This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
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.
I've seen more skin in a Sears catalogue in the 90s. Yeah I was a teenager shut up. People need to get over themselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right... Let's eliminate every instance of nudity because religious zealots were offended by it in the past, and now leftist zealots are offended. Let's remove the statue of David and all other art depicting the naked human body. Later, let's remove anything from public view that could potentially offend anyone.
I have a friend who is a sex freelance journalist writing for everyone from the NYT to Playboy and she's been outspoken recently around a neo-puritan movement by younger generations.
People aren't having as much sex, have a lot more hangups about sex, are uncomfortable with sex depicted in media, etc.
This image didn't even contain nudity - it's a crop of the original that's in question.
There are broader social impacts for seemingly innocuous efforts like these, and I don't know it's all that healthy for us to be constantly self-thought policing when it comes to sex. Those attitudes seem to be moving beyond the immediate focus and into general attitudes and behaviors around sexual hangups.
We're seeing "purity culture"-like mentality infecting people who weren't even raised in oppressive religious contexts.
It does not seem like you heard the arguments presented in the article. It isn't about being offended by any left or right wing politics, but because women engineers and scientists were uncomfortable about it for a variety of reasons. In a field which struggles to attract and keep female talent, this is a pretty big thing. The model herself spoke out and asked to be "retired from tech".
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.
First learned about that image on this video https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yCdwm2vo09I
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
For the curious, you can find the uncropped photo by searching Lemmy posts for "Lenna". It was posted to [email protected] a few months ago.
Here's a comment on said NSFW post
I won't link the post directly as it's NSFW
Are they published by Elsevier? Just tell them it's AI-generated and they'll be happy to publish it.
