|
No digitally signed RAW format is ideal. But it
adds an additional hurdle to busy science teams, which find themselves under too
much pressure. Such a hurdle could "automatically" discourage them
from trying to fudge their image data. A mere possible request by the editor to
show unmodified data might already be a sufficient deterrent.
A RAW standard has already been proposed by Adobe.
And digital signature technology works rather well. Of course people could still
create a RAW image from JPEG or TIFF data, as you pointed out. But without
piping the data back into the FW of a digital camera, they won't obtain the
correct digital signature.
I would love to see great integrity in
science. But what I was reading in the science papers (e.g. Physics
Today) about the ethics in science (and the lack thereof) is rather
troubling. I don't think we "deserve" such science.
Gregor
A terrific idea. However, there is
no current standard for RAW formats among the various camera manufacturers.
This means that an arbitrary RAW image might not be readable by any of the
popular photo and image management software systems. And, of course, it is
always possible to take a TIFF image or even a compressed format like
JPEG, JPEG2000, etc. and convert it into a RAW format that is
indistinguishable from an original.
Benjamin Franklin once said that
people get the government they deserve (an observation that is very
appropriate for us today, I might add). But, without integrity we will get the
science we deserve!
Earl
--
E a r l C o x
Founder
and President
Scianta Intelligence, LLC
Turn Knowledge Into
Intelligence
w w w dot scianta dot
com
1289 N. Fordham Blvd. Suite
312
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
AUTHOR:
"The
Fuzzy Systems Handbook" (1994)
"Fuzzy Logic for Business and Industry"
(1995)
"Beyond Humanity: CyberEvolution and Future Minds"
(1996, with
Greg Paul, Paleontologist/Artist)
"The Fuzzy Systems Handbook, 2nd Ed."
(1998)
"Fuzzy Logic and Genetic Algorithms
for Data Mining and Exploration" (2005)
> This is
correct. In the past, people could perform magic with silver-based
>
materials. But a lot of skills were needed to modify a silver-based image
> without making it look too obvious. Today, with tools like Photoshop,
an
> image can be manipulated so easily that many grad students under
time
> pressure could (but hopefully do not!) "fix up" an image for
publication.
>
> I believe that digital camera makers must
incorporate the production of a
> digitally singned RAW image, which
preserves the RAW information. Then this
> material must be presented
to the editor together with the images for
> publication. The
referees must then decide if the images are acceptable for
>
publication in a scientific journal.
>
> Remember, a picture
speaks a thousand words. At least, the editor must
> ensure that the
picture is most likely telling the truth. By this immense
> flood of
scientific papers, we cannot assume that we only deal with
>
"reputable" scientists. "Vertrauen ist gut, Kontroller ist besser!" seems to
> be more prudent. Too much depends on a new lucrative research grant,
a
> condition that might lead to temptation.
>
>
Gregor
>
>
> "jacques jedwab" <jjedwab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> news:jjedwab-2204051715000001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...
> > In article <hUZ9e.1815$Xb4.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GTO"
> > <gregor_o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >
> >> If you have access to the magazine called
Nature, you might find the
> >> following article worth
reading:
> >>
> >> Helen Pearson, CSI: cell biology,
Nature Vol 434, p. 952-953 (2005).
> >>
> >> The
abstract of this paper:
> >> "Digital photography and
image-manipulation SW allow biologists to tweak
> >> their data as
never before. But there's a fine line between acceptable
> >>
enhancements and scientific misconduct."
> >>
> >> I
think it is time that also the people in charge of the Nikon Small
>
>> World
> >> Competition employ some of the measures
mentioned in this article. The
> >> danger of using Photoshop to
extensively "tweak" an image is all around
> >> us.
>
>>
> >> Gregor
> >
> > Faked photographs
on silver-based materials are as old as photography.
> >
> >
Data "enhancement", "manipulation", "statistical selection and
> >
highlighting" are not new. Petrologists (and biologists?) exchange
their
> > grass-root microscopical slides since long ago, and will
continue to do so
> > in the future. A reputable scientist will not
(or very seldom) put his/her
> > carrier at risk, when knowing that a
colleague or a reviewer could ask for
> > the original
material.
> >
> > J.J.
>
>
|
