Talk:Lenna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quotes[edit]

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)

Why "Lenna"?[edit]

Can anyone tell me (or better yet explain in the article) why the image is named Lenna while the model is named Lena? —Rory ☺ 02:46, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Playboy called her Lenna even though it's spelled Lena, because the word Lena in Swedish is pronounced Lenna. So they were effectively anglicising the name so that English readers would pronounce it correctly. Graham 02:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I doubt that; it's not pronounced that way. "Lehna" would be much closer, but still not completely perfect. 194.47.144.5
I've heard Swedish people say Lena, and it sounds more like [lina] to my ears. I can't imagine why they used Lenna, when that seems to suggest [lɛna]. --Kjoonlee 15:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to my Swedish office-mate, it would be sort of like "leena" near Stockhold, but more like "lehna" or "laina" near Lund, where the dialect is closer to Danish. Does anyone know where she was from? Dicklyon 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had only heard people from Stockholm. I've never heard anyone from Lund. I've no idea where she's from, though. 213.88.162.217 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, could you please rename this page to the true name "Lena"? "Lenna" sounds and looks stupid 46.194.218.184 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the most probable explanation is a typo. The people who entered the filenames for this series of images weren't making any effort whatever to be exacting. Hence the reason why the equally famous 'baboon.tif' image is in fact a Mandrill.

Coincidence/Connection[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm removing the Merge tag. Nobody here nor on Lena Soderberg has supported it (not that it's drawn a huge amount of comment). - DavidWBrooks 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

intro length box[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Colors[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [1].) Themadchopper 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [2]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. We should do nothing unless we can find substantiating evidence someplace. SteveBaker 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Name spelling[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
OK. Maybe I was wrong. Reverted my own previous edit. — Adhemar 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

I restored some quotes, since they had been turned into statements that seemed to need sources. As quotes, the source is more clear. Retelling a second-hand story in our own words seems like a poor way to treat what is essentially a story, not a compendium of verifiable fact. Please discuss here if you see a better way for one or more of the quotes. Dicklyon 07:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria says:
"If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. [..] Always use a more free alternative if one is available." (Criterion #1)
Regardless of whether it is a quote or article text it needs to be referenced to an equal degree. I have reverted your changes on these grounds. Feel free to improve the text using your own words (that is your contribution to Wikipedia). --Oden 07:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep messing up the article. The source for the things you recast as facts are the story I quoted, from the referenced source; there is no reliable source to say what Sawchuk's recollection was--we have to take the writer's publication on what he was told, and decide ourselves whether to believe it, knowing it is a quote of him. The statements are no more verifiable than that, but the story is published, and the story being told that way it is is what's verifiable. A short quote of a few sentences is not a big block of text. Please stop, or propose here a sensible alternative. And why did you partially revert the lead rewrite, too? Dicklyon 08:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not reword the lead-in (diff). As for our fair use policy, see above.--Oden 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must concur with Oden: such huge quotes are not justified per our fair use policy. WP:FU#Text makes it clear:

MaxSem 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6 - The Cool Hunter[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikiproject Pornography?!?!?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Agreed, the tag should be removed, thanks for doing it. I had not seen this section when I added it back in. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. Sorry for the sarcasm, I was expecting the worst. PAR (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... changed the course of history"?[edit]

Concerning these two 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)[reply]

  • ok, I agree the last two are not very good sources, but the first is not a "blog" and its full of useful information that is not on this page and should not be removed. The claims that the scan "became one of the most used images in computer history" is remarkable, but is also almost trivially true to anyone in the image processing field. As I said, the reference saying it is "one of the influential photographs that changed the course of history" is not very good. Lets try to at least improve the sourcing on the good material rather than destroying content. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. PAR (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it looks like a blog to me, honestly, and even if it's a "good" one, it still references back to us so I would much rather not use it, even if some facts might have originated elsewhere.
    I've done some more looking, and managed to find decent sources for the wide usage and even the "First Lady of the Internet" (I've tried sourcing the latter before I removed it, but apparently didn't search good enough):
    • Data compression, 2007: "The 'Lena' image is widely used by the image processing community, in addition to being popular in image compression. [...] It has since become the most important, well-known and commonly used image in the history of imaging and electronic communications. As a result, Lena is currently considered by many the First Lady of the Internet. Playboy, which normally prosecutes unauthorized users of its images, has found out about the unusual use of one of its copyrighted images, but decided to give its blessings to this particuluar 'application'."
      The book's from 2007, so it looks good.
    • The Boston Globe, 2005: "Soderberg has been dubbed "The First Lady of the Internet" because computer programmers scanned her centerfold to use as a test image for early compression software. Seideman, working with officials at Playboy, tracked Soderberg down in 1997 in her native Sweden to bring her to a Boston conference on the history of digital imaging."
    • Enhancing the power of the Internet, 2004: "... the most frequently used test image in the image compression community. It contains complicated features that are ideal to test the performance of a compression algorithm."
    • CIO magazine says that it has gained "cult status".
    • Understanding Digital Cameras, 2007: "It is part of a Playboy centrefold picture of Swedish model Lena Soderberg, photographed by Dwight Hooker, After initial objections to its use, Playboy has no consented to it being accepted asa standard test image and has reaped the benefits of continuous publicity ever since. The November 1972 edition of the magazine, from which the picture comes, was Playboy's best-selling issue of all time, with more than seven million copies sold"
    That's all pretty good, and I suggest changing the references to those, as applicable.
    I'd still prefer to remove the bit about "[...] influential photographs that changed the course of history" since I don't consider it true, and none of the sources I found go anywhere near that. In addition, the duplicate mention of best-selling status of the Playboy issue should be combined, with the reference from above and the primary source to the Playboy FAQ instead of the cs.cmu.edu page. Oh, and the "mysterious" should be dropped.
    What do you think? Amalthea 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think almost all of those proposals are excellent, thank you for researching that. Except I don't see a problem with a source that references back to WIkipedia, and I would like to keep that link (or some link) that goes into deeper detail about how the Lenna image is used, and why it is "attractive" from a purely technical, image-processing point of view. PAR (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did some edits myself. I think the Chuck Rosenberg pages represent a serious and timely effort to document and publish the Lena history, and ought to be cited, but I also agree that better sources would be good, too. Feel free to work on adding info from those that you found. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Display of the standard test image at 512x512px[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tag difference of opinion[edit]

When one editor things that a tag is appropriate for an article and another editor thinks the tag is unnecessary, it accomplishes nothing to takes turns replacing the tag, removing it, replacing it, etc. Rather, the editors should make the edits they think are needed and thus end the debate.

Of course, that's easier for the second editor in this example, who only has to remove an unnecessary, distracting tag. The first editor will have to actually make the improvements that he/she/it thinks are needed, instead of wandering off. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the quotations currently used in the article are appropriate in length. Shortening them, or paraphrasing them, is not required by guideline, and would not be beneficial to the readers.
However, I also agree that: 1) the formatting needs fixing, as {{cquote}} says to only use it for pullquotes "already present in the same article". 2) Given the length of the quotations in relation to the length of the explanatory/surrounding text, it is easier/smoother to read if the quotations are in blockquote form. -- Therefor: I've changed them to use {{quote}} instead. Problem solved. —Quiddity (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only drawback is that paragraph breaks within "blockquote" don't leave an extra line, so right now it looks like one large, hard-to-read paragraph. Adding a paragraph doesn't seem to help ... anybody know the format better to fix it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, fixed now. (hardcoded linebreaks (<br />) added per Template:Quote#Multiple paragraphs). Thanks. —Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

The criticism section is really weak. All sorts of objections to the fact that it is of a woman, or from Playboy (I must be stupid, I don't understand why either is relevant for a technical 'standard'). I saw no criticism of the fact it is an image of a photograph, nor that almost certainly the model was heavily made up (air brushed) and almost as likely the photograph itself was air-brushed. It would be helpful if someone could explain how it is that a semi-cartoon image is a 'standard'.72.172.1.152 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reputable/notable source has criticized the image because it was air-brushed, hence saying so would be "original research" and not appropriate for this article. The criticism that it is a picture of a woman in a suggestive pose from playboy seems reasonable (whether you agree with it or not - we aren't simply talking about it being used as a test image, but gracing the covers of textbooks and power-point slides for undergraduate courses). Would you put a picture of penis as a test image for a text-book if it were a good test image? You can see why some might be concerned. Whether you or I are concerned about this is irrelevant to Wikipedia standards, however. It has gotten major press as an example of sexism in science and hence is notable/encyclopedic for this reason. These are notable arguments, whether they are "weak" or not is not relevant from a encyclopedic perspective. 132.236.122.51 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" Would you put a picture of penis as a test image for a text-book if it were a good test image?" Really? You're comparing the picture of Lena as effectively the same thing as a penis? And this is "valid criticsm"? I am agog at the moronic nature of the "I am offended" culture that doesn't represent rationality and merely trolls the rest of society for attention and relies on the false equivalence fallacy that "all opinions have equal weight" whether they are insane or not.
The point here is that (rightly, or wrongly) this is a well-established test image. We don't invent criticisms here - that would be Original Research - so the only way we can add your points into the criticism section is if you can find a reliable source that says that these things are problematic. Personally, I do have issues with the quality of the image as a choice for a test image - and without doubt, scanning porn from a copyrighted source would be considered grossly unprofessional these days. But at the time it was done, it wasn't considered unacceptable by community standards - and now that there is such an enormous corpus of scientific papers that use the Lenna image and Playboy have said that it's OK with them - I can't see the situation ever changing.
But regardless of what you or I think - we can't change the criticism section to include your suggestions without finding those pesky reliable sources first. SteveBaker (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may think that the criticism is weak, or think that the qualities of the image, or its established status as a standard test image, outweigh the feminist concerns. But those criticisms and concerns exist, and Wikipedia needs to report on it. Our article on Creationism reflects the fact that many people believe (or used to believe) in creationism; it is not an endorsement of creationism. I have renamed the section from 'Controversy' to 'Criticism' to reflect the fact that it's not a common view, but it's there. --jftsang 00:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in lead about spelling[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removed source for claim that Seideman is (still?) working with archivist[edit]

Source inserted: [3]

First archived version of source that mentions the claim that Seideman is working with Playboy's archivist on this: [4] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is controversy section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per Amakuru. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The subject of this article is unlikely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lenna", due to the relative obscurity of its place in computing.  ONR  (talk)  06:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Relative obscurity of this subject justifies this move. ToThAc (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is not the main use of the term, so it shouldn't be the default article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fails Primary Topic on both criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The above nomination and supports assert that this isn't the primary topic, but give no reason why, other than an unproven assertion that this is "relatively obscure". They also give no 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,[5] and also when not including it.[6]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pageviews indicate this is the clear primary topic. Station1 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing else, even Lena Söderberg who the test image is of and named for, comes close in page views, suggesting this is the clear primary topic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move[edit]

@Jenks24: 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,[7] and also when not including it.[8] Please could you reopen the discussion? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: No worries, RM re-opened, moves reverted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24: thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weakness of alternatives discussion…[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criticism section is peculiar[edit]

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)[reply]

Use of the image in the article[edit]

I have removed the image itself from this article per the subject's wishes for the use of this image to cease, and reflecting the academic consensus against its continued use. Ddevault (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn here. The article is about the specific image, not the image's use-case in computer science or the person herself (each of those is separately notable and have their own aricles). Even the high bar of WP:NFCC is met for using the image here. However, the subject of the image is a living person, and the person's visual details cannot be elided from the image without losing its essential worth, so displaying the image gets into the realm of WP:BLP "privacy/do no harm". I think WP:BLPPRIVACY leans towards inclusion, since it might be unflattering, but it's notable (and even those specific aspects of it are themselves somewhat notable). Both the image's visual details and the controversy over its use (based on the image's appearance) are widely covered in reliable sources. I've pinged WT:BLPN for advice. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely WP:NOTCENSORED applies? GiantSnowman 16:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, with respect to readers (an issue not raised) and academics in the use-case area (and I think that is irrelevant). In that regard, there is surely no less-problematic image that could possibly exist. The only valid concern I see is the BLP wish of the subject herself (that just happens to coincide with others' thoughts). DMacks (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cited policies are not quite made for this situation, i.e. WP:BLPPRIVACY is more about protecting personal information and less about undesirable images of a person. I think WP:AVOIDVICTIM is more applicable: "This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
Per this directive I think there's cause to remove the image. It's trivially easy to find the image without Wikipedia's help should a reader be interested in doing so -- it's one of the most reproduced images of all time. I certainly would like to see the discussion resolved before you revert my edit again, Hemiauchenia. Ddevault (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very specifically about the image, which is substantially divorced from the subject of the image itself. I think its inclusion is necessary for context. The academic consensus is against its continued use in contemporary computer science papers, not the Wikipedia article, which is looking at the historical context of the image. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. GiantSnowman 17:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thriley (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards this but have RS continued to use and display this photo after the person's objections have been made? I'm trying to understand how widespread it is given that I was not aware of this image before. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I took a look and recognise the image outside its academic significance. *halo* Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion. It's a bit silly to have an article about a famous image without including the image itself. It may be against some people's sensibilities, but Wikipedia isn't censored. – Anne drew 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put the image back, per the clear balance of views above. As pretty much everyone has said above, inclusion here makes sense, given that this is an article entirely devoted to discussing it. Jheald (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments re: WP:AVOIDVICTIM were not addressed, and provide the strongest basis in policy for the removal of this image. Furthermore, we have not heard back from WT:BLPN. Reverted. Resolve the open threads before restoring, please. Ddevault (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Lena Forsén a "victim" seems an extraordinary stretch. I see no evidence she identifies herself as a "victim of another's actions". On the contrary per the Jan 2019 feature in Wired about her and the image:
"In her view, the photograph is an immense accomplishment that just happened to take on a life of its own. “I’m really proud of that picture,” she said."
A "brass-trimmed wooden mantel clock" she was given commemorating it is "beloved".
As recently as 2015 she had appeared "as a 'special guest' at an image processing industry conference in Quebec City", "stepping onstage through a glistening projection of her younger self";
and she was content to pose to re-create the 1972 image for the 2019 article.
It's clear that she finds it a bit extraordinary how the image has taken on a life of its own. It has little connection to where her life is now, and she's maybe a bit tired of journalists or film-makers seeking her out to ask her about it. But I'm not seeing any sense of regret or victimisation for her part in creating an image that became iconic.
People in this discussion have listened to you. But having considered it, not one other person has thought the image shouldn't be in the article. Equally, nobody at BLPN has thought it was something worth taking up. You're not tank man. Per WP:STICK it's done, it's time to walk away. Jheald (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLPN need not have its own explicit discussion: they are not an appeals board that renders and passes down. Because there was already an ongoing discussion here, I specifically wrote my notice there to join the discussion here to avoid a WP:DISCUSSFORK. And (whether due to watching the article talkpage or watching BLPN) we appear to have had robust participation here. DMacks (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, dude. It's just a picture. I'm calling for the discussion to be held in accordance with Wikipedia policy and that wasn't happening. Thank you for addressing the comments about WP:AVOIDVICTIM -- that's all I was asking for. I agree after reviewing this material that it does not apply.
Read WP:WIN next time. Wikipedia is a process of establishing consensus, not for pushing your view through without it. Ddevault (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lenna&oldid=1203549968"