Iconic WWII photo canceled, then uncanceled

Not an explanation of meaning, just a repetition. People use the term 'cancel culture', but what does it actually mean? Seems to mean people using their freedom of expression not to do things that you would prefer them to do - in particular not to be offensive when you, presumably, would prefer that they were gratuitously offensive.

Why should I 'want to see' the delusions and fallacies under which you seem to want to operate? I don't see the point because there is no point. Editors deciding not to include content that people might find offensive is their right - you might moan about it, but it's not 'fascist-like'. In fact you moan selectively, the cases that you moan about are there anti-fascist-like cases. A previous president of the USA proposed legal action against people who knelt for the American national anthem. I don't see you getting upset about that, presumably because those people are using their freedom in a way that you don't approve of. Or what about the fact that most popular media based in the USA won't publish images containing female nipples, purely due to pressure from religious groups. Why aren't you upset about that?

No I'm not joking. What I said is the truth, as I see it. There is a difference in approach here. You seem to want to prove things 'true' by quoting the opinion selectively chosen authorities. That's never been my approach - I always want to work through the logic and reason of a case and make up my mind for myself. If my mind ends up in opposition to people who consider themselves to be 'authorities' that that's their problem.

What I said about Lena is correct - there's nothing special about it as a test case. It has only become popular by repetition - the image you use if you're too lazy to select something that actually does the job properly. That's more or less what your quote from the publishers of JMO says. In fact none of your 'evidence' suggests any more than it's widely used - nothing says it has any special properties as a test image that makes it essential. For myself, I don't care much one way or the other about the image itself, but if some people find it offensive, why insist on using it if there are alternatives? It's what any civil person would do, unless the actuality is that they don't like the reason that other people find it offensive and are trying to make a political point. Elevating it to the level of Leonardo is purely performative outrage. Performative outrage is something that I personally find both offensive and amusing. Still, in an open society people have the right to be performatively outraged, and others have the right to poke a little fun at them.

There is one little bit, why it has become special by repetition - you can easily compare results of different image processing algorithms, using exactly same source image. I've read numerous (older) papers about noise removal, motion detection, deconvolution and so on - they usually include many other images, but Lena image is often included too and I can just by looking at it compare results (or some aspect of results) of different algorithms.

Yes, that is true, but the other point I made is also relevant - that the Lena image is no longer suitable for today's performance requirements. It doesn't provide a stern enough test either in resolution or tonality terms. In those days, when it was used to test the early image compression algorithms, something that sort of looked OK having gone through the compression mill was a pass. Nowadays we are concerned about JPEG artefacts, extended DR and the like, it's something easily passed by any algorithm that is pushing the state of the art.

On the overall question, I think what we're witnessing is a battle of performative outrage. Neither the image that started the thread not 'Lena' are objectionable unless you know the back story - so publishing just as an image, without the backstory, clearly is not promoting any questionable behaviour that occurred in that backstory - so I think the decision on editors part to deprecate them seems to me a bit silly. Perhaps a bit less silly in the case of the one in the OP, because that is a museum-like, curated setting where the back story has some more relevance - but without that any viewer will just take it as a very happy sailor kissing his loved one.

However it is the right of editors to choose what and what not to publish, even if I think it's a bit silly. So the performative outrage of those demanding that the editors make different choices is more than a bit silly - it's also threatening - because the obvious corollary, which you will notice that JACS didn't respond to, is that editors be forced to make decisions which the outraged agree with. The context is all important, because the target of the outrage is always politically loaded. So, if the editors choice involves the correction of some perceived inequality, either racial or gender based, that is when the outrage is turned on. I watched an interesting video of a conversation between Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears. In it Miley tells Britney that she had wanted to perform at the MTV awards show topless, but MTV wouldn't allow it. They likely would have had she been male. Where is the outrage at the cancelling of Miley's nipples? Rather the performative outrage gets directed at Taylor Swift encouraging people to vote, obviously a deeply subversive thing to be doing.

Belong to neither the loony left nor the rabid right. However, there are some things which are true which people still deny happened (and don't ask me for ecxamples - I am not going down that rabbit hole).

I'd like to get this whole conversation closed - we will not change peoples opinions through a forum.

So, let's get back to photography and leave the politics (or lack of it) to other forums.

Alan

The point you were making was that it was the 'Mona Lisa' of test images, that is that it had some special quality as a test image. It did not. It was popular, but it wasn't unique in its testing ability, many, many images have the same utility and serve as more than adequate replacements. So, the point is that imaging science has not been harmed in any way by some journals deprecation of this image. In fact some even said that it would be used if the authors demonstrated a scientific need for it to be used. The only point here really is that you disagree with the editors' decision and think that they should be coerced in some way to chnage it. There are planty of editors' decisions that I disagree with, but as editors they have a right to edit as they see fit.

So now you're demanding that they cave to the pressure of culture warriors of the opposite persuasion. Sure, it's what all culture warriors demand. I guess most people, including myself, are heartily fed up of the whole set of culture warriors, from whichever side they come. As I said earlier, all it is, is performative outrage. I expect that you're going to deny being a culture warrior - but that's exactly what you are. The only real question is which view of culture are you going into battle for.

Another accusation of dishonesty. Strange though you might find it, other people do have different opinions to you. To convince them you have to make your case, which you've been failing to do. It's like the boxer, getting up on the count of eleven, and saying to his opponent 'I beat you, you just don't want to admit it.'

There was a thing some people called 'Twittergate' when Musk released a load of internal Twitter documents. I have not read them. Have you? If so, I'd be grateful if you could be precise about what these documents show. I've seen differing assessments from different commentators, and it seems that the conclusions drawn are wildly different, according to the political leaning of the commentator. As I said in another post, my general modus operandi is to make up my own mind, based on the evidence, rather than listening to an echo chamber the simply confirms any biases I might already have. So, if you can put forward a case, based directly on the evidence then you might be able to convince me. Otherwise I'll just go ahead with the evidence that I've seen and my own assessment of it.

Really, not the way to convince anyone that your POV is one that they might be interested in.

You know I know better? Firstly, I'm not a 'Dem'. Secondly, as I say, I make my own decisions on available evidence. If you have any evidence to present to support your case, please do so. If you don't, then it's you that looks like the one consuming Kool-aid. People with something useful to say will generally support what they say with something more than insults.