Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don’t want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don’t know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? “What image processing tests”?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won’t disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It’s probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it’s gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
i think i’ve seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won’t benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
This is not porn; it’s an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren’t in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it’s not where you are looking.
It’s art, but it’s also porn. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s from Playboy, which is a porn magazine. Look at it all you want, but it isn’t appropriate for research papers. There are plenty of alternatives.
Edit: Part of the reason more women aren’t in the field is because they’re often seen as pieces of meat. They’re objectified. They don’t use any cropped male nude photos for test images, because the men weren’t lusting over them. It’s used because it was a field ruled by men, and women were often treated as objects.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn’t fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
It does not depict human genital organs in their sexual functions
It does not solely focus on the technical aspects of sexuality and sexual life, completely detached from the intellectual and personal layers
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don’t even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it’s rather an example of “deobjectification” because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
Pretend for a moment that you’re a woman. You go to the office and the men are openly sharing around a porn magazine with no concern. Does that seem like a safe professional workplace? That’s essentially what this represents. It isn’t what’s happening anymore, but it is the origin.
Huh, I am sorry, I feel too dumb but I don’t want to live with the doubt, I read the article and the Wikipedia links and I still don’t know how this is a thing, this is the first time I know about it.
What exactly was the meaning of this image in the tech fields? “What image processing tests”?
I understand the model is tired of it already, but this won’t disappear from the Internet, how is this article gonna benefit her?
https://youtu.be/yCdwm2vo09I
Here you go. A full explanation of everything.
Basically, people working on graphics-related algorithms needed to build a library of standard test images, so that when people published their work in an academic journal, they could easily demonstrate what that algorithm does, in a manner that is fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the image.
So someone, when they needed to pick an image that represents a person, scanned this photograph. And it could be argued that at the time, it was probably an interesting test image for a lot of reasons: person vs background, different textures, areas with soft and sharp focus, etc etc. If you developed, say, an image compression algorithm, those things are going to be headache in all photo portraits.
It’s probably not the best image by modern standards (being a low resolution scan of a photograph off of a printed magazine - not a photo print scan, not a direct film scan, and not comparable to digital photography). Also, it’s gotten overused to the point of absurdity. (Oh your hot new face detection algorithm works on this image? Well whoop-de-do.)
i think i’ve seen it used to demo different image compression algorithms, things like that. it was used as an easy example test image, but this journal has now banned papers from using it because it is weird and creepy to be using cropped porn for that. this won’t benefit the model, but she was only pushing to ban it because she wants more women in IT fields.
If a sample image is “making some women feel unwelcome in the field” you may be too sensitive for life.
Removed by mod
If you thought that making this comment was a good idea, you may be too misogynistic for life.
If you thought making this comment was a good idea you might need to get a grip on life.
This is not porn; it’s an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren’t in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it’s not where you are looking.
It’s both. It’s artsy softcore pornography.
I certainly don’t think the full version would be appropriate, but I’m ambivalent about the cropped version.
I don’t think people should get their knickers in a twist about sex in the first place.
Full picture (NSFW) https://mypmates.club/1972/Miss-November/Lena-Soderberg
It’s art, but it’s also porn. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s from Playboy, which is a porn magazine. Look at it all you want, but it isn’t appropriate for research papers. There are plenty of alternatives.
Edit: Part of the reason more women aren’t in the field is because they’re often seen as pieces of meat. They’re objectified. They don’t use any cropped male nude photos for test images, because the men weren’t lusting over them. It’s used because it was a field ruled by men, and women were often treated as objects.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn’t fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don’t even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it’s rather an example of “deobjectification” because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
Pretend for a moment that you’re a woman. You go to the office and the men are openly sharing around a porn magazine with no concern. Does that seem like a safe professional workplace? That’s essentially what this represents. It isn’t what’s happening anymore, but it is the origin.
People also used to smoke in offices. Safe and professional is a relatively new thing.
Decorum changes over time, but it isn’t new. There’s always a set of rules people follow no matter where or when you are.
Everything about Playboy is creepy
Removed by mod
deleted by creator