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.
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.
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.
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.
Keep in mind that Playboy had a reputation as more than just porn. A lot of really respected authors had work published in Playboy.
I not sure of its culture status when the event in question happened, but it would have been different then say, Penthouse.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile women nurses doctors and teachers sell themselves on Instagram and onlyfans
Yes, let’s just shove everyone into one drawer and completely forget that some do it for fun, some out of financial necessity, and let’s also forget all the problems it can cause when using such an image in lectures, research and similar professional settings. /s
Fucking jesus christ it only took 50 years for it to happen.
And people wonder why women don’t feel welcome in these disciplines.
TBH from article it seems that woman on photo (Forsén) decided that’s enough of sharing her photo.
To me, that’s a perfectly fine reason to stop accepting the image.
But that’s not why they did it.
They did it because “eww female sexuality icky”
I mean, the model in question was quoted as recently as 2019 as saying she had no problem with it, so hardly 50 years.
As recently as 2019, huh… How does she feel about it since then?
Exactly the same, I’d assume by your phrasing here?
I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Censorship is a slippery slope.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear.
Give it time.
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.
If a sample image is “making some women feel unwelcome in the field” you may be too sensitive for life.
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
It’s a woman looking over their shoulder
That isn’t the issue
Issue is she’s female
I remember seeing an interview with the model, who at the time of the interview was in her 70s or 80s, she apparently wasn’t enthusiastic about having become a common test image. But since she had technically consented to be in Playboy (which was only a magazine at the time), there wasn’t anything she could do to stop it. I think in this case it’s probably best to stop using her image specifically, as it does kinda get into a weird messy situation of consent, and how her consent to be in a magazine morphed through technology into something more “permanent” than she originally realized. There are plenty of other models who would absolutely be down for that, and given enough time, knowing how nerds are, there will be other test images of women. But I think it’s probably for the best that this one gets retired from this use.
And yes, there are people who have tried to use this instance as a “there shouldn’t be images of attractive/implied nude women a standard test images, because it can cause body image issues for women who go into that field.” Which on one hand, I can see where they’re coming from, but also people take pictures of people, and some people do look better than most of us, having more diverse test images would be a good thing, because we don’t all look like that. But some do, and they’re probably going to get more pictures taken of them than the rest if us.
For those, interested in an overview about more criticism, just head to the according section on Wikipedia.
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.
The Lena image is (was?) featured quite prominently in the OpenCV docs and tutorials. Kinda weird it only now goes noticed.
