#Adobe revel cleaner professional
The American Academy of Dermatology (1997) established a fairly clear policy in 1997, possibly making it the first professional society to go on record with specific digital image guidelines. 1994) and pathologists ( Furness 1997) expressed their concern about the potential for fraud, but the proposed guidelines were very general in nature. In the late 1990s, a short list of digital imaging guidelines was posted on the World Wide Web (Radiologists ( Richardson et al. Informal discussions on the Confocal and Microscopy listservers ( Archives of the Confocal listserver 1995 Archives of the Microscopy listserver 1998), as well as several short articles in Microscopy Today ( Oliver 1998 Revel 1993a, b), indicated that microscopists and microscopy core facility managers were trying to determine what was appropriate. At that time, there were no known cases of fraudulently manipulated digital images, but already journal editors were calling for the development of policies to guard against fraud and to determine boundaries for acceptable image manipulations ( Anderson 1994).
The scientific community first began to express concern about digital images in the early 1990s ( Anderson 1994 Taubes 1994).
#Adobe revel cleaner code
Scientists have not been as proactive as photojournalists in producing a code of ethics regarding the appropriate manipulation of digital images. The NPPA website includes an on-line ethics training module entitled “Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography” that was written in 1999 ( Long 1999). The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) (2004) has long had a professional code of ethics, last updated in 2004, and the Association drafted a statement of principle specific to digital images as early as 1990 (1990). Concerns regarding the truthfulness of images and the potential loss of credibility have been voiced since the early days of newspaper photography ( Wheeler 2002).
#Adobe revel cleaner full
In addition, the damage to the credibility of science caused by the publication of falsified image data has created a climate in which the full disclosure of image manipulations is becoming a requirement ( Nature 2009).Ī strong parallel can be drawn between scientific publication and photojournalism.
Many of the things that were done in the darkroom years ago are no longer appropriate choices for preparing digital images for publication. 2003 Rossner and Yamada 2004 Schekman 2008 Wager et al. 2008 Benos 2006 Castillo 2008 Committee on Ensuring the Utility and Integrity of Research Data in a Digital Age, National Academy of Sciences 2009 Couzin 2006 Nature Cell Biology Editorial 2004a, b, 2007, 2009 Nature Editorial 2006 Gravitz 2006 Guneri and Akdeniz 2004 Krueger 2002, 2005 MacKenzie et al. The scientific community is growing concerned that scientists are not taking sufficient care when handling digital image data ( Abraham 2007 Abraham et al. The charge-coupled device ( CCD) 1 technology allows the capture of digital images at high speed, high spatial resolution, and high bit depth (albeit, not always at the same time or with the same camera). In particular, semiconductor-based sensors have allowed microscopists (as well as astronomers, radiologists, et al.) to move away from photographic film and tube-based cameras. The transition to digital image data over the last two decades has provided scientists with a wealth of opportunities for furthering their research. These guidelines can be incorporated into lab meetings and graduate student training in order to provoke discussion and begin to bring an end to the culture of “data beautification”. This article proposes 12 guidelines for scientific digital image manipulation and discusses the technical reasons behind these guidelines. Thus they deal with what should or should not be done, but not the associated ‘why’ that is required for understanding the rules. Unfortunately, the guidelines provided often do not come with instructions to explain their importance. Journals and professional societies have begun to address the issue with specific digital imaging guidelines. The problem is twofold: (1) the very small, yet troubling, number of intentional falsifications that have been identified, and (2) the more common unintentional, inappropriate manipulation of images for publication. One growing concern in the scientific community is that digital images are not being handled with sufficient care. Because digital images are easier to manipulate than film images, new problems have emerged. Digital imaging has provided scientists with new opportunities to acquire and manipulate data using techniques that were difficult or impossible to employ in the past.
0 kommentar(er)
