The Turin Shroud: The Image of Edessa created in c. 300-400 AD?

[meccanoman]

Elaborate, please. Did you invent this test yourself? Are you aware of standard color controls in the photography industry? Do they use only RGB?



Are you looking at the image when applying these algorithms? Or are you using the histogram(s) as a statistical model to guide your application? It's really a very simple question, and your growing reluctance to address it is probably inciting your readers here to infer an answer that is not favorable to your claim.



Can you describe the algorithms used by any of these "settings?" Can you describe in exactly what way they will tend to reveal information that would support a finding that the Shroud is "encrusted" and not produce a false positive?



What other color models did you use in your attempt to validate your findings? Are there color models besides RGB that would be more appropriate to your study?



The criticism of your method is valid for the reasons given. You seem reluctant to address the reasons. You just seem to be chafing at the fact that you're being criticized, even going so far as to insinuate that questioning your methods amounts to a personal attack or invasion of privacy. While it is sometimes disappointing to face criticism for work in which you've invested a lot of time, it is necessary to the process. The strength of your findings lies not in how much time you spent arriving at them, but how they weather the worst of valid criticism.



You spend a lot of time trying to tell people what science is. Specifically you seem to spend a lot of time describing your approach and then just slapping the label "scientific" on it. That puts the cart before the horse. If you are going to style your results as scientifically sound, then you bear the burden to prove you have conformed to the appropriate methods and understanding. If you don't know what those are, well then you have more homework to do.

Your ongoing desire to lecture to the readership about how to practice science once again makes it ambiguous whether you're claiming expertise. It's incongruous to approach your topic from the "trial and error" point of view and (as you do below) beg forgiveness for incidental errors or omissions in method, and at the same time rebut criticism by trying to instruct the critics on what is appropriate practice in science and insist that you are following it. While expertise exists along a continuum, it would be wise for you to state unequivocally where along that continuum you want your presentation to fall.



Responsible scientists don't drawn conclusions or publish findings until they are confident the results are sound enough to be trusted by a lay public. That's not to say partial results aren't shared among peers for comment and review. However, if that's what you're doing here and if you're thus going to admit your findings have "warts," then you can't have an emotional response every time someone notices a wart. That makes it seem like you're less interested in determining how the image on the Shroud was produce than in being praised as a clever and skilled scientist.

And you don't get to assume all warts are small. You don't get to assume your approach is fundamentally sound and could err only in a detail here or there. You have to consider the possibility that your image analysis techniques have no power to discover what you want to find out.



Then why do you seem defensive about questions directed at your methodology? Validation of method is essentially what the process of peer review in science hopes to accomplish, and it's a strong pillar of scientific practice. You don't get to be coy about your methods and simultaneously bristle when your approach is then characterized as amateur.



Yes, you have the responsibility to validate your methods before you use them and before you draw conclusions. The easiest and best way to do that is to understand the tools that already exist and the sciences that created them. Making up tools and techniques as you go, without due regard to the state of the art, is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If it's important to you to avoid being lumped in with the pseudoscientists, then you need to be more forthright and less defensive about the review you're receiving here.

Oh dear. That's me put in my place by a onslaught of erudition.

But is that really the appropriate response to a progress report on ongoing scientific enquiry (and yes, I am a working scientist, though retired some years ago, who has been refereed and has refereed others in the rarified peer-reviewed realms of science).

I think not. A peer-reviewed paper in science usually relates the experiments performed to test a hypothesis without telling you how that hypothesis was arrived at, and 9 times out of 10, the thinking behind that hypothesis would not stand up to the kind of onslaught we see here.

Some of the points that JayUtah raises are interesting ones which I might take up at a later date. For now, here's a composite image, hot from the presses, correction, a semi-knackered, semi-retired laptop, that I believe will, or could become a game changer in sindonology. (It's purely an accident that it came to be announce don this site first, while I took an extended holiday from my own, largely thanks to the iniquitous operation of Google rankings on entry-level searches that are weighted in favour of commercial tat).


Because it's a composite, the individual images (from MS Office Picture Manager) are not shown to their best advantage.

Individual images available on request!

The first is an adjustment of brightness/contrast to a Shroud Scope 'as is' image which shows the crust-like nature of the body image. The second, with switching between min/max values on just two subsidiary settings, shows the yellow stain-like background underneath the encrustation. The third, with optimal intermediate settings between those two extremes (easily overlooked on the software!) shows (I think) both the encrustation and the yellow background optimally, or nearly so, in the one image.

These findings generate a simple hypothesis, namely that it should be possible to detach the encrusted material from the linen with a sharp blade leaving the underlying stain. However, Rogers' sticky tape sampling is not the appropriate strategy for testing this hypothesis, and may indeed have led to some misleading claims. A hand lens and scalpel is needed, maybe with a vacuum tube fitted with sintered disk to act as mini-vacuum-cleaner, trapping and retaining solid particles for microscopy and microchemical testing.

Again, sorry for ducking the detailed point-by-point inquisition, but it's been a long day, ringing the changes on image-editing to optimize brightness and contrast - vital when dealing with that anaemic washed-out Shroud Scope starter image.

These highly erudite and detailed counsels of perfection are fine for internet public-forums, but rarely pay dividends elsewhere...Scientists have to deal with the world as they find it.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh dear. That's me put in my place by a onslaught of erudition.

No, it's just someone trying to gain insight into your methods by asking appropriate questions. You insist on personalizing the argument, which I find puzzling.

...and yes, I am a working scientist, though retired some years ago...

So are you posturing yourself as an expert on image analysis or not? I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you. You tell me that we need to be charitable in evaluating your findings because you're still working through your process. But then you tell us you're an old hand at this. I think not. You're taking a critical review of your methods far too personally. If you are out of your element, now would be a good time to confess this so that your readers can place your presentation in the proper context.

....the thinking behind that hypothesis would not stand up to the kind of onslaught we see here.

And if that had anything to do with your presentation you'd have a point. Your attempts at image analysis constitute an experiment to test a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation. You believe that evidence of that encrustation and staining (browning) would be revealed in photographs of the Shroud if you apply image processing algorithms to it -- and in fact you believe you've found that evidence, which you say justifies a different physical examination of the cloth. It doesn't matter how you arrived at the hypothesis of encrustation. What matters is whether the empirical test you've designed to test for the optical evidence of encrustation actually works. I'm asking questions designed to explore your experiment design. And the best we can get from you is a promise that you might consider answering them later.

Some of the points that JayUtah raises are interesting ones which I might take up at a later date.

Why not now? I've asked you a number of questions that have simple answers -- some even yes/no answers. You don't have to do any additional study to answer them because they relate to work you've already done and reported. After a couple of days of asking, fatigue is no longer a valid excuse for not supplying simple answers asking what you did or didn't do. Just today I've asked you to elaborate on some of your methods, and I imagine an answer to my satisfaction would take several paragraphs to compose. Naturally you're not on the hook immediately to answer those. But you leave people wondering at your potential biases when you omit simple answers to simple questions and bluster ahead with presenting more of your findings. It makes your readers think you're trying to railroad your conclusions past a legitimate critical review.

Again, sorry for ducking the detailed point-by-point inquisition...

It's not an inquisition, and trying to shame your critics away from asking questions by characterizing the questioning in emotional terms is neither professional nor helpful to your credibility. With every post you seem to deploy emotional objections to having your work reviewed. This is really puzzling.

These highly erudite and detailed counsels of perfection are fine for internet public-forums, but rarely pay dividends elsewhere...Scientists have to deal with the world as they find it.

You're conflating two issues.

Nobody is asking you to be perfect. They're asking you to be competent. You have the burden to prove you are competent in the disciplines you have chosen to apply to your data. Your presentation raises legitimate concerns regarding your proficiency in the sciences you have chosen to test the available evidence. But rather than your critics simply assuming you did it wrong, you're being asked questions designed to probe likely flaws in your method. You are not being persecuted. You are not being asked for anything unreasonable. But you are assiduously defensive about the line of questioning, which itself continues to raise concerns.

Separately, yes we understand that we are dealing with imperfect evidence in the form of photographs obtained as convenience samples. That is precisely why a competent approach to analyzing that imperfect evidence is required. Photography by any means is a lossy method of recording the visual appearance of something. That is precisely why there is a very large body of knowledge in the analysis and processing of images, not the least department of which is the understanding of whether the information we seek in a recorded image can be determined to be present in any form. This is not a straightforward or intuitive determination. The nature of the evidence makes it all the more important to look at it with confident understanding and proper tools, not with homemade methods.

 

[meccanoman]

No, it's just someone trying to gain insight into your methods by asking appropriate questions. You insist on personalizing the argument, which I find puzzling.



So are you posturing yourself as an expert on image analysis or not? I can't seem to get a straight answer out of you. You tell me that we need to be charitable in evaluating your findings because you're still working through your process. But then you tell us you're an old hand at this. I think not. You're taking a critical review of your methods far too personally. If you are out of your element, now would be a good time to confess this so that your readers can place your presentation in the proper context.



And if that had anything to do with your presentation you'd have a point. Your attempts at image analysis constitute an experiment to test a hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation. You believe that evidence of that encrustation and staining (browning) would be revealed in photographs of the Shroud if you apply image processing algorithms to it -- and in fact you believe you've found that evidence, which you say justifies a different physical examination of the cloth. It doesn't matter how you arrived at the hypothesis of encrustation. What matters is whether the empirical test you've designed to test for the optical evidence of encrustation actually works. I'm asking questions designed to explore your experiment design. And the best we can get from you is a promise that you might consider answering them later.



Why not now? I've asked you a number of questions that have simple answers -- some even yes/no answers. You don't have to do any additional study to answer them because they relate to work you've already done and reported. After a couple of days of asking, fatigue is no longer a valid excuse for not supplying simple answers asking what you did or didn't do. Just today I've asked you to elaborate on some of your methods, and I imagine an answer to my satisfaction would take several paragraphs to compose. Naturally you're not on the hook immediately to answer those. But you leave people wondering at your potential biases when you omit simple answers to simple questions and bluster ahead with presenting more of your findings. It makes your readers think you're trying to railroad your conclusions past a legitimate critical review.



It's not an inquisition, and trying to shame your critics away from asking questions by characterizing the questioning in emotional terms is neither professional nor helpful to your credibility. With every post you seem to deploy emotional objections to having your work reviewed. This is really puzzling.



You're conflating two issues.

Nobody is asking you to be perfect. They're asking you to be competent. You have the burden to prove you are competent in the disciplines you have chosen to apply to your data. Your presentation raises legitimate concerns regarding your proficiency in the sciences you have chosen to test the available evidence. But rather than your critics simply assuming you did it wrong, you're being asked questions designed to probe likely flaws in your method. You are not being persecuted. You are not being asked for anything unreasonable. But you are assiduously defensive about the line of questioning, which itself continues to raise concerns.

Separately, yes we understand that we are dealing with imperfect evidence in the form of photographs obtained as convenience samples. That is precisely why a competent approach to analyzing that imperfect evidence is required. Photography by any means is a lossy method of recording the visual appearance of something. That is precisely why there is a very large body of knowledge in the analysis and processing of images, not the least department of which is the understanding of whether the information we seek in a recorded image can be determined to be present in any form. This is not a straightforward or intuitive determination. The nature of the evidence makes it all the more important to look at it with confident understanding and proper tools, not with homemade methods.

Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner - who is not expected to be an expert in every disease under the sun, merely capable of narrowing the field down to this or that diagnosis, knowing when to refer to a specialist.

Do your subject your first-port-of-call medical practitioner to the kind of third degree you are subjecting me?

Science is not a guessing game. It involves constant application of experience, insight and judgement - attributes to which you seem to have a blind spot.


Colin Berry MSc, PhD

 

[Porpoise of Life]

 

[JayUtah]

Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner...

Yet here you are practicing a science you don't seem to know much about, expecting variously to be treated with charity for your errors or accepted as an expert regardless. Have you consulted qualified image analysis specialists? No, I daresay you have not. If we were to compare your work here to a medical practitioner, instead of referring your case to a specialist you've simply made up a new "treatment" on the fly and are trying it out on the patient without any foreknowledge of what that treatment is expected to manifest. Where I live, that would result in a rather expensive malpractice lawsuit.

If you had realized you were in over your head, followed your own advice, and had had your analysis performed by competent practitioners you might have had a chance at credibility. But instead you're just making it up as you go -- which is bad enough -- but then trying to deflect legitimate and well-founded criticism of your homegrown "medicine" by bluster and a comically thin skin.

Do your subject your first-port-of-call medical practitioner to the kind of third degree you are subjecting me?

You are not being questioned inappropriately, but at this point you are almost falling over yourself to suggest that you are. Most unprofessional, in my opinion. In the time it has taken you to be so dramatically offended at the mere act of being questioned, you could have answered any number of actual questions regarding your methods, and possibly allayed ongoing criticism. It's not a foregone conclusion that your answers would reveal a flaw. But we have to ask them as diligent reviewers of your work. Why would a conscientious scientist as unsure as you've said you are in some of your techniques not answer the questions designed to determine whether he might be falling into avoidable error? Boggles the mind.

Science is not a guessing game.

I agree. Yet you insist on guessing rather than consulting previously acquired knowledge or even submitting your guesses to scrutiny. Not only are you guessing and calling it science, you're guessing and begging to get away with it. Being wrong is not a sin, even in science. Possibly being wrong yet unwilling to participate in a dialogue about it, is.

It involves constant application of experience, insight and judgement - attributes to which you seem to have a blind spot.

But you're just making it up as you go, at least as far as your image analysis goes. That's none of the things you mentioned. There is a body of science that you don't seem to be aware of but which bears greatly on the work you're trying to do. You seem to lack experience in it, and therefore the judgment and insight that would depend on experience.

As to your primary hypothesis that the image on the Shroud is an encrustation, by all means I think you should develop it and, hopefully, arrange to have the cloth examined in a way that would either prove or dispel your hypothesis. But in arguing for such a test, I would not include your image analysis findings in the proposal because what I've seen of it is unconvincing. It would not pass muster in the field. Argue using other evidence, or else consult actual image analysis specialists instead of fumbling about on your own.

Colin Berry MSc, PhD

Nice to meet you; don't care who you are. Are any of those qualifications in digital image processing? A simple yes or no will do, without all the manufactured martyrdom.

 

[John Jones]

Think of the working scientist as you would your local medical practitioner - who is not expected to be an expert in every disease under the sun, merely capable of narrowing the field down to this or that diagnosis, knowing when to refer to a specialist.

[...]

Colin Berry MSc, PhD

IMO, that argument is not going to help your case. Neither will your appeals to digital graphic interpretation unless you can cite some peer-reviewed science and/or training.

Your interpretations of the products of Maillard reactions are interesting because said reactions are a well-studied (if not a well-understood) phenomenon.

Your claimed relevance of Microsoft Office's image handling to the interpretation of the Shroud of Turin image are not.

 

[JayUtah]

Neither will your appeals to digital graphic interpretation unless you can cite some peer-reviewed science and/or training.

Or simply answer the questions. I've seen plenty of people demonstrate competence in fields they didn't study academically or practice professionally. I probably mentioned in another thread that the head of mechanical engineering in one company I belonged to did not have an ME degree. But in his spare time he designed and built race car engines from scratch and routinely won races with them. That's a measure of competence. If someone has not previously demonstrated competence in a field, we need to question the foundation of any expertise proffered upon that field. The reluctance to supply answers where relevant essentially disqualifies any findings based on the proponent's judgment.

Your interpretations of the products of Maillard reactions are interesting because said reactions are a well-studied (if not a well-understood) phenomenon.

I'm an American male, and as such have an inappropriately acute interest in transforming parts of dead cows into tasty meals. Much of that involves mastering the Maillard reaction at the practical level if not the theoretical. As regards the Shroud, I certainly think the browning effect proposed here deserves as much attention as any other theory for how the image was produced. I certainly wouldn't want my criticism to suggest that the primary hypothesis was unworthy of further study.

Your claimed relevance of Microsoft Office's image handling to the interpretation of the Shroud of Turin image are not.

I'm not aware of a single professional or academic image analyst who uses Microsoft Office as an analytical tool. I certainly don't use it for that purpose. Ultimately it doesn't matter who makes the tool as much as it matters that the user of the tool understands at a fairly intimate level how the tool affects the data and is able to apply appropriate controls.

 

[meccanoman]

This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing, but leaving aside RGB monitoring with specialist software, they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS. (Examples: checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.

This approach, pursued over 5 years, has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.

Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say...

I'll say it again: focus on the message, not the messenger. I say the Shroud body image has much in common with that of the blood - both having the APPEARANCE of highly-degraded encrustations (while accepting that appearances can be deceptive, at least to non-wary investigators).

It's an easy-enough hypothesis to test, and minimally-destructive too.

 

[Hokulele]

This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing, but leaving aside RGB monitoring with specialist software, they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS. (Examples: checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.

This approach, pursued over 5 years, has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.

Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say...

I'll say it again: focus on the message, not the messenger. I say the Shroud body image has much in common with that of the blood - both having the APPEARANCE of highly-degraded encrustations (while accepting that appearances can be deceptive, at least to non-wary investigators).

It's an easy-enough hypothesis to test, and minimally-destructive too.

I am surprised you never tried to do any control studies before announcing you have found your holy grail.

Take a picture of an image you created with your technique (encrustations), and another picture of an image created by staining an identical piece of fabric (not encrustations).

Subject both pictures to the exact same settings in whatever suits your fancy, and see if they look similar.

I would predict that the artifacts generated by the extreme editing you are doing would be equally present in both pictures, and in fact, if you weren't told which method was used where, you would not be able to tell the difference.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, I am not a scientist, but control studies before publishing seems like kind of an obvious thing, no?

 

[meccanoman]

I am surprised you never tried to do any control studies before announcing you have found your holy grail.

Take a picture of an image you created with your technique (encrustations), and another picture of an image created by staining an identical piece of fabric (not encrustations).

Subject both pictures to the exact same settings in whatever suits your fancy, and see if they look similar.

I would predict that the artifacts generated by the extreme editing you are doing would be equally present in both pictures, and in fact, if you weren't told which method was used where, you would not be able to tell the difference.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention, I am not a scientist, but control studies before publishing seems like kind of an obvious thing, no?

Well, the ratio of chaff to wheat in your comment might consume a lot of time, which frankly I don't have right now. So leaving aside the suggestion that I've failed to do controls, despite describing them already, what you are seeking it seems are some images in which contrast/brightness adjustments are made to model images with/without encrustations.

In fact, I did that type of control years ago when comparing the responses of model v Shroud image to 3D-rendering software. If the input model image was faint, I would apply additional contrast/brightness to make it bolder. But that was purely for display purposes: I do not routinely apply questionable photoediting to model imprints: if a bolder image is needed I use a longer bake period in the oven, or use more flour and/or oil.

As for use of photo-enhancement generally, that was a strategy forced on me by the nature of Shroud Scope images, which as stated earlier have without a doubt had contrast removed, requiring an initial "adding back" in order to be of any use for research purposes.

Having said that, I did some imprinting last autumn/fall off a 29cm 3D plastic toy, the Incredible Hulk or a close cousin:

If one looks carefully, one can see there's some flecks of unabraded imprint that survived the final wash (see one of subject's arms, biceps area).

I still have the imprint from that experiment, and will later in the day check to see how well or otherwise it responds to the Zeke tool for starters, and report results here. But why do you describe it as "extreme editing" when I've already shown the minimal effect on non-Shroud photographs, and alluded to its minor effect on RGB composition.? Let's see how well it accentuates particulate matter v background on that washed model imprint, with its few surviving flecks, with or without producing artefacts elsewhere...

Nope, the Hulk is not the ideal control, since the initial heavy encrustation was washed off with soap and water, leaving just those few flecks, rather than abrading away naturally in the dry state, or being lightly abraded manually, as I now suspect to be the case for the Shroud. But at least it will show that I'm not evading your question, which was a reasonable one to ask, grain among chaff, bar the uncertainties of comparing the ancient Shroud with a modern day model.

 

[fagin]

Any idea why the Hulk is always angry?

 

[meccanoman]

Before v after that oh-so-extreme Zeke filter.

Here's a post-Zeke close up of the weave showing (a) particulate crud from the roasted flour/oil imprinting medium and (b) faint background stain - the subtle Shroud-like image that one sees (just) with the naked eye, before (c) taking photographs, and before (d) adding modest, non-extreme amounts of brightness and contrast using ordinary everyday oh-so-frightfully downmarket, palpably unscientific photoediting software (MS Office Picture Manager and now, the final nausea-inducing abomination, MS Windows 10 Zeke filter).

 

[abaddon]

[qimg]https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/plastic-figure-pre-post-zeke.png?w=640[/qimg]

Before v after that oh-so-extreme Zeke filter.
[qimg]https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/close-up-post-zeke.png?w=640[/qimg]


Here's a post-Zeke close up of the weave showing (a) particulate crud from the roasted flour/oil imprinting medium and

(b) faint background stain - the subtle Shroud-like image that one sees (just) with the naked eye,

You know that this is how the shroud appeared in 1280 exactly how? You know what your image will appear like in 800 years exactly how?

before (c) taking photographs,

Equipment used and settings used please, algorithms and formats used please, also ambient lighting and environmental conditions please. You did document those in detail, right? Being a rigorous scientist and all?

and before (d) adding modest, non-extreme amounts of brightness and contrast using ordinary everyday oh-so-frightfully downmarket, palpably unscientific photoediting software (MS Office Picture Manager

Exactly how much of either an what algorithms were deployed. Please document any other transformations used and their effects.

and now, the final nausea-inducing abomination, MS Windows 10 Zeke filter).

Again, algorithm used and settings used plus any additional transformations employed.

Your output files are in PNG format which implies two or more transformations which you have neglected to mention at all. What are those steps that you have somehow omitted?

ETA: Your 'after' image is clearly not derived from your 'before' so clearly some other processing steps have occurred. What are they?

 

[meccanoman]

You know that this is how the shroud appeared in 1280 exactly how? You know what your image will appear like in 800 years exactly how?

Equipment used and settings used please, algorithms and formats used please, also ambient lighting and environmental conditions please. You did document those in detail, right? Being a rigorous scientist and all?

Exactly how much of either an what algorithms were deployed. Please document any other transformations used and their effects.

Again, algorithm used and settings used plus any additional transformations employed.

Your output files are in PNG format which implies two or more transformations which you have neglected to mention at all. What are those steps that you have somehow omitted?

ETA: Your 'after' image is clearly not derived from your 'before' so clearly some other processing steps have occurred. What are they?

If algorithms are what turn you on - which I doubt somehow - then here's a tip. Get some linen, flour etc, a hot oven and a bit of photoediting software and experiment with settings and algorithms. I'm content - for now at any rate - showing my before v after results with brief account of experimental conditions to be found on my own site. Real time reporting of research-in-progress is my particular niche.

As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.

Anyway, it's time now to break off and attend to that new iconoclastic posting. I'll maybe respond to any more questions batch-wise later, assuming the thread is still going. There's the e-mail-contact facility of course should anyone be needing an urgent reply.

Au revoir.

 

[abaddon]

If algorithms are what turn you on - which I doubt somehow - then here's a tip. Get some linen, flour etc, a hot oven and a bit of photoediting software and experiment with settings and algorithms. I'm content - for now at any rate - showing my before v after results with brief account of experimental conditions to be found on my own site. Real time reporting of research-in-progress is my particular niche.

As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.

Anyway, it's time now to break off and attend to that new iconoclastic posting. I'll maybe respond to any more questions batch-wise later, assuming the thread is still going. There's the e-mail-contact facility of course should anyone be needing an urgent reply.

Au revoir.

Really? What imaging device did you use? What were the settings used? What was the image format from that device?

Can you supply your original image in RAW format so that I can replicate your steps?

 

[abaddon]

As for the slightly sinister suggestion that I have "omitted steps" between "before" and "after", you are the one who is fantasizing. If I had inserted extra steps, I would have said so.

Please elaborate on the initial steps you left out as requested above. Why did you omit them?

 

[JayUtah]

This Shroud investigator DOES apply controls to his image editing...

But we don't know that. You refuse to answer questions about your method, so your readers have no obligation to assume you're applying controls or that the controls you're applying have the desired effect. The refusal, in fact, engenders some appropriate skepticism.

...they can for the most part be described as REAL WORLD CONTROLS.

From the paltry information I've been able to glean around the edges of your posts here, they seem more like made-up-as-you-go controls. But we have no way to determine which appellation is most accurate -- yours or mine -- since you refuse to discuss them. That reluctance is especially puzzling given that you admitted you might be making errors in method and asked for forbearance for that. If your image analysis is a work in progress, then progress can only be made by discussing and, if necessary, correcting the method.

...checking out each new brightness/contrast setting on a range of real world photographs, comparing the effect each new setting has on Shroud blood as well as body image, making careful note of the interaction between images and herringbone weave pattern, and also on the scarcely-reported obverse side of the linen that has prominent blood but scarcely visible body image etc etc.

At least I seem to have an answer to my firrst question, which is whether you're manipulating the parameters of the algorithms while looking at the image, or whether you are using the histogram as a statistical model to guide your application. It appears you're looking at the image and making subjective decisions. Is it your "experienced" judgment that this is the correct method for obtaining the information you seek?

This approach, pursued over 5 years...

It's unclear what parts of your theory have taken five years to develop. But if you've been working on your image processing techniques for five years, and they're truly as well developed and controlled as you insinuate, then I expect we'll find references to them in the appropriate journals. Can you provide any citations? It might be the first time in the history of the science that Microsoft Office appears as an analytical tool, but I'm not one to stop groundbreaking contributions.

...has finally resulted in a new idea, one I shall now proceed to report on my own site, taking leave temporarily, maybe permanently, of this one with, I have to say, few if any regrets.

Why? Because someone dared ask you a question?

The novelty of an idea isn't the sine qua non. We want to find out if the idea is correct. You say analysis of the images of the Shroud supports the hypothesis that the image was created using browned flour. Sure, I'll grant that it's a new idea for how the image got there -- at least one I've never heard before. But whether your analysis of the image provides the support you claim turns your ability to demonstrate competence in the analysis. You're working in a field rife with false positives that must be controlled for using specialized techniques. You bear the burden to demonstrate proper use of those techniques as part of the demonstration of competence.

Reminder: science is primarily about ideas, correction, new and unconventional ideas. Evaluating new ideas should initially involve an evaluation of the message, vis-a-vis conventional thinking. Focusing on the messenger - working oneself up into a lather as to whether or not the messenger has the appropriate specialist skills to be proposing a new idea - is rarely a productive - or even destructive -line of enquiry in my experience. Life goes on as they say..

Are you sure one of the degrees you listed was not in the dramatic arts? The theatrics you exhibit to avoid answering a few simple questions might not be West End material, but it certainly transcends what I'd expect from a discussion of scientific methodology.

As for science being about correction, I would have to agree there too. Correction requires a careful inspection of the methods used and an evaluation of their efficacy. Without this no correction is possible. Thus the tendency of science to correct itself among the vicissitudes of individual practitioners demands transparency of method and, frankly, a complete detachment of emotion. If you're not prepared to toss five years' worth of work in the bin because a big part of it turns out to be wrong, it's not science.

The part of the message that involves how the digital image data were made to support the hypothesis is the focus of my questioning. Or at least was, until the theatrics of the practitioner took center stage. Analytical processes must done competently in order to achieve reliable results. Questions designed to determine the competence of the analysis are not "attacking the messenger." They are squarely aimed at determining the degree to which we can trust proffered results. But here, for some strange reason, the most straightforward questions are waved off with such emotional language as "working oneself into a lather." The real message is clear: "If you question me, I will ridicule you." Beats me how that's supposed to result in sound science.

 

[meccanoman]

Each time I try to extricate myself from this site (the second time in 3 years or so!) I get longer and longer, ever more technically-detailed and/or eloquent responses, the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.

Final word: having spent the day, checking and rechecking my optimized brightness/contrast settings for Shroud Scope images, I've settled on just 5 images (1 control, 4 adjusted) that I now need to show on my own site in order to to justify the following title:

"Four digitally-enhanced Shroud Scope images say the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake - based probably on unique, one-off, flour-imprinting technology."


Adieu!

 

[fagin]

TTFN

 

[abaddon]

Each time I try to extricate myself from this site (the second time in 3 years or so!) I get longer and longer, ever more technically-detailed and/or eloquent responses, the last at the time of writing from the site's Supreme Presence no less.

Yet you refuse to respond. Why you feel the need to descend to covert insult is beyond me.

I asked you to provide your initial image in RAW format, identify the equipment used and the settings used. What prevents you doing so?

Final word: having spent the day, checking and rechecking my optimized brightness/contrast settings for Shroud Scope images, I've settled on just 5 images (1 control, 4 adjusted) that I now need to show on my own site in order to to justify the following title:

"Four digitally-enhanced Shroud Scope images say the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake - based probably on unique, one-off, flour-imprinting technology."

Your flour proposal is irrelevant to the questions still hanging over the validity of your image processing. You refuse to identify the equipment used, nor the format captured, nor any conversions used to import said image into MS, nor any resolution changes employed, nor how much brightness contrast was used, nor the output format, nor the Zeke settings used and so on and so forth.

As a scientist, surely you documented all of this in meticulous detail, right?

Adieu!

Sure.