IEEE will no longer accept Playboy's "Lenna" image for image processing research

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 976   +295
Staff
A hot potato: Simply known as "Lenna," the test image was scanned by Alexander Sawchuk at the University of Southern California's Signal and Image Processing Institute in 1973. It's been used in research papers about image processing since then, but now the time has come to retire this piece of fortuitous standard in digital beauty.

Lena Forsén, the Swedish model depicted in the notorious Lenna image, was shot by Dwight Hooker and appeared as the centerfold of the November 1972 issue of Playboy magazine. The Lenna image was cropped and then used by researchers because of its high contrast and detail level, appearing in several papers about image processing throughout the last three decades of the past century.

The IEEE Computer Society, which describes itself as the largest global community of computer scientists and engineers, recently sent an email to its members saying that it will not accept new research papers that include the Lenna image. The organization is committed to promoting an "inclusive and equitable" culture that welcomes all, the mail states, and the objectification of women is no longer an accepted practice.

Also read: How JPEG Image Compression Works

After April 1, IEEE's committee members and reviewers should look for the Lenna image in any new submitted research and ask authors to replace it. Lenna has been part of computing research history for a long time, but things have changed. Even Lena Forsén, who is now 73, expressed her intention to "retire" from her unlikely (and mostly unwilling) role in the tech industry.

In 2019, a promotional film named Losing Lena described Lenna as a remarkable representation of many of the computer industry's shortcomings. The face "more studied than the Mona Lisa" contributed to the creation of the algorithm adopted by the still-ubiquitous JPEG image format, but it was ultimately part of a biased culture promoted by a "small subset of homogenous individuals."

Forsén was seemingly amused when she discovered that her face and complexion were being used as a test subject for image research, and Playboy decided to overlook the copyright violation to exploit the phenomenon. In the Losing Lena documentary, Lena expresses her intention to "retire from tech" after she had been long retired from modeling.

Despite its widespread use, Lenna has always attracted significant criticism in the research community. Nature has banned the image since 2018, and the new stance expressed by the IEEE Computer Society will likely make this historical piece of digital content even more controversial (and undesirable) among experts.

Permalink to story.

 
"The organization is committed to promoting an "inclusive and equitable" culture that welcomes all, the mail states, and the objectification of women is no longer an accepted practice."

Woke everywhere all the time. Let's idolize the ugly, relativize crime, encourage unhealthy habits and so on. Then, that's why so many people have died throughout history to raise up this "modern" society, how fantastic.
 
"The organization is committed to promoting an "inclusive and equitable" culture that welcomes all, the mail states, and the objectification of women is no longer an accepted practice."

Except...when women objectify themselves on OnlyFools, then it's Strong and Empowering (tm), and if you dont support that then you are a BIGAT. So the IEEE is ACTUALLY denying a Strong and Brave woman's Independence by denying her playboy images. As usual, the "diversity equity and inclusion" mindset requires EXCLUDING everyone they dont like to function.
 
Who cares?

"Hot" women and men and those who desire them(damn near everyone) will never go away, like every other thing thats rare in life and hard to acquire its just one of those odd goals, most of us will never probably get a 10(for fun or otherwise) but its fine to look upon it wonder.

theres a reason stellar blade is easy articles for gaming sites, and its not for the gameplay...

 
I want some Einstein-level researcher to submit a ground breaking paper with these forbidden images or words just for the publication to not publish it. "Sorry, even if E=mc^2, you misgendered a function on page 3. Rejected."
 
She wasn't exploited... her career was MADE by Playboy - thanks to that photo shoot, she made a name for herself... as for being remunerated for the use of the photo - it belonged (and still belongs) to Playboy.

Playboy chose not to sue over its use because they gained more popularity from it.

As for it not being "inclusive"... well, it was being used for its high contrast as well... different skin colour wouldn't have worked. Yes, she's female - but if it was a white male model, does that make it better?
 
I remember seeing this picture for the first time back in the 90's in college. I never gave it two thoughts why it was used in image processing as a test image. It just came across as a complex image with a lot of detail, yet had this soft realistic feel to it. It was just one of several standard images that people used for comparison, like a bowl of fruit. I mean, sure it is a beautiful woman, is that version of the picture really that big of a deal? I never thought so, but I also never new it was a playboy model.

That said, I never looked for the full version of that picture until today. Without the cropping, it is definitely a lot more risque and I can see why it offends some people.
https://womenlovetech.com/losing-lena-why-we-need-to-remove-one-image-and-end-techs-original-sin/

I would also like to point out that Lena asked for the image to not be used any more, so its not completely about being woke or not.
“I retired from modelling a long time ago,” said Lena in a new documentary film called Losing Lena. “It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me.”

Times change and I think it is okay to move away from this image. At this point, the image is more about nostalgia than it is some irreplaceable piece of artwork.
 
Who cares, another non-issue made huge waves because somewhere in some office a zealot of somesort felt compelled to go to war…
 
Back