Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | William R. Oliver |
Date: | Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:49:53 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Jan 1995, k.a. rogers wrote:
> I have recently run into some rather obnoxious comments from a reviewer
> of one of my manuscripts, who implied that we had been less than honest
> in our presentation of our images. So I put the question to you all.
> How much enhancement is too much? What is acceptable?
>
> In this particular case, we had a double labelled FISH sample, using
> propidium iodide and FITC. The image was enhanced by setting all
> green pixels below ca. 40 to 0 (to remove backgound FITC) and then enhancing
> contrast by mapping the remaining pixel values over the entire 256 range for
> each channel. No other manuipulation was carried out.
>
> If we are out of line with this approach, I would appreciate some
> guidance. If the approach is appropriate, I would like to see your
> comments. I hope to get back to the editor by weeks end.
>
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. My opinion is that if you detail your
manipulations in the manuscript, you are pretty much covered.
Thresholding and contrast stretching are standard enhancement methods; if
the reviewer has a specific criticism in their application in your
specific result because of some particular situation, then you can address
them specifically. If the comment is a general disparagement of image
enhancement, then I would suggest you include references to instances
where this technique was applied without problems in similar
circumstances.
A general disparagement of image processing in confocal microscopy is a
bit unsettling, since all 3D visualizations are rather heavily processed...
billo
(William R Oliver, MD
Digital Image Processing Laboratory
Division of Quantitative Pathology
Department of Cellular Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
)
|
|
|