4 ms·

FWIW, this isn’t an accurate summary of what happened with the Lena image at all, and the story and reasons behind it’s decline are easily available online. If

by dahart 3y ago

FWIW, this isn’t an accurate summary of what happened with the Lena image at all, and the story and reasons behind it’s decline are easily available online. If you want to understand it, maybe it’s worth looking up? Lena is publicly on board with the movement to stop using her image for research, and it is irrelevant that Playboy has waived their copyrights. The reasons the image is discouraged are to promote professionalism, diversity, and respect in research. The journal Nature says “the Lena image clashes with the extensive efforts to promote women undertaking higher education in science and engineering”. [1] The paper “On alternatives to Lenna says “ Whatever its merits, the Lenna image’s origin is incompatible with our community’s sincere attempts to encourage diversity and respect in Science and Technology”. [2] (And references “ A centerfold does not belong in the classroom”. [3]) It’s more or less the same as hanging pin-ups at work- most people understand why that’s a bad idea, regardless of whether it was acceptable in the past. Imagine if female teachers put up Chippendale’s posters in the classroom, or nurses put them in the hospital, and argued that anyone who complained was just being PC police and unreasonably sensitive. Just because some people might not care doesn’t mean everyone is okay with it, and even if you don’t care about it, it’s still clearly unprofessional. I’m sure it’s completely unintentional and that you and parent comment don’t mean to sound unsupportive of our social advances of women. I’m sure like most people here you actively support and encourage women to learn and work in STEM fields, and advocate for equality. So please consider more carefully the message that pushing back on the Lenna image sends and how it might reflect on you from other people’s point of view. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0337-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-018-0337-2 [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500340.2016.1270881 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500340.2016.1... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold-does-not-belong-in-tj-classrooms/2015/04/24/76e87fa4-e47a-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-playboy-centerfold...

pfannkuchen 3y ago
> Imagine if female teachers put up Chippendale’s posters in the classroom Isn’t it more like if female researchers used the cropped head-only photo of a Chippendale’s guy in an image processing paper? Shifting it to an “interfacing with an authority figure for children” role is not really fair IMO, as I think that is why most would find it distasteful.
- dahart 3y ago
  The situation isn’t being shifted to interfacing with an authority figure for children. That’s what it already was! Maybe not primarily, but don’t miss the very point that research is setting an example and it percolates widely outside of college journals into textbooks, onto the internet, into videos, into work, and into homes. The movement is centered on the simple idea that we need to take the fact that we’re setting examples for young women and young men alike slightly more seriously.
  - George83728 3y ago
    > The situation isn’t being shifted Really? Then what male researchers were hanging posters of Lena in classrooms?
    - dahart 3y ago
      What do you mean? Lena is one of the single most-used images in computer vision, it’s been on literally hundreds of posters, in papers, textbooks, conferences, online. The Wikipedia article talks about it being used in college and high school classrooms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
      - cubefox 3y ago
        I'm pretty sure it was to 99% used in research papers.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I’m pretty sure the reason why people are against the image being used is that <insert field here> (image processing in this case) used to be a male dominated field, and the use of an arguably contextually misogynistic image could make female researchers in the field uncomfortable and/or less included, etc. I really don’t think setting an example for children has anything to do with it.
    - 3y ago
cubefox 3y ago
I reject your accusations. Claiming without evidence that the Lena image is harmful is about as absurd as claiming the face of the statue of David is harmful. That's another often used picture, and of course completely ignored by the breathless "sexism!" yellers.
- dahart 3y ago
  David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence of the mild bias inherent in the use of Lena, if you actually want to find the evidence. Lots of women have mentioned their mild discomfort with seeing it in a professional setting. There’s a documentary about this story called “Losing Lena”.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    When someone experiences "mild discomfort" when seeing David (it does display an idealized nude man, which could also be said about the Lena photo, which is far too artistic to be merely called "pornography") then this is still no reason to banish the David photo. If everything gets banned that someone could potentially be mildly offended by, then we would have to ban a hell of a lot of images in research and academia. Another commenter made a comparison to Christian puritanism. A devout Christian might be offended both by Lena and by David. Or think of a devout Muslim woman being deeply offended by the sight of da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.
    - westurner 3y ago
      A nonsecular humanist could take issue with religious imagery, whether the model was fairly paid, and the articles. All NN (Non-Nude) references are suspect. "A Utah school district has removed the Bible from some schools' shelves" (2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-ch... Persons from Utah, are even there good examples of healthy very-heteronormative marriages in the aforementioned now unmentionable text?
    - 3y ago
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>If you want to understand it, maybe it’s worth looking up? I read several different articles from several different points of time, some obviously sympathetic of removing the image and some cynical. So I understand both sides of the fence. My goal wasn't to provide a summary so much as my overall impression. > So please consider more carefully the message that pushing back on the Lenna image sends and how it might reflect on you from other people’s point of view. The whole problem I have with this is that I never bothered looking up Lena until this comment chain, but I've seen her picture used several times in my computer graphics classes (went to college in the late 2000's, so just before the "2nd wave" of controversy). I never knew, I don't think any one else in my class knew, and nobody questioned it nor thought it derogatory. And to be honest, the later context of this doesn't change my mind either. It is not an obviously pornographic image, the purpose of the image in its current use was not titilation. I board on the cynical side precisely because of that; intent. And I don't think the intent here was ever to discourage nor shame women to work in STEM. Even in the 70's I simply think that some college students needed a good test image, and an on hand magazine clipping of a very high resolution photo (for its time) was the "good enough" solution as opposed to scouring stores for the perfect reference image that would stand the tests of time. Similar to other computer graphics story in that a husband/wife sitting down for tea resulted in the Utah Teapot.
- dahart 3y ago
  I’m not claiming the intent was ever to discourage women, I’m only trying to help you understand that is still what happened despite no ill intent. You’re right that the cropped Lena image used in vision papers is no longer porn after cropping, and there’s no nudity. But it is still suggestive (you can tell she’s posing and not wearing a top), and the image comes with a story, and it comes with internet links to the uncropped nude. The problem with the Lena image is not just or even primarily the image itself, it’s as much about where the image came from and what it represents. The source is Playboy, which as you well know, published nude women for the purpose of men’s entertainment. Insisting that nothing at all is wrong with the cropped image just because you can’t see breasts normalizes the behavior, it tells people you’re okay with the men’s entertainment part and they should be too, provided we crop the nudity. This isn’t about people being offended by nudity, or about being wildly inappropriate, this is about subtle social attitudes that aren’t conducive to men and women working together on science. It’s about being just a little inappropriate, but enough that we now recognize it’s not really 100% okay, and it reflects poorly on the field of computer graphics if we can’t adapt. I do appreciate your reasonable tone BTW, I’m happy to continue discussing if we’re having a productive talk. I’m not trying to shame anyone either, or to discount the history of CG, I just happened to know more about the Lena saga, because I’ve read a lot about it over the years, and I believe the women who’ve mentioned use of Lena is now cringey, and I agree with the reasons for journals discontinuing it’s use. I don’t agree with the cynical view that the movement to stop using Lena is either Puritanism like one comment here said, nor just silly political correctness in a pejorative sense. There’s a legitimate concern about using Playboy-sourced images regardless of crop, and there’s a legitimate concern about the attitude that if you don’t want Playboy-sourced images that mostly crop out the nudity, then it means you’re being a religious nut or a left-wing radical. The problem is relatively minor, but real. So let’s just move on from Lena and get back to talking about computer vision and other cool graphics!

by dahart 3y ago

pfannkuchen 3y ago

> Imagine if female teachers put up Chippendale’s posters in the classroom Isn’t it more like if female researchers used the cropped head-only photo of a Chippendale’s guy in an image processing paper? Shifting it to an “interfacing with an authority figure for children” role is not really fair IMO, as I think that is why most would find it distasteful.

dahart 3y ago
The situation isn’t being shifted to interfacing with an authority figure for children. That’s what it already was! Maybe not primarily, but don’t miss the very point that research is setting an example and it percolates widely outside of college journals into textbooks, onto the internet, into videos, into work, and into homes. The movement is centered on the simple idea that we need to take the fact that we’re setting examples for young women and young men alike slightly more seriously.
- George83728 3y ago
  > The situation isn’t being shifted Really? Then what male researchers were hanging posters of Lena in classrooms?
  - dahart 3y ago
    What do you mean? Lena is one of the single most-used images in computer vision, it’s been on literally hundreds of posters, in papers, textbooks, conferences, online. The Wikipedia article talks about it being used in college and high school classrooms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
    - cubefox 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure it was to 99% used in research papers.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure the reason why people are against the image being used is that <insert field here> (image processing in this case) used to be a male dominated field, and the use of an arguably contextually misogynistic image could make female researchers in the field uncomfortable and/or less included, etc. I really don’t think setting an example for children has anything to do with it.
  - 3y ago

cubefox 3y ago

I reject your accusations. Claiming without evidence that the Lena image is harmful is about as absurd as claiming the face of the statue of David is harmful. That's another often used picture, and of course completely ignored by the breathless "sexism!" yellers.

dahart 3y ago
David wasn’t made with the intent to be pornographic. Lena’s picture was. Being unaware of the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There’s plenty of evidence of the mild bias inherent in the use of Lena, if you actually want to find the evidence. Lots of women have mentioned their mild discomfort with seeing it in a professional setting. There’s a documentary about this story called “Losing Lena”.
- cubefox 3y ago
  When someone experiences "mild discomfort" when seeing David (it does display an idealized nude man, which could also be said about the Lena photo, which is far too artistic to be merely called "pornography") then this is still no reason to banish the David photo. If everything gets banned that someone could potentially be mildly offended by, then we would have to ban a hell of a lot of images in research and academia. Another commenter made a comparison to Christian puritanism. A devout Christian might be offended both by Lena and by David. Or think of a devout Muslim woman being deeply offended by the sight of da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.
  - westurner 3y ago
    A nonsecular humanist could take issue with religious imagery, whether the model was fairly paid, and the articles. All NN (Non-Nude) references are suspect. "A Utah school district has removed the Bible from some schools' shelves" (2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-challenge https://www.npr.org/2023/06/02/1179906120/utah-bible-book-ch... Persons from Utah, are even there good examples of healthy very-heteronormative marriages in the aforementioned now unmentionable text?
  - 3y ago

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>If you want to understand it, maybe it’s worth looking up? I read several different articles from several different points of time, some obviously sympathetic of removing the image and some cynical. So I understand both sides of the fence. My goal wasn't to provide a summary so much as my overall impression. > So please consider more carefully the message that pushing back on the Lenna image sends and how it might reflect on you from other people’s point of view. The whole problem I have with this is that I never bothered looking up Lena until this comment chain, but I've seen her picture used several times in my computer graphics classes (went to college in the late 2000's, so just before the "2nd wave" of controversy). I never knew, I don't think any one else in my class knew, and nobody questioned it nor thought it derogatory. And to be honest, the later context of this doesn't change my mind either. It is not an obviously pornographic image, the purpose of the image in its current use was not titilation. I board on the cynical side precisely because of that; intent. And I don't think the intent here was ever to discourage nor shame women to work in STEM. Even in the 70's I simply think that some college students needed a good test image, and an on hand magazine clipping of a very high resolution photo (for its time) was the "good enough" solution as opposed to scouring stores for the perfect reference image that would stand the tests of time. Similar to other computer graphics story in that a husband/wife sitting down for tea resulted in the Utah Teapot.

dahart 3y ago
I’m not claiming the intent was ever to discourage women, I’m only trying to help you understand that is still what happened despite no ill intent. You’re right that the cropped Lena image used in vision papers is no longer porn after cropping, and there’s no nudity. But it is still suggestive (you can tell she’s posing and not wearing a top), and the image comes with a story, and it comes with internet links to the uncropped nude. The problem with the Lena image is not just or even primarily the image itself, it’s as much about where the image came from and what it represents. The source is Playboy, which as you well know, published nude women for the purpose of men’s entertainment. Insisting that nothing at all is wrong with the cropped image just because you can’t see breasts normalizes the behavior, it tells people you’re okay with the men’s entertainment part and they should be too, provided we crop the nudity. This isn’t about people being offended by nudity, or about being wildly inappropriate, this is about subtle social attitudes that aren’t conducive to men and women working together on science. It’s about being just a little inappropriate, but enough that we now recognize it’s not really 100% okay, and it reflects poorly on the field of computer graphics if we can’t adapt. I do appreciate your reasonable tone BTW, I’m happy to continue discussing if we’re having a productive talk. I’m not trying to shame anyone either, or to discount the history of CG, I just happened to know more about the Lena saga, because I’ve read a lot about it over the years, and I believe the women who’ve mentioned use of Lena is now cringey, and I agree with the reasons for journals discontinuing it’s use. I don’t agree with the cynical view that the movement to stop using Lena is either Puritanism like one comment here said, nor just silly political correctness in a pejorative sense. There’s a legitimate concern about using Playboy-sourced images regardless of crop, and there’s a legitimate concern about the attitude that if you don’t want Playboy-sourced images that mostly crop out the nudity, then it means you’re being a religious nut or a left-wing radical. The problem is relatively minor, but real. So let’s just move on from Lena and get back to talking about computer vision and other cool graphics!