummy can be a photographer and can cut and paste and
manipulate in complicated ways.
-Michael

> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Interesting - especially the statement that images on film
> cannot be doctored. I guess it's irrelevant nowadays, but that
> is so far from the truth.
>
> One funny story - which I've told before but some time ago.
> Many years ago I (with colleagues) published a paper in a
> well-known journal which included a photo of some gels -
> taken by the departmental photographer.  One of the gels had
> cracked when it was taken out of the tube, so there was a
> dark hairline across it in the photo.  In the published paper
> that line had disappeared.  You can hardly accuse me, or my
> two co-authors, of fraud since this was done by the journal's
> art department without any reference to us!
>
>                                                        Guy
>
>
> Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
> by Guy Cox    CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
>     http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm
> ______________________________________________
> Associate Professor Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon)
> Electron Microscope Unit, Madsen Building F09,
> University of Sydney, NSW 2006
> ______________________________________________
> Phone +61 2 9351 3176     Fax +61 2 9351 7682
> Mobile 0413 281 861
> ______________________________________________
>      http://www.guycox.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of John Oreopoulos
> Sent: Sunday, 22 June 2008 10:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: An alarming amount of image manipulation
>
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> I was a bit surprised at the statistics cited in this article:
>
> http://chronicle.com/free/2008/05/3028n.htm
>
> Does this mean that all journals will start hiring image manipulation
> detectives someday? Could be an interesting career.
>
>
> John Oreopoulos, BSc,
> PhD Candidate
> University of Toronto
> Institute For Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering Centre For Studies
> in Molecular Imaging
>
> Tel: W:416-946-5022
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1512 - Release Date: 21/06/2008
> 9:27 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1512 - Release Date: 21/06/2008
> 9:27 AM
>
>


_________________________________________
Michael Cammer   http://www.aecom.yu.edu/aif/