Talk:Lenna

message: Copyvios are always a concern, but I think the quoted portions here are fine, since they include a legitimate cite. I trimmed them a bit, too. - DavidWBrooks 18:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Perhaps interestingly, the specific issue of Playboy Lena is a centrefold of features in the film Sleeper by Woody Allen. In the film, Woody Allen plays a person who has been preserved in liquid nitrogen and awakes in the 22rd century. At some point in the film he finds a stash of "historical artifacts", among which is this issue of Playboy. Lena as the centrefold is shown fleetingly on screen.
See "A Note on Lena", by David C. Munson, Jr. Editor-in-Chief, Emeritus, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Vol. 5. No. 1.  January 1996 , reprinted here -- Hut66au
:Strikingly accurate prediction. Perhaps, somebody guessed that the issue was going to be the best-selling ever, so there was a high probability that it survived from the past (1974) to the present (217X) time--and therefore of being extant.  -- Pichote (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidence/Connection 

message: The request to merge these two sounds reasonable, but when I went to check, the article on the girl is part of a series on Playboy playmates, so you don't want to turn it into a redirect to this article, ... and I think the Lenna article is sufficiently established in the geek world that this article is justified going into more detail than would be right on an article about the playmate herself. So I guess I would say no, don't merge them. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lenna centerfold was an industry changing photo, certainly due a seperate article, I would think (as a bad example, we have a Mona Lisa article AND a Leonardo da Vinci article. Staxringold 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Do not merge, would be my vote. Lenna, the picture, has became far more famous (or encyclopedic, if you prefer) than  Lena Soderberg herself. --Abu Badali 18:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: This is a personal preference, but I find the "cleanup" box and its variants, like the one just stuck on this article, incredibly annoying: They're a sign saying "I don't like this article, but I'm not going to do anything about it - you have to." If you think the intro needs altering, alter it! - DavidWBrooks 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, and I have removed the tag. The gripe was that the into is too long. Thing is, what it's really saying is that the second para needs a subheading, though it's not obvious what it should be. As it stands the intro is fine, th esecond para further expands on that. Maybe it doesn't even need a subheading there - it's not compulsory to have a subheading just to make the intro more obvious - the line break there does just that. Graham 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who added the intro length box.  The only reason I added it was because the style guide recommends lead sections consist of 2-3 paragraphs and I wasn't sure of the best way to correct that.  This article has 4 paragraphs in the lead section (5 if you count the qoute as a paragraph).  I'm sorry that it was perceived as anything other than constructive criticism. - ApolloCreed 05:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro length box 

message: I think it's also worth mentioning that the colors in this photograph are by no means true (skewed heavily toward red). I can't help but wonder what the ramifications of that were; perhaps an explanation for the problems with red in the JPEG algorithm? Themadchopper 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - this of all pictures needs to be right.  It's not enough to 'correct' the colour balance in this image.  We need to seek out an earlier, more 'standard' version of it that's never been through lossy compression or an 8 bit data path and store is as a truecolour 24 bit 'PNG' (which doesn't distort colours or introduce artifacts of any kind).  Other pictures on other Wiki pages can tolerate image compression artifacts - but not this one.  Anyone know where to get something like that? SteveBaker 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, that's not  exactly what I meant. To  answer your question, there's an uncompressed TIFF version available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/lena_std.tif. And the Wikipedia JPEG looks pretty close to that to me as far as color. But what I was talking about was the fact that the photo had been massively postprocessed by Playboy before it was ever even scanned in. All the centerfolds of the 1960s had a heavy red cast added for aesthetics. (See .) Themadchopper 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! I see.  So you think the article should mention this?  I think it would be hard to prove that JPEG is messed up because of Lenna because so many other photos were used in tweaking the algorithm.  If we can't be sure of that, we shouldn't say so here.  But if there is some outside source for the fact that Playboy boost the red in their images - then that is definitely worth mentioning.  I you want to compare, I made a more natural looking version of Lenna here .  I reduced the gamma settings for Red and boosted them quite a bit for Green.   I'd upload it here but I can't figure out what copyright to give to it. SteveBaker 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think either should be mentioned in the article without a good source, no. I was just kind of curious as to whether there was such a source. (I mean, the latter's clear from examination of the images themselves, but it would be "original research" to add it on that basis.) (Nice work on the adjustment by the way.) Themadchopper 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  We should do nothing unless we can find substantiating evidence someplace. SteveBaker 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I understand all of the above discussion. Just to make sure - we want the image that is used by the image-processing literature. If this is not a perfect reproduction of the original, then so be it. The discussion should be about "where do we find the standard image" rather than "where do we find a better scan of the original" or "how do we correct the image to make it more realistic" etc. PAR 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too. one more time: Do we have any sources which point out that the image used by our great and powerful techie image calibrators all these years, is ITSELF way off from the natural tones of this living person, as could be photographed with sunlight or spectrally neutral lighting, with no alterations done in the darkroom? I doubt there is a better image anywhere. if someone has the issue, we could do a really good scan of it, and compare it to what is floating around. if they are close, then we know that the version used by the calibrators was messed with in the darkroom (unless we are hallucinating her red tones)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors

message: I'm Swedish, and I for sure know our lastnames are never speller Soderberg, be it internationalization, her real name was with 90% chance Söderberg and not Soderberg.
I changed this, if anyone is going to hate me for it, revise it.
--213.89.141.235 03:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've searched, and found no evidence that her name is Söderberg. Even sites with proper accents, spell her name Lena Soderberg née Sjööblom. Idem at Lena Soderberg. — Adhemar 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Maybe I was wrong. Reverted my own previous edit. — Adhemar 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are wrong. Söderberg is a Swedish sir-name. Soderberg does not exist. 46.194.218.184 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name spelling 

message: How could an article dated May 26, 2006 have been retrieved on January 14, 2006?  In any case, the link is now a 404.
Ppelleti 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the history, the retrieved date is a typo (2007 was meant) and I've left a message on the poster's Talk page about the 404 - perhaps it can be fixed. - DavidWBrooks 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall that it was me who first came up with that ref, though it may have been my typo.  I've replaced it with a more official source. Dicklyon 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 6 - The Cool Hunter 

message: A banner was just placed on this page saying it belongs in the Pornography wiki-project - which strikes me as laughable. A picture of a woman's head and shoulder is porn? Remember, this article is about the image used as a standard test image, not about the original in playboy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the pornography tag. The image is only a part of the image that appeared in Playboy. The test image itself can in no way qualify as pornography, regardless of what the image it was drawn from. It is not used for pornographic purposes, it is a test image for testing image reproduction methods. Any argument in favor of classifying the test image as pornography must explain why an image of only the feather in her hat is not pornography, since it too is a piece of the original image - or else make the (laughably moronic) case that an image of just the feather is also pornography. PAR (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the tag should be removed, thanks for doing it.  I had not seen this section when I added it back in. <B>-- RP459</B> Talk/Contributions 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good. Sorry for the sarcasm, I was expecting the worst. PAR (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Pornography?!?!? 

message: Concerning   edits: I very much dispute that this blog (which cites back to us), this self-admitted selection of an amateur and this personal webpage by "Chuck" are reliable sources.One piece of information sourced by them, that the issue where this image was published was the best-selling one ever, is repeated further down on the page cited to the Playboy FAQ, and I certainly prefer the primary source here over the unreliable source.The claims that the scan "became one of the most used images in computer history", that Lenna "came to be dubbed the 'First Lady of the Internet'", and that it is "one of the influential photographs that changed the course of history" is somewhere between remarkable and outrageous and needs reliable sourcing. The current ones aren't.Amalthea 16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... changed the course of history"? 

message: As one of the very points of the article is that this specific standard test image must be exactly 512 x 512 px to illustrate what it does and how it is used, it now appears in the article at that size and in its own section entitled "The 512 x 512 pixel digital test image" to provide that context. To accurately illustrate what the article is about, its display at 512x512px is the smallest (and only) size at which this image that can be displayed to achieve that end. Centpacrr (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  It is sufficient to let people know that they can click through to assess the actual-resolution test image, without us having to overwhelm the article with it.  Jheald (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display of the standard test image at 512x512px 

message: This sentence in the lead "The spelling 'Lenna' comes from the anglicisation used in the original Playboy article." seems out of place. I suggest moving it elsewhere. 132.236.122.51 (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The discrepancy in spelling is noticeable in the first sentences; the best place to explain it is nearby.  Do you see a better place for it?  —Tamfang (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both 132.236.122.51 and Tamfang, it is both appropriate and awkward ("out of place" is perhaps a bit strong). Appropriate because it is necessary to be near the beginning to prevent confusion about the name mispelling, but awkward because it is the loan stand alone sentence in the lead of the article. It is also the closing line in the lead which is a bit weird as well. I understand 132.236.122.51's concerns as the sentence does slightly deprove the articles readability/flow, but it is necessary information that really fits nowhere else. MATThematical (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is a borderline case.  Generally, the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article and not introduce new facts of its own...but many articles start out with a list of the alternate spellings and names for some object or other - and that's kinda what's going on here.   I'm OK with rearranging the grammar to make it flow better - but I really do think we need to mention the spelling discrepancy right where we first mention Lena's real name.  There is additional value to mentioning the discrepancy because it underscores the fact that when someone decided to scan a page out of a copyrighted porn magazine and couldn't even be bothered to check the name he gave it - he wasn't thinking much about creating an image that would still be around decades into the future and pasted into many thousands of scientific papers. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analysis is just right, I would say - and I'm darned if I can think of a less awkward way to write it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lead about spelling 

message: Source inserted: 
First archived version of source that mentions the claim that Seideman is working with Playboy's archivist on this:  (it's actually in the very first version, so who knows when it was added to that page, or if it was in the original version, apparently posted April 29th, 2012)
I removed this source as it seems to simply paraphrase the 1997 mention in the other source by Lai-Man Po of Hongkong City U. It seems doubtful that Seideman has been badgering the archivist for one and a half decades to collaborate on a re-scan. Perhaps someone else can find more recent news on that project. Samsara 21:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The original negative was eventually rescanned (thankfully without the red color cast), and the 'remastered-lena-512x512.tif' is linked here 
http://web.archive.org/web/20121019150128/http://www.computableminds.com/post/lena-soderberg-common-image-processing-test-images.html Ahazred8 (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed source for claim that Seideman is (still?) working with archivist 

message: Maybe "controversy" is the wrong term, but I came to this page to learn about the connection between sexism and SIGGRAPH papers and had to look in the "talk" page to gain any insight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.85.50 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had deleted the section, and I have just reverted it. The discussion is at Talk:Lenna#Criticism. (Also, in case you don't know, you can look at past versions of a page.) --jftsang 00:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, Lenna is still a standard in the field, albeit with some sociological caveats. And anyone who considers Wikipedia should consider its talk page also. kencf0618 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the article, as it stands, makes it clear that Lenna remains a standard. People like Diane P. O'Leary are probably important enough that their views should be reflected in the 'Criticism' section, but the article doesn't give undue weight. --jftsang 11:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is controversy section 

message: I was just writing an oppose vote when you closed this. The above nomination and supports assert that this isn't the primary topic, but give no reason why, or indication as to which of the other topics might be primary. As far as I can see this test image is quite an important thing in history, and I can't see that any of the other entries come close per long term significance or even common usage. Also, it dominates the page views over all other topics, both when including a recent spike, and also when not including it. Please could you reopen the discussion? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, RM re-opened, moves reverted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I came here because I wanted an alternative test image, and was a bit surprised to find that neither this page nor Standard test image are particularly helpful. This article notes: "In 2017 the Journal of Modern Optics published an editorial titled 'On alternatives to Lenna'[18] offering three images (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) that 'are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space'." Although those 3 are discussed in the editorial, it's sure hard to find that first Pirate test image. The editorial says, 
 We downloaded some alternative test images (Pirate, Mandril, Fishing Boat, Cameraman and Peppers) from the USC database and performed a comparative analysis between Lenna and these alternatives
 ...
 It appears that at least three of the alternatives (Pirate, Cameraman and Peppers) are reasonably close to Lenna in feature space, although to a varying degree.
But while the USC database (http://sipi.usc.edu/database/) has several of these images, I can't seem to find the image known as "Pirate." Am I just blind?
Ultimately, I'm surprised not to have found a page offering a good comparison, with visuals, of the Lenna image with other test images. Although I don't claim this is necessarily Wikipedia's job (but I think it is within its ambit), I also haven't found one on the general Internet, although I haven't gone further than a few quick Google searches. But this makes me wonder how widespread these alternatives to the Lenna image really are, and what kind of traction they have gotten in academia and industry.
In any case, it's probably best not to characterize JMO as "offering" alternative images if it's not possible to even find the first image they are "offering." Maybe "suggesting" is better, but the fact that the first image (Pirate) is nowhere to be found gives me pause. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I faced the same issue with finding the 'Pirate' image. Looking through figure captions of existing publications (example 1, example 2) suggests that the image has undergone a name change, as it is currently available on the USC database under the description 'Male'. Adidenkov (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weakness of alternatives discussion… 

message: This article has a criticism of Playboy Magazine, which is not present in the Playboy article, I would suggest either removing this one or adding something to the Playboy article because good lord is this an inconsistency  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:7D8B:F8BE:109D:CBE2:6527 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section is peculiar 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lenna →  – "Lenna" is the primary topic for the term Lenna. However 
commonly recognized name for "Lenna" is Lenna image. This is also happily WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Schierbecker (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 May 2024