Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Publication Condemns Photo-Manipulation
valdean writes "According to a recent article in the New York Times (registration and short biography required) scientific journals have begun to respond to a growing problem of photo-manipulation in submitted manuscripts. At The Journal of Cell Biology, a test developed in 2002 revealed that 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts had one or more illustrations that were manipulated to the point of violating the journal's guidelines. Examples included the duplication of images for re-presentation as a control experiment, making pictures prettier with the clone stamp tool, use of the contrast tool to hide data, and merging portions of several images so that they appear to be a single image. How were many of these scientists caught? They submitted layered Adobe Photoshop files that showed exactly what they had done."
It depends on the skills of the person manipulating the image, and the image quality. The higher resolution the picture, the easier it is to zoom in and spot anomalies. If the picture is craptastic to begin with, it's harder to see the differences (tough to tell if the blurring is a result of someone mucking with the picture, or just poor quality).
The biggest roadblock to telling whether an image is real or not is time, in my opinion. If you generally trust the person providing the photos and they're not too unbelievable, you probably won't spend time trying to figure out whether it's reliable or not.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
If they submitted multi-layed photoshop files, most of them probably were not concerned with getting caught. So they must not have thought what they were doing was unethical. And having the journal come up with some guidelines and a review process for images is hardly going to make a difference.
The problem is the attitude. If they think that modifying these images isn't unetherical, then how about the data? And how will you ever catch those people? It's just a sad state of affairs in this scientific community.
Unless I'm mistaken, the article never states that the scientists submitted layered Photoshop images that revealed their misdeeds. I find it very unlikely that a journal would ever accept an image in photoshop format -- they usually want press-ready formats like PDF, EPS, or JPG.
From the article, it sounds like the editors just fool around with brightness and contrast of submitted images, and that often reveals the discontinuities from an edit. However, the specifics are not in the article, so don't jump to conclusions.
Not because it exposed people who were fast and loose with their photos but because it brings up the whole issue of digital photo manipulation for entries. I recently submitted two photos for a local photo contest which were done from film.
When it came time to see the submitted photos I took my parents along so they could see how my prints stacked up to the others.
Of the roughly 30 prints that were submitted there were at least two I was sure had been manipulated and possibly one more. The one case was blatant. The submitter had done a poor cut and paste of a wood duck. The other was the merging of two photos which produced a very nice looking picture.
As more and more people use digital cameras and then PhotoShop (or other programs) the 'art' of photography goes away since the original photo can so easily be manipulated. Unlike in traditional photography where the negative or slide is the original and any manipulation of that original can be easily seen.
Personally I would like to see photo contests have two separate categories. One for film cameras and one for digital with the understanding that the digital photo may have been manipulated in a way beyond what traditional photos can be. Like the article I'm not talking about enhancing contrast since that can be done with different paper or chemical process for film photos but rather the addition or subtraction of wholesale items.
Yes, adding and removing objects from a film photo can be done but it is more labor-intensive and harder to pull off than with a photo manipulation program.
Granted, if people would just be honest about what they submit we wouldn't have to have this discussion but the same could be said about laws or notices to not do something.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The actual article is a bit more nuanced:
If a researcher manipulates only part of an image then the researcher is implicitly admitting that there was something in the image that they chose to ignore. On the other hand, if a researcher changes the contrast of the whole image to make it easier to see the patterns they are drawing their conclusions from, then they can always claim they really didn't notice the other stuff. Essentially, researchers have to avoid doing things that prove that they were deliberately dishonest.
All photographs are manipulations. None capture the exact data represented by the obect in real life.
Before photographing the item it lit, framed, lensed, exposed, and captured at a point in time. Plenty of room for manipulation.
So what's the difference between physical manipulation before the capture and digital manipulation after?
There is only honesty and dishonesty. Manipulation is a given.
You can mod me down, but you cannot call me a coward.
Altered photos are a good thing IF they are clearly labeled as "photo-illustration," "enhanced photograph," "composite photograph," or the like, with the original photos made available to the publisher and the peer reviewers or better yet to the general readership.
When studying a scientific photo, I don't want to be distracted by less-interesting bits of information - I want my attention drawn to the point the author is trying to make.
You only have a problem if the reader thinks he is looking at one thing when in fact he is looking at something else.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Today Adobe releases the 10-th release of its popular program "Photoshop". The hit feature in this release is that the software maker has forbidden all sort of image manipulation, answering concerns from the scientific community:
"There were numerous reports about photo manipulation in manuscripts from the scientific community. Few years back, when the government asked us to forbid opening images with scanned banknotes in them due to possibility for money conterfeiting, we responded and implemented the appropriate algorithms to comply. With this release, we're just taking the next step."
Among the features unaffected in Photoshop 10 remain zooming in/out and panning.
According to Adobe, Photoshop 10 will be available to purchase at retailers world-wide early next month.