• Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • richmondez@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Well said. I feel like so many people here are missing one of the biggest issues with the photo as far as I understand it, which is encouraging women into STEM. For many women I think this photo felt a bit like walking into a professor’s office to see they have bikini photos on their walls. It just cements the feeling that these sciences are boys’ clubs.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Banning something harmless is censorship. It’s a test image of a beautiful woman, not glorifying violence or terrorism.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s not censorship. They can choose to publish or not publish anything they want. Anyone is still free to publish the image in other journals that don’t ban it.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        https://www.yalescientific.org/2020/11/by-the-numbers-women-in-stem-what-do-the-statistics-reveal-about-ongoing-gender-disparities/

        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.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Sounds fair. If you can produce it as a more suitable test image than the others available, I’ll use it.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yeah, there’s a reason experiments are not being replaced by voting.

              You may consider this comment of yours valuable if you want.

      • Jojo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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”

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I mean obviously this is a porn device, it has access to the Internet. How is that relevant? One’s personal devices are exactly where one’s porn should be, not in an academic paper about image processing.

          • Jojo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • 0x0@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocksB
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

                This

                Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

                I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

              • Jojo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • 0x0@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • Jojo@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    If you’re making arguments on this issue with someone who feels the photo should not be used because using a cropped porn photo is offensive or derogatory, those are the points that should be addressed. Another approach might be to address why it should be used instead of some similar image, but it seems you agree with me that there is no good reason another image couldn’t be used.

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This isn’t about prudishness. No one’s offended by the picture. It makes people uncomfortable because it’s from a playboy. The problem is that it brings the objectification of women to the fore in a male dominated field where women often face sexual harassment and aren’t taken seriously.