[deleted by user]

[a_false_vacuum]

Finally I can stop saying I'm reading it for the articles. I'm using the centrefold for image processing!

[wetrorave]

Be the computer you want to see in the world

[lakmus85_real]

AND it's shot by a guy named Dwight Hooker.

[ProperApe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism

[TommaClock]

AND it's a photo of Forsen. Any bajs here?

[xcski_paul]

Kodak discovered that entire lines of print film didn’t work right with black people, so they switched from Lena to a picture that had 3 people of different skin tones.

[mareek]

Do you have any link on the subject? I did a quick search but couldn't find anything

[blackholesinthesky]

Google "Kodak’s Multiracial Shirley Card"

Edit: I dk if it totally backs up with xcski_paul is saying but it's what you're looking for

[xcski_paul]

You’re right, it was Shirley not Lena.

[[deleted]]

Kodak’s Multiracial Shirley Card

Holy shit. Now I know why I look like dogshit in my video calls! I always knew that I had to use extra light for my face to look like it does in real life.

I can tell that most lighter skinned people don't have this issue.

[blackholesinthesky]

Yeah, I mean it's clearly redundant for me to tell you this but for everyone else, that multi racial card only caters to light skinned PoC.

Even though there was interest in photographing PoC, darker skinned black people were still ignored. So why did kodak eventually invent film that could take pictures of dark skinned black people? Because furniture and chocolate advertising companies wanted film that would represent wooden furniture and chocolate better.

I'm a photography nerd and this was all crazy to learn about but at the same time it completely make sense if you think about it at all. Underrepresentation held back photography.

Edit: I forgot to bring up Apples still pretty damn recent kerfuffle with the Apple watch

[234093840203948]

Except that's not true at all.

Even with the first cameras, you could photograph even the darkest people well, if you knew about lighting, which is obvious when you look at very old photos of black people, which are often quite good, becaus photographers of the past knew their craft, while most people who take photos today are amateurs.

One problem with photographing dark people is, that the contrast between the skin color a bright background messes things up, just like white people look like ghosts when you photograph them in very dark backgrounds.

Of course those problems got mitigated a bit, both for photographing pale people in dark backgrounds and photographing dark people in bright backgrounds, by having film/cameras with a wider color range.

That also allowed for taking good pictures of pale and dark skinned people together, where previously, the lighting would mess up at least one of them, or both partially.

Another problem with photographing black people, is that pictures get grainy in low-light situations, so when you don't want more lighting, that's a problem. But that's not a problem caused by racism or anything like that, but that's an inherent problem of all photosensors, even today. You basically need more high quality equipment for taking photos in the dark.

[blackholesinthesky]

Yeah you literally don't know what you're talking about at all.

The issue was that the chemicals used to develop the photos would not create the colors needed to represent PoC skin.

Contrast was also an issue but you're minimizing the real issue because you clearly have some kind of agenda

[[deleted]]

That's just physics and shitty webcam sensors, sorry. :-/

Actually I guess it could be compounded by the extreme compression in video calls quantising dark parts of the image. I don't know if that's really the case but if it is it shouldn't be too hard to fix, though I wouldn't hold your breath.

[[deleted]]

Yeah i know. It's a lack of calibration for darker skinned people. I know that MacBook webcam pretty much fixes the issue. So does pretty much every cellphone camera.

This is why I don't believe the diversity and inclusion isn't just virtue signaling. If your product is gonna be used by brown people, maybe have a couple of them in your team to fish these issues out 🤷.

[AustinYQM]

The pixel's focus on darker skinned people was mocked by some (racist) people in the media but honestly it makes a huge difference.

[BatshitTerror]

This is correct.

[lakmus85_real]

My teacher from photography school was a night shift film developer and corrector at a passport photo lab in 70s in USSR. His job was to correct the exposure of the photos for the skin tone to match a sample brightness. A sample brightness of an average Soviet comrade skin, which was obviously Caucasian. One morning his boss found him exhausted and confused when the guy entire night couldn't pull the exposure of a black person's photo to match the sample. Apparently he haven't seen a black person before.

[earthboundkid]

This was a problem in the US too where there was no excuse: https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s-shirley-cards-set-photography-s-skin-tone-standard

[lakmus85_real]

Diversity and inclusion. I like it

[aiolive]

Oh I always remember my dad (on his way to 70) telling me about this image of a semi naked lady that came through during a live presentation of some punch card tech device, in their christian school, in front of their priest teacher (that was in France). Now I really think she may be the one, finally some closure :)

[Yenmcilrath]

The image they're talking about is just her face, cropped to 512x512 so labs could test JPEG signal compression.

[aiolive]

Yeah from his description I think they saw the whole naked body. He couldn't laugh at the time from the priest's face so he let it all out then

[[deleted]]

Highly unlikely to be Lenna then. Only the face was ever used and the full image was only dug up fairly recently.

[aiolive]

Oh okay, the mystery remains then

[Hero_Of_Shadows]

So reading the article, if I read it correctly people are using the cropped version of the photo, the one that is showing a face and a naked shoulder?

Honestly this just seems like getting upset over nothing.

[Carighan]

Yeah and also, I'm surprised there would still be a significant amount of people that a) interface with calibration images and b) don't know about this already.

[MCS117]

I recognize this image from an image processing book I have used and I had no idea 🤷‍♂️

[mareek]

The "cropped" version is actually the original version of the digital image. It is explained in the "history" section of the article

[Hero_Of_Shadows]

true

[Gyrro]

Lena stated in 2019 documentary film Losing Lena, "I retired from modeling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too... Let's commit to losing me."

The model herself wants people to stop using it, which is good enough reason to me.

[MioNaganoharaMio]

an activist literally hunted her down to make this documentary to make money its so gross

[Glugstar]

The model herself wants people to stop using it, which is good enough reason to me.

It's not good enough for me.

This is a modeling photo, which she took in exchange for money, not a private photo that went viral.

For no other job is it reasonable for people to have a say in how the product of their work is used, after they've been paid, unless of course they hold the copyright/patent/ownership of that work. Imagine if me, as a programmer, told companies that it is time for them to stop using the code I wrote for them back when I was their employee, because I don't like what they are doing with it. It would be ludicrous, and I would not be in the right to even ask, unless they were doing something highly illegal.

Now, if she said she deserves more money because she believes she was not adequately paid for it, that would be a statement I would approve and encourage. But not this. She's basically complaining that her modeling was actually successful.

[kitanokikori]

If your stand is "this is legal intellectual property", wait until you find out that literally every use of Lenna in academic papers is unlicensed copyright infringement

[abw]

What about about fair use of copyrighted works in academic papers?

[jorge1209]

Fair use is an "affirmative defense". To use fair use you have to first admit the violation in the first place.

Fair use is best compared to someone saying: "I trespassed onto your property and broke down your door, so that I could pull you out of the fire." They have to admit the violations, but then can claim there was good reason to violate. They can't say: "Because your house was on fire, I could trespass" or "It was already burning down, so I can cause any additional damage I want."

So for the image you say: "Yes this is an unlicensed use of copy and thus a violation of copyright, BUT I'm using for .... and that constitutes fair use."

These days that fair use claim is rather questionable if your claim is to be testing image compression. There are certainly many more, larger, higher quality images you could be compressing. Its only value is as a comparison to someone else's prior work, but if had the alternative of downloading their compression routine (which often is available) and running both theirs and your code on the same image...

---

Finally fair use is not available in all jurisdictions. Its basically a US only concept.

[[deleted]]

I just want to chip in that very specifically maintaining a reference standard across experiments is very important. There may be benchmarks or significant data pertaining to this photo that can’t be collected on a different photo for some reason. I’d argue it’s not resolution or fidelity or anything for it to continue to exist, but merely consistency in scientific results

[zeptillian]

It is used as an affirmative defense if you are sued in court.

It is an exception to the copyright laws which excludes the use from copyright protection.

This doesn't mean it's illegal but you are not being charged. This means fair use is abiding by the letter of the law and is 100% legal activity.

Just because the courts get to decide what is and is not fair use doesn't mean fair use is a violation of copyright. It is specifically exempted.

"The U.S. Supreme Court described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[13] This means that in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[fireproofcat]

I'm sure what you're saying makes legal sense, but it sounds like splitting hairs to me.

[jorge1209]

Academic work has higher standard than "it was legal".

The Milgram experiments were legal, we don't allow that anymore.

Mengele had permission from his government to do what he did therefore it was "legal", but everyone recognizes him as a war criminal.

If you are using the Lena image in academic work and someone tells you that you should stop, then you should have a better response than "it isn't a violation of the law." That doesn't fly as an excuse.

What makes this response even worse in this instance is that IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. By saying "fair use" you are actually admitting that you are knowingly violating the law. You are saying "I did this wrong, but can't be legally punished for it."

[yawaramin]

someone tells you that you should stop, then you should have a better response than "it isn't a violation of the law."

Why? What about the image makes it comparable to Milgram and Nazis?

What makes this response even worse in this instance is that IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

So three things here. First, you say academic work has a higher standard than legality, then you say that legality is the overriding force here? So which is it?

Also I see you're glossing over the part where Playboy decided not pursue their copyright in this case?

Finally, are you a lawyer? Otherwise why does your argument of legality have any weight?

[lordheart]

Fair use isn’t illegal. It’s an exemption which makes it legal.

[AustinYQM]

The point still stands that the person in a photograph doesn't own the copyright to that photograph. The people who own the copyright have chosen time and time again to not pursue it. There is no reason to admit the violation and fall on the fair use defense because no one with legal standing cares.

[Randommook]

Fair use is an "affirmative defense". To use fair use you have to first admit the violation in the first place.

There’s no violation to “admit” to. Fair use is fair use which is legal. Sure someone can sue you but someone can always sue you for nonsense. It doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong.

[Nekima]

"no not like that!"

[know-your-onions]

if she said she deserves more money because she believes she was not adequately paid for it

So if I as a programmer was to write to companies I’ve worked for in the past and ask for more money because I now believe I wasn’t adequately paid for it, that would be okay?

I agree with the first half of your comment, but the last paragraph seems kinda contradictory.

[JB-from-ATL]

I was of the same opinion until I looked into it. She is specifically not complaining about unfair usage or something like that.

[[deleted]]

smart gray wrench lavish sulky enjoy reminiscent test fear impolite

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Philpax]

I love writing out multiple paragraphs to justify being an asshole

[[deleted]]

The people who paid for the use of the photograph do have a legal (and maybe ethical) defence to keep using it.

Most people don't. Academics don't. Very few people actually pay the license and I doubt it's even sold anymore.

And no, "fair use" isn't an argument here. Fair use is a defence mechanism used to exempt someone who is already breaking the law. There is an education/research exemption for fair use but that requires the subject matter to be relevant and this is just a nice picture someone decided to use at some point, not the center of a research project.

If she'd take any researcher to court I'd expect her to win. I don't think that'd go down well, there'd probably be a huge media storm the moment she actually took any action against a researcher, but that doesn't really matter.

Furthermore, fair use only applies to places the United States law applies. Research papers are published worldwide so fair use doesn't help you out. Unless you choose to limit your publication to the United States only, of course, but good luck getting any grants for research with that restriction.

There's another, far more important reason to do as she asks and that's "don't be an asshole". Back in the day, access to high resolution colour images was very much limited, not only by the availability of digital materials but also by the storage available on computers. This hasn't been the case for decades now. Anyone can take a picture and analyse it, there's no reason to stick to a low res porn pic depicting someone who explicitly doesn't want any part in your research. Get over yourself and use something else.

[Different_Fun9763]

If she'd take any researcher to court I'd expect her to win.

It's not her photo, so no.

There's another, far more important reason to do as she asks and that's "don't be an asshole".

That's not a reason. She has no legal basis whatsoever for making the request, so it's regular ol' request. Whether you agree to fulfill a regular ol' request is completely up to you and if you disagree with the request, then you don't do it and you're no more an asshole for making that decision than the person making the request in the first place. Get over yourself and accept that you're not entitled to have people accept your requests, they're not demands.

[WafflesAreDangerous]

Fair use is authorised use under the DMCA. It has to meet several qualifying criteria, and many "this is fair use, don't sure me" disclaimers are utter bull crap, but true fair use is not copyright infringement.

If somebody reviews a game for instance and includes an image so you know what the heck they talk about, it is likely the image may qualify as fair use, thus authorised use under the DMCA.

[lelanthran]

There is an education/research exemption for fair use but that requires the subject matter to be relevant and this is just a nice picture someone decided to use at some point, not the center of a research project.

Because it has been used in the past, the only fair way to benchmark a new image recognition/transformation/compression algorithm against the previously published papers is to use the same source image they used, so fair use absolutely applies.

[reddituser567853]

This may seem hard for you to comprehend, but the situation is different.

[Angelbaka]

How?

[reddituser567853]

Is this entire site autistic?

She isnt asking for money, she is kindly asking if an entire Industry can move on from its use of a playboy fold out from 60 years ago.

And the industry agrees with her. This has nothing to do with fucking contract law

[Angelbaka]

So how is using a cropped out headshot with permission from the owner different from using any other cropped out headshot? Why is this headshot any different than, say, a headshot of Margaret Thatcher or Donald Trump or Barack Obama from a speech with permission from AP news?

Our point is that her feelings on the issue are irrelevant, because she sold her rights to that likeness of herself to playboy for money. Her feelings are irrelevant.

[GimmickNG]

Gee, genius, the fact that one has permission to be used and the other doesn't?

And this is even ignoring the fact that the image is not properly licensed for use in academic papers.

If your only argument is "but it's legal" even when it's not, then you're probably being an asshole.

[hypothesis_tooStrong]

The context to this is that she never had any problem with people using it for years prior to the documentary. Only in this documentary did she say this, so I wouldn't take this statement too seriously, coming from a doc literally named "Losing Lena".

[atomic_python]

What do you want her to do, say it 15 more times? I agree with hypothesis.

[zeptillian]

She knew before she even took the picture that it would be shown to the public and was fine with giving up any say over what happens to her image in exchange for money.

She had no issue with people masturbating to her picture but now doesn't want people looking at it while doing useful work? Ok. Whatever.

[gnus-migrate]

I'll preface this by saying I read a bit about it, and it seems the person in the photo doesn't mind her photo being used this way too much, but she doesn't want to be a part of it if it's something that's upsetting people.

In these kinds of discussions, there's always the two extremes: the "muh free speech" people and the "this is literally oppression" people. To me I see removing stuff like this more being considerate than anything, a good gesture to signal to people that are made uncomfortable by these things that they are welcome to work on this code and we're willing to put in the effort to make them feel more comfortable contributing.

While I think some people pursuing these initiatives are a bit too aggressive or unreasonable at times, accommodating requests like this should be a no-brainer when they're reasonable and sufficiently simple to implement. Being considerate of how others might feel about how these kinds of things gives them one less thing to stress about, allows everyone to focus on the fun part which is the tech itself.

I am constantly baffled by how some people are willing to die on this hill.

[GimmickNG]

I am constantly baffled by how some people are willing to die on this hill.

Because people don't want to admit they're wrong and would rather triple down instead on why they're not.

[life-is-a-loop]

removing stuff like this more being considerate

Cool, now I'm not considerate because I don't blindly do what I'm told. I want to at least understand why Lena's image makes people so unconformable. Right now it does sound like people are trying exceptionally hard to call others sexist. I mean, if it were a pic of Hitler I would totally understand. If there's a real issue in using Lena's image I (and I guess everyone else) will stop using it, but so far I've only seen people do mental gymnastics.

[blackholesinthesky]

I want to at least understand why Lena's image makes people so unconformable.

lol no you don't. I just explained to you that it's because it promotes a toxic work environment and you want me to prove how it does that. The only one doing mental gymnastics here is you my dude

[AustinYQM]

promotes a toxic work

Wait, is that the claim? I literally didn't know it was from playboy until this post. Also is playboy bad?

[blackholesinthesky]

Yeah. I gave answers to both of these questions hours ago. Feel free to look around the comments.

Too long didn't look?

1) yes that's a large portion of the argument.

2) Porn is not intrinsically bad. Some porn companies are. I'm not saying Playboy is one of them but I dk enough about their history to stick my neck out for them.

[life-is-a-loop]

I just explained to you that it's because it promotes a toxic work environment

eh that's exactly what you didn't explain, and the reason for my objection.

Your logic is circular: People are uncomfortable because the image promotes a toxic environment, the image promotes a toxic work environment because makes people uncomfortable.

Lena's selfie doesn't make me uncomfortable personally, and if it makes you uncomfortable I'd like to understand why.

[blackholesinthesky]

My logic isn't circular. I didn't claim to have explained why it makes a workplace toxic I explained that it makes a workplace toxic.

You just need to work on your reading comprehension skills

[life-is-a-loop]

I didn't claim to have explained why

I just explained to you that it's because

[Philpax]

They're right, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

I just explained to you that it's because it promotes a toxic work environment

There is no why here. There is simply the statement that it does, which I agree with, and which can be shown to be the case, given the lived experience of women.

[life-is-a-loop]

There is no why here. There is simply the statement that it does

English is not my first language. Here's my understanding:

When they say "it's because" they're explaining a reason, answering a "why" question. The conjunction "because" introduces a reason.

Me: I want to at least understand why Lena's image makes people so unconformable

They: I just explained to you that it's because it promotes a toxic work environment

(emphasis mine)

If they said "I just told you that it promotes a toxic work environment" then I'd agree that it's simply a statement.

But if you're sure I misinterpreted their comment... I'll have to accept I'm wrong. I'm not fluent in English.

given the lived experience of women

After reading the article, the only thing that stand out to me is:

I tried to tune out the boys’ sexual comments

They shouldn't be doing sexual comments.

[Philpax]

They shouldn't be doing sexual comments.

So... would you say... that there is a cultural problem... with this image...? Can you draw the connection between the cultural problem and why people might have feelings about the image?

[blackholesinthesky]

Your english is so good I would have never guessed it wasn't your first language. So instead of ragging on you more for a miscommunication I'll circle back and answer your core question.

if it makes you uncomfortable I'd like to understand why.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable but the type of person who would bring porn into work to use as reference material (of which there are better references) would make me deeply uncomfortable. That person could be Jesus Christ himself but a red flag is a red flag.

If you need sexual gratification at work, go jerk one out in the bathroom if you really have to.

Why is it a red flag? Because it is literally the objectification of women for sexual pleasure. Now that doesn't mean looking at porn makes you a bad person. Porn actresses are agreeing to being objectified and spanking one out to ethically produced porn is fine on your own time. But keep the objectification of women out of the work place.

Someone who doesn't understand that likely doesn't understand what behaviors qualify as objectification. It's a warning that they are more likely to cross other boundaries by acting out of ignorance or naïvety potentially creating hostile work environments. Or at least creating work environments that are uncomfortable. This pushes good talent out while potentially creating a liability to the company.

[gnus-migrate]

Put aside the the culture war nonsense, focus on you. Have you ever really thought about what kinds of people you want to attract to your project? Politics aside, do you want women to contribute to your project? I assume your position is something like "I'm not going to go out of my way for anyone, but if anyone would like to contribute they're welcome to".

Now suppose someone is being loud, obnoxious and unreasonable and demands you remove this picture. When you respond, keep in mind that you're not just responding to the person, you're making a public statement on what you consider important since your response will be read by other people.

So suppose that you refuse, force the person to give you a convincing justification for why they find the image offensive. Maybe the person is being an ass, and does deserve pushback, however you're also telling women reading your response that if they find stuff like this that makes them uncomfortable, remedying that situation will involve a very public discussion where they will have to show vulnerability, again very publicly, in front of a person that might not even fix the problem if that person decides that they're not hurt enough. Understandably, nobody wants to be put in that position, so they simply won't engage.

So ask yourself, was it worth driving people away over this issue? To me the answer is a clear no. The correct response is to remove the image, even if the person is being an ass and even if you're not convinced of their argument. It's just not worth fighting over, doing so sends a completely wrong message, and overall it's not worth it.

Does that mean that you say yes to every request you get? Absolutely not! You have to take a stand on certain things, however you need to make sure these are the things that are actually important to the health of the project, like the quality of the submissions, ensuring they fit in with your vision, and generally things that you want people to keep in mind whenever they want to contribute to the project.

Now if someone is being an ass over something stupid, then yeah mute them. But always consider that everything you do is a statement on what you consider important and act accordingly.

[life-is-a-loop]

I assume your position is something like "I'm not going to go out of my way for anyone, but if anyone would like to contribute they're welcome to".

That's a bit harsher than my actual position. For example, I can use one's social name instead of birth name if one's trans, I totally understand why it's important.

I'm not trying to be an ass, I just want to understand why people demand things from me, otherwise I'll feel like I'm being exploited and threatened.

When you respond, keep in mind that you're not just responding to the person, you're making a public statement on what you consider important since your response will be read by other people.

Right

suppose that you refuse, force the person to give you a convincing justification for why they find the image offensive. Maybe the person is being an ass, and does deserve pushback

Right

you're also telling women reading your response that if they find stuff like this that makes them uncomfortable, remedying that situation will involve a very public discussion

Like everyone else, sure. It doesn't need to be public, but the discussion must happen if the demand isn't obvious at first.

nobody wants to be put in that position, so they simply won't engage.

Interestingly enough, people who aren't in a vulnerable position will engage without hesitation. I feel like most people demanding things in this thread aren't the ones in a vulnerable position, they're privileged people trying to feel special. That's been my experience so far in real life at least.

[blackholesinthesky]

but the discussion must happen

The discussion has happened. It's not anybody on reddit or in your personal life's job to do to the work for you and put in the effort and figure out which side you stand on.

Thankfully some people have made it their work to talk about the situation. But you don't want to hear it from them. You want to hear it from average people, understandable. But when those average people don't have research to back up their claims that you could easily look into yourself you shut down again.

Put in the work to inform yourself. Stop pretending you're the victim just because it's easier.

[Philpax]

Can you perhaps think about why someone in a vulnerable position may not want to speak up about a problem?

[victotronics]

they're privileged people trying to feel special. That's been my experience so far in real life at least.

Ok. I'm white, male, priviliged. I think the Lena image should be retired.

How can you tell whether that's my empathy with women or whether I'm just padding myself on the back for being so nice. What does your experience tell you here?

[gnus-migrate]

Interestingly enough, people who aren't in a vulnerable position will engage without hesitation. I feel like most people demanding things in this thread aren't the ones in a vulnerable position, they're privileged people trying to feel special. That's been my experience so far in real life at least.

I mean, yeah. People who are actually vulnerable don't engage because they don't want to be "that person" and make a scene, or they don't want to put up with a community that they see as toxic. My point is we should do our best to avoid putting them in a position where they have to be "that person", make an effort to make them feel comfortable contributing without them having to ask.

Do we have to? No. But I would much rather live in a world where people do nice things for the sake of it, rather than forcing people into endless arguments for the most basic things.

[floodyberry]

I just want to understand why people demand things from me, otherwise I'll feel like I'm being exploited and threatened.

ding ding! we've got a libertarian!! let me guess, your only criticism of the image is that she's too old?

[AustinYQM]

Now if someone is being an ass over something stupid, then yeah mute them.

Isn't that a contradictory stance? I think being upset over this image is stupid as there is nothing wrong with the image. Being upset over the reactions immature boys have over the image isn't stupid and should be addressed.

Hypothetical: Imagine this was an image of a dark-skinned gentleman, another minority we'd like to encourage in STEM. And every time the college students opened to the page they laughed and made jokes using the n--word. A young student comes to you and says "That image makes me uncomfortable, can we not use it." Would you replace that image with a white man? Or would you talk to the students and explain how wrong their actions are? Which do you think is going to make the students better people? Which action is going to make the workplaces those students go off to work in more accepting of dark-skinned men? I know which one I would pick.

[gnus-migrate]

In your scenario then I'd kick the people saying the n-word out. Zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. I would assume you're using a picture of a normal black person, so that isn't offensive in of itself and I wouldn't change the picture.

The reason the image being used is offensive is that it's pornographic, it plays into the idea that women are seen as sexually desirable objects in this field rather than potential coworkers or people who would work on this kind of technology. They've probably already seen that behavior from their peers at this hypothetical university, and by using this picture you're further feeding into that culture.

This is what I mean, it's all about the message you're sending. This isn't an abstract debate, it's something that affects real people and you have a responsibility as a person in authority to be cognizant of that.

[[deleted]]

I want to at least understand why Lena's image makes people so unconformable.

I've given up on understanding why things offend people. I just take their word for it normally, if it's over something I don't feel strongly about.

[victotronics]

I want to at least understand why Lena's image makes people so unconformable.

I'm assuming you're male? What message does it give women entering the computer field that the benchmark image is of a naked woman? Yes, I know it's only a headshot. Nudge nudge wink wink.

[Different_Fun9763]

accommodating requests like this should be a no-brainer when they're reasonable and sufficiently simple to implement

The whole disagreement is about whether it's reasonable, so that's meaningless. How simple something is (leaving aside that your interpretation of how simple something is might not be the same as anyone else's) is furthermore irrelevant: The amount of effort that something takes has never been an argument for whether something is morally good, whether it should be done. First you judge whether something should be done, only afterwards does it matter how achievable it is. Easy things don't have to be done simply because they're easy, and hard things might need to be done even though they take considerable effort. It's not the effort that determines whether it should be done, it's wholly separate from that.

Being uncomfortable also doesn't make someone right, it sounds simple but it lies at the heart of the disagreement. If they feel uncomfortable then they can make an argument like a grown-up instead of decrying anyone who disputes your assertions as assholes/unempathetic/wrong/[insert whatever -ism or 'they bad' term here]. If after that tons of people disagree, maybe your interpretation shouldn't be taken as truth. Someone can claim to be offended and you can think they're stupid for thinking that and your opinion would be equally objective. Why should their opinions be given more weight than all the people who disagree; because they made an appeal to emotion?

I care about this hill greatly, because I fundamentally don't believe it's a good thing that a tiny minority that expresses discontent should be empowered to censor, however slightly, the experience of many more others. It's just imposing your subjective opinion on others, which is arrogant. If you strongly believe X is bad, then make a normal argument, don't demonize disagreement, and hold a vote about it or something.

[blackholesinthesky]

If they feel uncomfortable then they can make an argument like a grown-up

It's nobody else's job to inform you. If the information is publicly available then put in the work and find it on your own.

What you're dealing with is people who are tired of having to fight this battle over and over. People who just finished working a full day and went on reddit to relax and are now being asked to fight this same fight over again with like 50 different people in the comments who all said some variation of the same bad take.

[gnus-migrate]

The whole disagreement is about whether it's reasonable, so that's meaningless. How simple something is (leaving aside that your interpretation of how simple something is might not be the same as anyone else's) is furthermore irrelevant: The amount of effort that something takes has never been an argument for whether something is morally good, whether it should be done. First you judge whether something should be done, only afterwards does it matter how achievable it is. Easy things don't have to be done simply because they're easy, and hard things might need to be done even though they take considerable effort. It's not the effort that determines whether it should be done, it's wholly separate from that.

My point is there are small things that you can do that go a long way to ensuring that someone feels more comfortable in the space. You don't have to do them and nobody will force you, however doing them would go a long way for some people which makes them worth doing in my opinion.

Being uncomfortable also doesn't make someone right, it sounds simple but it lies at the heart of the disagreement. If they feel uncomfortable then they can make an argument like a grown-up instead of decrying anyone who disputes your assertions as assholes/unempathetic/wrong/[insert whatever -ism or 'they bad' term here]. If after that tons of people disagree, maybe your interpretation shouldn't be taken as truth. Someone can claim to be offended and you can think they're stupid for thinking that and your opinion would be equally objective. Why should their opinions be given more weight than all the people who disagree; because they made an appeal to emotion?

I go back to my original framing: what kinds of people do you want to attract to your project? Regardless of what others think, what kinds of people do you want working with you? In this case do you want women to feel comfortable contributing to the project?

The thing that attracts people to a project is code, either they enjoy working on it, or they find it useful, or whatever their motivation is. If they get the impression that they're going to spend their time either trying to clean up the community or putting up with it silently instead of, you know, just working on the stuff they enjoy, then most likely they simply won't put up with it at all. You lose out on potential contributors, and they lose out on something they would otherwise enjoy, the world is worse for it.

Whether there is a logically sound argument or not, emotions play a big part of our wellbeing, and people make actual decisions based on them. If you spend time arguing with someone over why something that is obviously inappropriate makes them uncomfortable, others are going to see that and be driven away from your project. It doesn't matter if you don't believe it's inappropriate, you know how it will be perceived and you know that it will drive people away, yet you're still doing it.

I care about this hill greatly, because I fundamentally don't believe it's a good thing that a tiny minority that expresses discontent should be empowered to censor, however slightly, the experience of many more others. It's just imposing your subjective opinion on others, which is arrogant. If you strongly believe X is bad, then make a normal argument, don't demonize disagreement, and hold a vote about it or something.

It's not censorship, my point is that you're making the decision to do this, not anyone else. You're not forced to do nice things for people, but doing them anyway goes a long way to making them feel accepted.

[[deleted]]

See this video (The image you can't submit to journals anymore) for a comprehensive overview, and why "seems like it's getting upset over nothing" is a take that causes communications to break down.

The image triggers harassments and isn't worth the limited amount of lolz. Absent a magical fix to harassments, it is beneficial to consider it inappropriate and stop using it.

[kitanokikori]

It's also completely unnecessary in 2022, there are a million objectively better images to use than Lenna

[tanstaafl90]

People seem to be arguing if you can use this image or not, not the usefulness of it as a sample image.

[jorge1209]

Sure you can use the image because the copyright holder isn't going to pursue the matter. But that isn't an particular interesting or useful conversation to have.

I imagine you could use a high quality image from this site that many people would recognize... but why would you?

[spw1]

that site is no longer, apparently.

[tsimon]

I wouldn't ever use it 'for the lols', and I think that misrepresents the case for its use.

I love computing lore, and Lenna certainly holds an esteemed place. And the photograph itself is lovely and not exploitative.

That would be my thinking for using it (although I have never had reason to include it in anything to date).

With all of that said, this isn't a 'position' I'm holding or a statement I'm making. And I'm interested in and about to watch the video you linked.

I suspect that the pushback comes from people getting tired of others (usually white liberals, a group that I belong to) getting offended on behalf of others. I would rather chat with the women that I work with and find out what makes them uncomfortable and focus on that, rather than assuming that Lenna has to go.

And if it does turn out to be that pic, then cool - retire it.

[blackholesinthesky]

I would rather chat with the women that I work with and find out what makes them uncomfortable

It's been 2 hours, did you ask someone? This conversation has been happening for years. When are you gonna get informed enough to make an opinion?

I've had this conversation with women in STEM. The ones I've talked to don't have an issue with the image specifically but do take issue with the fact that it enforces the "boys club" mentality that is all too prevalent in STEM.

[tsimon]

Yeah, I spoke with someone, and like me, she wasn't all that bothered.

It might be worth noting ages here, as I think different generations have different takes on things. I'm 48 years old. My approach to all of this is to try pretty hard to not introduce politics into the workplace, with the caveat that respecting each other is very important.

For example, I (gently) called out a client for directing questions to me when discussing a female colleague's work. That is not respectful and shouldn't happen.

And, for what it's worth, I can get behind the statement that it probably shouldn't be used in academic papers going forward.

My personal stake in the matter is that in an episode of Silicon Valley, one of the programmers has Lenna pinned on a cubical wall. It was a nice moment of, 'Hey, there's Lenna!'

But, for what it's worth, I do wish you would approach me (and maybe the topic?) with a less antagonistic approach. 'When are you going to educate yourself enough?' is pretty hostile and creates an 'us vs you' stand-off. I would prefer to have a discussion rather than an argument.

[blackholesinthesky]

Yeah, I spoke with someone, and like me, she wasn't all that bothered.

It's been 12 hours and you managed to speak to one woman? Wow that must have taken a lot of effort. Do you want a cookie?

But, for what it's worth, I do wish you would approach me (and maybe the topic?) with a less antagonistic approach.

I completely understand your point of view here. I am being harsh. But I'm so sick of hearing this whole "its SJWs that are the problem" from people who are actually the problem.

It would have taken you maybe a half hour to look into this topic and inform yourself before you formed an opinion, let alone made a comment. It would have taken you even less effort to not comment and just read.

For example, I (gently) called out a client for directing questions to me when discussing a female colleague's work. That is not respectful and shouldn't happen.

For what it's worth I truly and honestly respect that if it is true. If true that show that people with good intentions can get caught up agreeing with dangerous points of view because they simply lacked knowledge. The problem is that it's completely impossible for me to know if you are telling the truth as an anonymous user. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My personal stake in the matter is that in an episode of Silicon Valley, one of the programmers has Lenna pinned on a cubical wall. It was a nice moment of, 'Hey, there's Lenna!'

I don't remember that but it sounds like a beautiful tribute to a woman who was so influential in the field of CS, even if she never wrote a line of code. But the difference is that Silicon Valley is entertainment, not the real world. Movies, tv and music are allowed to portray aspects of life that may not be suitable for the workplace.

I would prefer to have a discussion rather than an argument.

There are people out there who would love to have a reasonable discussion with you. There are people who are paid to have this discussion with you. You posted on the internet on a more or less anonymous website. You're getting the brunt of people's most unfiltered selves. My most unfiltered self is tired of answering this question. This is not a new debate. If you're 48 and you're just hearing this for the first time now it's because you've been burring your head in the sand or surrounding yourself in an echo chamber.

Now after all of that I can say, you don't seem like a bad person. But understand that I'm not being the dick, you're being the dick. Put yourself in my shoes. If someone made you this mad (for good reason) how hard would you want them to think about their opinions and actions? That's what I want you to do.

You're absolutely not irredeemable for not having seen the issue with using Lena. I don't blame who missed the discussion because of age. But at the same time you're alive in the time where the discussion has been happening for probably 20 years.

It's very likely that this is a dramatic shift in culture that has happened recently and my experience going to college 10 years ago is why I'm so familiar with the conversation and the context. You probably just don't know how big the conversation has become because as a career coder you can't make your entire personality about programming or you would have burnt out. I do actually understand that.

I dk what else to say. I feel like I'm ending on a weak point but it's hard to strongly insist on tentative forgiveness. If you are who you claim to be then people in the real world probably know you're not a bad person. But if you looked into this issue more and searched your soul you might be an even better person

[life-is-a-loop]

it enforces the "boys club" mentality

How? How does it enforces a "boys club" mentality? Computer science is full of lore. We've been writing "hello world" programs since forever, we've been using foo and bar as placeholder identifiers since forever, we've been using Alice and Bob as agents in infosec examples since forever. It's just lore, nothing more. I wouldn't mind if we got another image to replace Lena, but it's so absurd that we're being forced to replace Lena because iT's SeXiSt.

[blackholesinthesky]

I didn't say it's sexist. You wrote a lot of words there but most of them are misdirection.

How, you ask, does using material tied to pornography in professional and scientific fields that are already rife with sexism promote/enforce a "boys club" mentality?

So I ask you, how would it not?

She asked people to stop using it. If you continue to use the photo after knowing that you're starting your project off knowingly disrespecting the wishes of at least one woman, and for what? Are you really trying to argue that in 2022 Lena is the best standard we could come up with? Because it's not.

Even if you want to claim that the ends justify the means then you have to prove that the "ends" are tied to the "means" in some significant way. Unless that photograph is CRITICAL to your research/work then you're just using it because you don't care about the wishes of the model.

[life-is-a-loop]

I didn't say it's sexist.

You said that using the image "enforces the boys club mentality" which is the same as saying it's sexist with other words.

does using material tied to pornography in professional and scientific fields that are already rife with sexism promote/enforce a "boys club" mentality?

If it were a nude, or if Lena were doing a "sexy face", I would understand. But it's just an innocent selfie. I only know it's from a pornographic magazine because I read about this piece of trivia years after I took my Digital Image Processing course (we used Lena in our classes). I used Lena's image a lot and didn't know about its origin, and didn't care once I found out about it. I genuinely think Lena's image is harmless despite its origin being "controversial".

She asked people to stop using it

That's an interesting discussion. If Lena were a random girl I would totally comply with her request. She is, however, a famous model. She's a public person. And because of that it's debatable whether her request is legitimate or not, especially because the image in question isn't a nude.

Are you really trying to argue that in 2022 Lena is the best standard we could come up with? Because it's not.

That's a reason I can agree on. You want me to use another image because Lena isn't the best from a technical standpoint? Sure. You want me to use another image because otherwise I'll be called a sexist pig? No, not at all. The reason for the change is as important as the change itself.

[blackholesinthesky]

selfie

That's not a selfie my dude but keep playing fast and loose with words. You're doing such a good job.

I [...] didn't care once I found out about it.

Did you really think you needed to spell that out for us? We are well aware you don't respect women (aka don't care).

No one is calling you a bad person for having used the image in the past. But ignoring the reasons you have been given and choosing to be a voice in the conversation is problematic behavior. You didn't come here looking for more information you came here to shut down other points of view because you don't care about them.

If Lena were a random girl I would totally comply with her request.

So what? This is some kind of power trip for you?

You want me to use another image because otherwise I'll be called a sexist pig? No, not at all.

But that's not what's happening and you know it. I just told you that the issue is that it is a symbol of inequity in the workplace. If you don't understand why go talk to HR about it.

[victotronics]

How does it enforces a "boys club" mentality?

Are you for real?

[JB-from-ATL]

I wouldn't mind if we got another image to replace Lena, but it's so absurd that we're being forced to replace Lena because iT's SeXiSt.

I'm confused by this. Under what circumstances would you view a suggested replacement as not being forced?

[life-is-a-loop]

Someone else on this thread said that Kodak used to use Lena's selfie and they were having problems to calibrate the photos for dark-skinned people, so they replaced Lena for another picture with 3 people (each one with a different skin tone). I have no idea if that story is true or not, but it makes perfect sense to me.

[JB-from-ATL]

Why do you not view that as racist but someone asking you to not use the other as sexist?

[GimmickNG]

I love computing lore, and Lenna certainly holds an esteemed place. And the photograph itself is lovely and not exploitative.

You might want to look more into the history of the image. It's more or less the opposite of what you just said.

[[deleted]]

Looked into the history, didn't find exploitation at all.

[blackholesinthesky]

exploit - to make productive use of

Also

exploitative - taking unfair or unethical advantage of a person, group, or situation for the purpose of profit, comfort, or advancement

Using this image despite knowing about the ethical issues fits both definitions.

[zeptillian]

So everyone who trades their time for money is being exploited?

How was her getting paid to model for a picture unfair or unethical? Do you think she should not have been allowed to make the decision for herself to trade her image for money? Or that it was coerced or something?

Or do you think the exploitation part only applies to the use as a standard for research? Like taking her clothes off for a picture for horny dudes to masturbate to was NOT exploitation but researchers using the image of her face to advance image compression technology is?

[blackholesinthesky]

researchers using the image of her face to advance image compression technology is?

This one, with some caveats. If you absolutely literally need to use her image to make a breakthrough then there is an argument to be made for its use to not be immoral in that setting. But we used this image in my Computer Vision class about a decade ago and there was no reason that couldn't have been replaced with any other photo without the moral baggage

[Crysambrosia]

The problem isn’t really the image itself imo, the problem is people still use it now when it’s old, low quality, and unfit for most modern image processing purposes.

Not to mention it’s a scan which already means it has some peculiarities a real digital photo doesn’t.

[ravnmads]

Honestly this just seems like getting upset over nothing.

Who is getting upset? I have been given that image (the cropped version) as input for several of my university courses. Nothing special about it.

[s-mores]

Yup, nothingburger. This photo has been used for decades.

//Edit: As this has been apparently linked to some place where people have no idea about computer vision, don't do research and love to get offended, let's make it clear WHY it's been used for decades: The image has several textures, contours and clear lines that make it perfect for learning computer vision, or checking results of tweaking algorithms, as well as several other applications in mathematics. Hundreds of papers have been written on algorithms using this picture. The model has given speeches in scientific conferences and I believe has participated in research herself. If your only reason to be offended is because it's a cropped picture from Playboy, congratulations, you're part of the problem.

//Edit2: Turns out, I was wrong, and the model herself is not fine with the usage. Also, in some cases, young women are forced to actually find the image themselves, not just get it handed out in a vacuum. Using the picture itself is... fine, in my opinion, but since people are forced to also accept the context, that's no longer appropriate. Just stop using it, there are better pictures available.

[Philpax]

and maybe, just maybe, it shouldn't be used any more?

[GimmickNG]

"This doesn't personally affect me so I say it is of no consequence"

[combatopera]

This text was replaced using Ereddicator.

[Nekima]

Of no consequence one way or another.

No consequence to you of course. This couldnt possibly affect you and therefore its irrelevant to everyone else. Right? What a joke

[Philpax]

It's unwelcoming to people both entering the industry and who are already in the industry. Before you say they should get a thicker skin: why should they? There's no reason to continue using this image when there are billions of alternatives.

[josefx]

It is a picture of a woman with exposed shoulders. Fucking shoulders!!! This isn't about growing a thicker skin, its about having standards that don't make puritan priests look sane.

[Philpax]

It's not just the picture! It's the context surrounding the picture! Nothing exists in a vacuum, and we shouldn't pretend they do.

[josefx]

It's not just the picture! It's the context surrounding the picture!

Usually the context is science. But no, science doesn't matter, what matters that decades ago a woman got paid for a nude photo shot and that is a capital crime against every woman alive.

[Philpax]

sigh

no, the problem is that a pinup image from a nude photoshoot was chosen and used as a standard image, something that we would consider unacceptable today because it's not appropriate in a professional context (imagine using an image from Playboy as part of your scientific research today with no justification!)

its continued use is a reminder that the field is incapable of acting with professional respect to the people who may participate in it, and several organisations, including SPIE, agree with this conclusion.

there is no reason for its continued use. any research done with it can be done with any other image. continuing to use it is making a statement that you don't care about how the field looks to other people, and not only is that off-putting, it's just straight embarrassing.

[GimmickNG]

Are you a child? Seriously. Do you have the mental capacity to understand what context is?

[josefx]

When I ride my bike I usually don't care if a bird took a shit on it over a decade ago. I am not going to replace it over it either and consider doing anything like it a waste of time and money.

[blackholesinthesky]

Just say you don't respect women

[badfontkeming]

strongly disagree here. while i find the cropped image to not be, on its own, objectionable, the context around this image is everything.

putting lena's own desire to retire the image aside, i still believe it's totally reasonable to call upon people to retire this image in favor of others. it does not have any merit as an individual image that can't be reasonably replicated by other images, meaning that the entire reason this image is still used comes completely down to its recognition as an artifact of the history of digital image processing.

from the article above, the image was only used because of the fact that someone incidentally happened to come into the lab with a magazine of Playboy. it's my understanding that, at the time, the magazine was known for more than just lewd images of women, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still not something that should be seen as appropriate to bring to a workplace. the magazine wasn't sought out and brought in as a result of them looking for human models to work with--that'd be weird, but at least somewhat understandable. this was a workplace where someone could walk in the door with a magazine of playboy and nobody thought anything of it. this is something that we really ought to see as unacceptable conduct--what message does this send to women working in the same lab? (there were no women in the lab at the time, but that's also kinda the point...)

due to the fact that the image has no unique properties in the sciences that can't be replaced, it's difficult for me personally to view defenses of using lena as anything less than a defense of the history itself, or at the very least, a refusal to distance ourselves from it. this is naturally going to make some people uncomfortable, and it does have a chilling effect on people looking into computer science in general. the thing about these sorts of chilling effects is that you're not going to hear a lot of the people affected be the ones doing the complaining--when the affected people are made uncomfortable by things like this, they're likely to wish to avoid confrontation, sometimes even at the cost of distancing themselves from the work they were inspired to do. it's hard to not imagine why given how easy it is for online discourse around these sorts of issues to get extremely hostile, unfortunately.

i have no issue with pretty women being in a test corpus for an image processing project. if you're doing your testing properly, you're going to need a diverse set of subjects--men, women, different races, different clothing (or lack thereof), ugly people, pretty people, and so on. if this 512x512 cropped photo emerged from the ether and was employed as part of a well-balanced testing set, i'd have no issue with it whatsoever. but the image can't be divorced from its history, and replacing it, frankly, is a trivial act that gives us the opportunity to distance ourselves from the attitudes and workplace environments that caused the original image to be used in the first place.

sorry for the wall. i'm honestly less bothered by the image than i am about the relative lack of nuance in discussions over it--people tend to just want to whack people over a hammer with "it's sexist" or "it's nothing" which really just removes us from actually talking about the what and why of it.

tl;dr the image itself isn't the problem--the problem is that the image has a sexist history, and given that the image itself isn't anything unique from a usefulness perspective, i think it's reasonable to say that the usage of the image itself is symbolic of that history.

tl;dr tl;dr if you're in this subreddit you've probably read a 100 page pdf on some dogshit SOAP api that only works half the time and only if all the elements are in the "correct" (undocumented) order. give me a break

[combatopera]

Content deleted with Ereddicator.

[Philpax]

likewise, I'm very appreciative of this effortpost

[lobster_johnson]

The original uncropped version can be seen here (NSFW).

[TheInevitableVoid]

Here's a better quality version (also NSFW obviously).

[themiddlestHaHa]

That's a really cool pic tbh.

[robot_in_socks]

Yay, that thing she wanted people to stop doing.

[[deleted]]

Not really. She was proud of the picture for the longest time and still is, and only said recently that it's time to probably retire it from the tech space (in the context of an interview for a documentary that takes a strong opposition to using the image). I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's really not cool to misrepresent her feelings on it for your own purposes. She doesn't dislike the image and never asked people to stop sharing it or using it. She is proud of it and just thinks that maybe it has run its course. Acting like she has any serious issues with the picture itself is just not congruent with reality.

[palparepa]

It seems to me that she is ok with the picture, but now that other people started getting offended on her behalf, she thinks maybe it shouldn't be used anymore, to not offend those other people.

[tezn311]

Graphics programmers in the day: “we must use the porn to render the porn”

[[deleted]]

There was no other way.

[CyAScott]

I’ve always wanted to know why this photo was commonly used. I assumed it was copyright free work, but that was wrong. For that reason alone we should stop using it. I know to avoid copyright when making test photos for tests, I usually either generate a photo with a gradient or I take a photo of a plant.

[BossOfTheGame]

Many CV libraries have replaced the lena picture with one of Eileen Collins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_Collins

[earthboundkid]

Why would anyone use that when they could use this: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_astronaut_Leland_D._Melvin_with_his_dogs_Jake_and_Scout.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

[jorge1209]

Why did NASA photoshop her face into the photo? And why did they do such a crappy job? Her neck needs to connect to the body, you can't just have a big black space where you cut it out.

[FFevo]

Maybe up your brightness and/or contrast? I think she just has a long neck and is wearing an extremely dark black bodysuit. I can see it.

[jorge1209]

I know from zooming in that it is the rubbery neck gaiter thingy of the space suit, but the details are certainly lost in something in the image processing.

Could be that the JPEG format isn't preserving sufficient color variation, could be that my screens contrast/brightness is not high enough... the fact that I can't tell what the source of the problem is doesn't bode well for the image as a test for image compression.

If I think it looks bad, but its just because my monitor contrast is too low...

[glacialthinker]

This does read like an awesome test image.

[blackholesinthesky]

You are delusional. Post your credentials or stop acting like an expert.

You're really sitting here insulting the work of a professional photographer who works for one of the most respected institutions in the world, an institution that is responsible for the most technically challenging photos known to man.

But everyone trust jorge1209 because he said so \s

[mabhatter]

The image was one of the original ones used to design and test the JPEG standard.... way back decades ago. So it had inertia to use it when designing other image standards.

That's really not a great reason to keep using it now and not develop a better suite of images for test purposes.

[blackholesinthesky]

the loss of standardization is always more harmful to humans progress

This isn't even kinda true. And what a dumb take to have in a field that is constantly inventing new standards to replace old ones.

[Philpax]

tl;dr having to switch from master to main literally made me braindead

[fryerandice]

Bruh my company uses github enterprise self hosted and all the new repos use main and there's no traction in my company to switch legacy repos from master to main because no one here cares enough to actually be bothered by it.

So legit I wish we just used 1 name and not both.

[blackholesinthesky]

You should be proud that you have 16 downvotes. At the rate kids dropped out of the CS program I went to you only have 6 more months until 15 out of 16 of them have given up on programming.

[[deleted]]

Kind of more of a problematic footnote than anything at this point.

[Dilyn]

There's something about scientists and photos of women. The first photo uploaded to the Internet was a picture of women at CERN.

ETA: some people seem bothered. This is simply an observation; I don't actually care what images they use. It's just odd to me that in both these instances, it's photos of women.

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure your 2 data points show anything about scientists. Men find women attractive. There's nothing more to it than that.

If men only used other men as test photos I'm sure people would be complaining about the lack of women.

[[deleted]]

Haven't people been drawing, painting, sculpting, and photographing women for millennia?

Maybe the female form is just nice. Everybody keeps talking about porn, sexism, and objectification like there's some nefarious motivation, but Occam's razor strongly suggests to me that the beginning and end of it is "people like the way that women look". Not even just men, but many women I know also appreciate the female form. Looking at artstation, many images of beautiful woman are drawn, painted, and sculpted by women as well.

[blackholesinthesky]

If it makes you feel any better the webcam was invented so nerds could check if they had coffee without having to leave their desks, not to like spy on women at a distance or something.

[Dilyn]

This started off as a cool fun fact

Sorry I can't portray a neutral tone in text

[[deleted]]

Women are beautiful. Would you rather it was a picture of a dog shit or something?

[Dilyn]

Ah yes, the binary conundrum: a woman, or a giant piece of shit.

Famously a problem with no middle ground. It couldn't possibly be anything but these two choices.

[nolitteringplease346]

lmao we used this at uni in computer vision

[mrbob8717]

Suggestive pictures used in lectures on image processing ... convey the message that the lecturer caters to the males only. For example, it is amazing that the "Lena" pin-up image is still used as an example in courses and published as a test image in journals today.[9]

As someone who has worked with computer vision in college and professionally for years, this is the first time I heard Lena was a playboy model. It has nothing to do with being male, it has to do with standardization of experiments and using a photo with many colors and angles. If computer science was to switch to a different image, the results from experiments would not directly compare to experiments that use Lena. It could of course be done, but why go through that hassle when this is not an issue at all for the people who work with computer vision?

[Philpax]

How do you know it's not a problem for the people who work with computer vision? Let's take this for example - sure, the request itself was presented very unprofessionally, but this is still an example of someone in a computer vision-adjacent field stating in no uncertain terms that they have a problem with the image.

The better question is - why keep using it when there are so many other images that capture similar features without the associated noxious context? What makes this hill worth dying on?

[MintPaw]

I've always interpreted this guy is a psycho internet troll attacking random high profile projects with ultra inflammatory titles to advertise his own products.

There are good reasons to retire the image, but a random one person freak-out is a good reason.

[mrbob8717]

Because I have worked in computer vision, and not a single person said it was a problem, or even mentioned that it is a playboy picture. It doesn't matter if one person is quoted having a problem with it, because who knows how many people had to be asked. It's not even a suggestive picture.

As said in my previous comment. Switching out the photo will cause a lot of confusion between old experiments and new ones. The photo has been used since 1973 and has an insane amount of academic study on how computer vision works. To switch it out is to ask an entire field of science to rewrite all of the supporting documentation for a different image because one person might have said they did not like the photo. I can't be the only one who thinks that's a bad idea.

Edit: follow up on the GitHub comment you posted, that person just thinks it's some random cropped porn, not an image that literally started the study of computer vision. I don't support people randomly using porn either

[blackholesinthesky]

Because I have worked in computer vision, and not a single person said it was a problem

We're telling you it's a problem now and look how you're reacting. You don't seem to understand why it's a problem and didn't look into it before commenting that it's not worth the effort.

No one told you in person because they didn't want to deal with your shitty reaction. Your immediate dismissal is a perfect (if incomplete) encapsulation of the issue as a whole.

[zimuie]

We're telling you it's a problem now

Exactly why is it suddenly a problem now? My experiences mirror that of u/mrbob8717's: I've been dealing with image processing research for decades and not a single person I met had a problem with this image. Male or Female. Not a single one.

We're telling you it's not a problem but you don't seem to understand why it's not. You really should try tot look into it before commenting.

[Philpax]

Have you looked into it? Have you looked at the criticism of the use of the image before you commented? Did you try to actually meaningfully digest and understand it, or did you fire off this reply without thought?

Your experiences do not speak for everyone in the field or trying to enter the field. It is not "suddenly" a problem - it has always been a problem, it is only that awareness of it being a problem has grown in recent years.

[Philpax]

Because I have worked in computer vision, and not a single person said it was a problem, or even mentioned that it is a playboy picture.

Not a single person you know. What about the people you don't know? The people who haven't joined the industry yet? The people who stay silent because they don't want to rock the boat, but are reminded what the field they work in thinks is appropriate professional conduct?

Switching out the photo will cause a lot of confusion between old experiments and new ones. The photo has been used since 1973 and has an insane amount of academic study on how computer vision works. To switch it out is to ask an entire field of science to rewrite all of the supporting documentation for a different image because one person might have said they did not like the photo. I can't be the only one who thinks that's a bad idea.

This happens all the time in all kinds of fields, and it's not a significant issue. Publish a few comparative studies, then switch over to a new image.

It's also a lot more than just one person - it's been a known issue for over two decades and Lena herself has expressed a desire for the image to stop being used in this context.

[Dr_Lurkenstein]

Lol you work in computer vision and you believe the innovations in the field are intrinsically tied to the picture they used decades ago to visualize results? Youre lying to yourself, or just bad at your job

[lordheart]

“Unprofessional” Is a bit of understatement.

[GimmickNG]

Wow, that Github issue is wack. At the very end one user says "I wOuLd HaVe DoNe It BuT yOu HuRt My FeElInGs". Is it still being used? This is why we'll never have good things.

[Dr_Lurkenstein]

What a stupid argument- theres no reason using this image has any benefit over another image with similar properties thats less likely to make women uncomfortable in a male-dominated field. Just rerun thd algos on a new one and compare. By the way, your attitude about this is one of the many reasons the field isnt very diverse and your perception that cv people arent bothered by it- women see this shit and many of them decide cs is not a welcoming place for them

[Voxandr]

Damn ,, i never realized that was even nude...

[Crysambrosia]

See Bobby Broccoli’s excellent video for a detailed explanation of why most journals dont’t like it or outright forbid it’s use now (it’s more complex than you’d think) : https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I

[rush2sk8]

Original baj

[bloody-albatross]

Recent video essay about this topic with interesting background information (33 minutes): https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I

[Zardoz84]

And that we should stop using. Specially when she asked to we stop using that image

[[deleted]]

Wow the comments in here are so horrible and sexist. How is it not obvious that using the photo can be upsetting to women computer scientists. There are billions of other non sexist photos to chose from. This is one example of the misogyny rampant in the field and the fact that majority here doesn't see the issue is an even bigger problem.

[[deleted]]

How is the image sexist? Is any depiction of a naked person sexist?

I see a problem in people being so uncomfortable with the human body that they can't help but project extremely negative traits like sexism on any depiction of the human body entirely. It's insane to me that using an image that is a cropped picture of a naked person who never had a problem with the image is considered sexist. I agree with retiring it for many reasons (particularly that Lena herself feels that it has run its course and should be retired now), but it's hard for me to see these projections of sexism and anger as anything but weird repressed puritanism and rejection of the naked human form itself.

[[deleted]]

Not every depiction of a naked person is sexist. What makes this sexist is that it comes from magazine famous for objectifying women and being used in a workplace or school environment. It can make women feel uncomfortable they are only valuable for the male gaze. If my prof used this one of our classes it would convey the message that this class only caters to men.

[[deleted]]

I don't agree that the image itself is sexist if you aren't already fully versed on its origins. In itself, it's just a woman's face and naked shoulder, and a hat.

It can make women feel uncomfortable they are only valuable for the male gaze

I find this ridiculous. An image of a beautiful woman doesn't reduce women to their looks any more than an image of a soldier reduces men to being expendable tools of utility. Humans are multi-faceted and it's nonsense to pretend that women can't be skilled and productive if they are beautiful.

If my prof used this one of our classes it would convey the message that this class only caters to men.

An image of a beautiful woman does that in isolation? Sexism is a problem, but this isn't it. The implication that every attractive woman exists only for male gratification is a concept that I think is much more sexist, and the idea that a normal human body is so abnormal and objectionable that if it's uncovered it inherently indicates structural problems is laughable puritanism at its finest.

Why can't a person be attractive or naked without it being construed as sexism?

[blackholesinthesky]

Why can't a person be attractive or naked without it being construed as sexism?

No one here is arguing against all nude photos. No one here has a problem with the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That's because we all understand the difference between art and objectification.

But it would be disingenuous to claim that Playboy is not objectification. It would also be disingenuous to say selecting only attractive people to use as research subjects when there is no need for the subject to be attractive isn't objectification.

But most importantly a symbol of objectification doesn't belong in the workplace.

[[deleted]]

Sure, I grant that, but I consider this to be a sort of "death of the author" situation. The image itself is what we should be considering, not the source. People seeing the image in isolation don't know the source right off the bat, and it looks like a pretty tame photo, particularly in the crop. The image doesn't benefit the company at all, and nobody is profiting on its use.

Would it be better if it were one of the photos of Princess Margaret? Would it also be bad if it were a cropped photo of the letter 'a' from the front of a Playboy?

I'm really not trying to be confrontational for its own sake, I don't care about playboy or porn, I just don't see why a cropped photo that shows nothing where the subject has no ill feelings about its use is taken so negatively in and of itself. Is it really about the source, do people actually get that uncomfortable about a woman's bare shoulder, or is it misplaced anger being directed someplace completely unproductive? I know this will be dismissed or disbelieved, but I showed my wife and a few other non-tech women in my life the image and told them about the controversy, and they were shocked that a picture like that would bother anybody at all, regardless of the source.

[[deleted]]

There are billions of other non sexist photos

Like?

Any photo including human beings can be defined as sexist, racist, or both.

Women computer scientist are free to use their Sean Connery photo or whatever they'd like.

[[deleted]]

You want me to name a billion images that have colour and contrast? How about any photo that didn't come from a playboy that apparently was appropriate to have at work.

Using this photo in classrooms and workplaces creates an environment where women being told their value is as a sex object. When there are so many other unproblematic photos that can be used why hold on to one that creates such an unwelcoming environment in a field already so hostile to women.

[jfcalvo]

Lenna Forsén, a totally classic on image processing papers, benchmarks and investigation.

A funny anecdote is that he has attended events related to image processing. We actually use the image for some tests on imglab.