This is kinda interesting. I work in this field and have seen that image show up all the time in papers but never knew the origins.
I think it’s the right move to ban it and I’m surprised there’s so many people defending it. This isn’t about censorship or being a prude or anything like that. It’s just a bit weird that it’s from a playboy and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone. Perhaps we can move on and use some less alienating pictures for image processing papers, too.
if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
I’m lacking in empathy.
The 3d world has Utah teapots and Stanford bunnies and dragons which are all very neutral and don’t hurt anyone.
Ooooh i’m sure someone, somewhere, somehow will feel offended. Better ban those too.
Yes, the provenance is “questionable”, but it’s a pic of a human wearing a hat, ffs.
The model being tired of it would be enough reason for me to stop using it (as you mentioned, there are plenty of alternatives); but American prudeness? No.
I think it’s nice to have traditions inside areas of research, and if somebody said “let’s retire the Utah teapot. It’s too simple a construct and has no bearing anymore” I’d be opposed.
Similar with “Lenna”. Is it a good test image? Not anymore, but if somebody wants to include it as tradition then let them. It hurts no one. Nobody is making money off it. Most people just know it as an image that’s been in many seminal graphics papers they want to emulate, but even if they do know it as being from an issue of Playboy, why is that a problem?
I’m not angry about it. I’m not going to die on any hill about it. I just see it as pointless and infantile for the IEEE to refuse papers over something so trivial.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We’ll crop on my o-face while I’m doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won’t see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
I’m wary of the argument for any practice continuing being just because it’s always happened and is “tradition”. Similarly though I’m wary of the argument that a valid practice should cease just because it makes a few people uncomfortable. If the only thing going for the Lena image is “tradition” then there really is no argument for keeping it.
The issue was that it did make some people uncomfortable, so it was harmful. You can’t just ignore the reasons stated and then say it’s pointless. The ban didn’t come out of nowhere.
That logic makes me uncomfortable, let’s ban you
Utah teapots
Offensive to people who react bad to caffeine or whose relatives had been killed by a falling teapot.
Stanford bunnies
Offensive to people who think there’s a furry connection.
and if you can’t understand how that would make some people uncomfortable then you might be a bit lacking in empathy.
I can understand that and those people can use another image when making their own examples.
It’s not a bad thing to have more empathy, but there’s common sense.
I would be very surprised if the population of “people upset by the use of a teapot/bunny as a test render” was even within a couple orders of magnitude of “people upset by the use of a porn photo as a test image”
Is a little shoulder porn now?
No. But the fact that it isn’t obviously from a porn shoot doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot. The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this, and other women have indicated they are bothered by this.
Are you really insinuating that there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo to demonstrate methods?
See? I can straw-man too.
doesn’t change that it’s from a porn shoot
Your point? (I’d call it more erotica than porn but that’s irrelevant.) If your culture sexualizes nudity per se that’s not my problem and if nudity offends you well that’s your problem. She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on (and, for most of her life, couldn’t care less).
The model has indicated she doesn’t want it used for this
It’s a pretty valid reason to me and it would be nice if people respected that. Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her, but chose to let it slide 'cos… free publicity.
there isn’t any other possible standard besides this exact photo
I never said that. It’s an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should’ve been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.
But these are not the reasons the IEEE is banning the photo, now are they?
This is an interesting video on the matter.
She consented to this, was an adult at the time, got paid for it and moved on
Sorry, consented to what? And what does that have to do with this? The existence of the photo or its continued use as a photo and as porn are not at issue.
Do note that Playboy has the rights of the photo though, not her
And again, this isn’t a rights issue. Lena isn’t upset because her rights are being violated, and neither is anyone else.
I never said that.
And I never said photos of shoulders are porn. You made a straw man or my argument, so I made a straw man or yours. Neither one was particularly useful to discuss.
Of course there were reasons the photo was chosen originally, convenience and the fact that it has just the right amount of complicated detail. But those don’t really matter now because, as you said:
It’s an old photo, along with all the other photos of the time it should’ve been retired ages ago, on technical grounds.
People are upset because the use of a photo from a porn shoot, especially one that has no other particular reason to use it besides “tradition,” is emblematic of a culture that is exclusionary to women.
Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn’t really a good faith argument.
Any defense of the use of this photo which does not address those points isn’t really a good faith argument.
According to you.
Tradition is not really an excuse for anything really.
Saying the crop is a porn photo is like saying homeopathy has an active ingredient because “the water remembers”.
Except that people do, in fact, remember. Sure, if society gets destroyed and future archeologists find the cropped photo and that’s all that remains of it, it’s not a porn photo any more. But for now, people know where it came from. That matters.
Edit: typos, clarity
… By that logic, you are now touching a porn device, since these pixels below are clearly pornography.
Down the bottom there are some statistics about how many women experience sexual harassment and gender based discrimination in STEM positions. They also tend to have worse outcomes in general and fewer will go on to work in their field.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
If you can’t see how using a cropped image from a playboy for no reason in an image processing paper is different from your made up examples and could make some people feel uncomfortable then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.
The thing is that those reasons are made up just like my examples.
While this might seem like a small thing, ignoring these kinds of outdated and unnecessary boys club attitudes is exactly the kind of thing perpetuating these sorts of outcomes.
I don’t think this is correct.
then maybe you’re lacking common sense and empathy.
Maybe I just don’t confuse empathy with doing what idiots want me to do.
People were surveyed about the image, there are articles about it, an entire documentary has been made about it with the support of Lenna. How you can just come along and say that’s all made up is honestly beyond me. And I’m pretty sure that the collective IEEE and the ethics researchers who have written about this aren’t idiots. I really think you are confused about what empathy is, but I don’t see myself convincing you of that. So uh, have a nice day.
Yeah, there’s a reason experiments are not being replaced by voting.
You may consider this comment of yours valuable if you want.
It wasn’t chosen for no reason. It was chosen because it presents good test cases for image processing. Not great ones, just the best they had at that particular moment.
You’re right, I wasn’t particularly clear. That was certainly the case originally, I just don’t think there is a good reason for it going forward.
Historical reasons. I personally used it in a project around 2015 because of its history. And you’d need to use it if you’re comparing against anything else that used it, though given its age, that seems unlikely.
But like I said elsewhere, I’m ambivalent about its future use.
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We’ll crop on my o-face while I’m doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won’t see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
Sounds fair. If you can produce it as a more suitable test image than the others available, I’ll use it.
Good. Sick and tired of seeing Lena.
people who are offended by images of other people are narcissists
To end this, I will subject myself to being the test image. We’ll crop on my o-face while I’m doing your mom and your dad is a cuck in the corner.
What? Some people would call that art. And it will just be my face. We won’t see your dad with anal beads and cock cage in the picture.
If we only see my face in the picture what is the problem? Only you will know that the only time your mom could orgasm was with me.
You are strong enough to handle using this new picture, right?
it’s almost like you’re trying to be insulting
Huh I had no idea!
I’m pretty sure I compressed that image in our computer vision class with some alogrithm we implemented for exercise. I though that was just some artsy over the shoulder picture, but seeing the full version the shoulder does seems supicious in hindsight.
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don’t want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don’t know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? “What image processing tests”?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won’t disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
i think i’ve seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won’t benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It’s probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it’s gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
Computers are dumb and need to be told how to take the data of an image (stored as a long series of 1s and 0s in memory) and draw it on the screen so you can see it. The people writing the software to do that needed an image to test with, just to make sure everything was working right.
Either because they were a bunch of lonely geeks in the 70s or they didn’t have any other good photos to scan in, they used a headshot of a PlayBoy model. They couldn’t have known that it would effectively become one of the first digital memes, meaning it’s still semi-frequently used by graphics programmers (professionals and enthusiasts).
I can’t claim to speak on the model’s motives, but it’s not hard to imagine that having their headshot used in perpetuity without consent would make someone uncomfortable.
its a public domain image. cant really “ban” it
Well you can refuse to accept papers that contain it. No problem with that. It’s their internal guidelines.
I mean, yes you can? You can inform authors that papers that include the image will not be published. How is that not a ban?
For the curious, you can find the uncropped photo by searching Lemmy posts for “Lenna”. It was posted to !retro@lemmynsfw.com a few months ago.
Here’s a comment on said NSFW post
I won’t link the post directly as it’s NSFW
A lot of people in this thread have a lot of really strong opinions without actually reading the article. The model was cool with it, but she herself also thinks it’s time to retire the photo from how it’s being used in image processing, where it likely isn’t even necessary in the first place. Respect her on that. I seriously doubt she cares if it remains accessible on the web for the pervs worrying about censorship. It’ll still be there if you desperately don’t want to lose your opportunity to take a gander.
There’s a value to having a standard image or images that are used to assess compression algorithms’ performance. It could just as easily be a picture of a bouquet of flowers, or a bunch of puppies.
There’s also value in not basing your image compression algorithm on a low resolution scan of a magazine from the 1970s.
Seems like this is a much more important than any of the other discussions going on. How many results were tainted by the fact that they were compressing a dithered print image.
Considering it was defined as the benchmark, none.
Yeah, there is, so do not do that and let others do that if they want.
Everybody can use whichever pictures they like as far as I am concerned.
FFS, it’s as if there could be only one way for everyone
Forsén is quoted as saying, “I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”
Since Lena herself decided she wanted to retire the image, I don’t have any qualms with them not accepting new papers using it. It’s really weird that her “big break” came from scientific papers, of all things.
I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.
I do wonder, however, if more recent papers (2010 and forward) using that image were doing so as reference to older papers, or entirely contained to their own research.
I hadn’t heard of this before this post, the pic is innocuous enough, i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t even know that’s a crop of an old magazine photo.
First learned about that image on this video https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
This is not a hill I’d want to die on, but I do understand thinking this photo is fine. If I hadn’t been told it was from Playboy, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. It’s a conventionally-attractive woman in a hat showing a little shoulder. I wouldn’t be upset over Michaelangelo’s David either. It is less sexual than like 90% of modern TV or mass-market advertising. I suspect a similar image of “cleaner” provenance would not garner much attention at all, honestly.
But it is weird that an image from such a source was chosen in the first place. It is understandable that it makes people uncomfortable, and it seems like there should be no shortage of suitable imagery that wouldn’t, so…easy sell, I’d think.
On a related note, boy oh boy am I tired of every imagegen AI paper and project using the same type of vaguely fetishized portraits as examples.
I really don’t think the image itself is the issue. It’s the culture that would lead to brazenly sharing a porn magazine aroundnthe office, and subsequently using the image for a test photo. Then that same culture decided it should be standard because they liked looking at it. It indicates a culture of objectification of women. If an industry feels like sharing porn around is perfectly acceptable, you have to consider what else they think is acceptable. That’s what makes people uncomfortable (I assume, though I’m a straight man so not personal experience, just empathy).
Apparently the team making the first scanner needed a good test photo and that was the best they had on hand at that moment in terms of color variation and intensity.
Which is still weird.
Alexander Sawchuk, then an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California … along with a graduate student and the SIPI lab manager, was hurriedly searching the lab for a good image to scan for a colleague’s conference paper. … Just then, somebody happened to walk in with a recent issue of Playboy. The engineers tore away the top third of the centerfold so they could wrap it around the drum of their Muirhead wirephoto scanner…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
Everything about the story sounds like it was a rush job, a decision made on a whim, after exhausting their existing catalog of test images. And who bring a Playboy mag to their university’s computer lab, and advertises their possession? They don’t even say who it was, probably to protect them from any embarrassing professional consequences. To me, that’s probably the strongest reason to retire it: it’s unprofessional.
And who bring a Playboy mag to their university’s computer lab, and advertises their possession?
Probably a random grad student. They were just coming out of the “sexual revolution” of the 60s at that point. It’d be a lot weirder ten years earlier or ten years later.
That a similar thing did happen ten years earlier is the weird part, I think.
There’s a bit more to the scan. You usually see the cropped version, but the full version has naughty bits. Not sure if it’s ever been published that way in journals.
Here is an uncropped version of the image: [NSFW] https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg
Considering this it’s more understandable that it’s controversial.
Streisand effect in motion. Me and a million other people get to see this for the first time today.
But the idea isn’t to keep anyone from seeing it. The idea is simply for a lusty image not to be used in academic papers (probably also better that it’s not used in college classes too).
I love pictures of scantily clad women more than almost anyone. But even I can agree that the Lena image sends the wrong message to women joining the field.
It’s not a lusty image if nobody knows what the full picture looks like. Hence the reference to the Streisand effect.
What I’m not seeing in this thread is the reason why this picture is so over used.
One reason is that it’s the perfect image to test graphics manipulation algorithms like compression for example. It has all the characteristics you want to check for: various textures, gradients, lightening… It’s like the benchy (3d printing) of image compression.
The other reason is that once it established itself as the reference image, it was easier for researchers to compare algorithms and make sure the author doesn’t cheat by cherry picking a picture where his algorithm is clearly better.
Researchers were used to see the common pitfalls of compressions algorithms on this image (the fur for example).
That’s fair and you are right, but I’m also pointing out a side effect this is causing. I find it interesting is all.
