The problem with the Lena image is not just or even primarily the image itself, it’s as much about where the image came from and what it represents. The source is Playboy, which as you well know, published nude women for the purpose of men’s entertainment. Insisting that nothing at all is wrong with the cropped image just because you can’t see breasts normalizes the behavior, it tells people you’re okay with the men’s entertainment part and they should be too, provided we crop the nudity. This isn’t about people being offended by nudity, or about being wildly inappropriate, this is about subtle social attitudes that aren’t conducive to men and women working together on science. It’s about being just a little inappropriate, but enough that we now recognize it’s not really 100% okay, and it reflects poorly on the field of computer graphics if we can’t adapt.
I do appreciate your reasonable tone BTW, I’m happy to continue discussing if we’re having a productive talk. I’m not trying to shame anyone either, or to discount the history of CG, I just happened to know more about the Lena saga, because I’ve read a lot about it over the years, and I believe the women who’ve mentioned use of Lena is now cringey, and I agree with the reasons for journals discontinuing it’s use. I don’t agree with the cynical view that the movement to stop using Lena is either Puritanism like one comment here said, nor just silly political correctness in a pejorative sense.
There’s a legitimate concern about using Playboy-sourced images regardless of crop, and there’s a legitimate concern about the attitude that if you don’t want Playboy-sourced images that mostly crop out the nudity, then it means you’re being a religious nut or a left-wing radical. The problem is relatively minor, but real. So let’s just move on from Lena and get back to talking about computer vision and other cool graphics!
I read several different articles from several different points of time, some obviously sympathetic of removing the image and some cynical. So I understand both sides of the fence. My goal wasn't to provide a summary so much as my overall impression.
> So please consider more carefully the message that pushing back on the Lenna image sends and how it might reflect on you from other people’s point of view.
The whole problem I have with this is that I never bothered looking up Lena until this comment chain, but I've seen her picture used several times in my computer graphics classes (went to college in the late 2000's, so just before the "2nd wave" of controversy).
I never knew, I don't think any one else in my class knew, and nobody questioned it nor thought it derogatory. And to be honest, the later context of this doesn't change my mind either. It is not an obviously pornographic image, the purpose of the image in its current use was not titilation.
I board on the cynical side precisely because of that; intent. And I don't think the intent here was ever to discourage nor shame women to work in STEM. Even in the 70's I simply think that some college students needed a good test image, and an on hand magazine clipping of a very high resolution photo (for its time) was the "good enough" solution as opposed to scouring stores for the perfect reference image that would stand the tests of time. Similar to other computer graphics story in that a husband/wife sitting down for tea resulted in the Utah Teapot.