Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
    • Meeting Collections
  • Reviews & Opinions
    • Editorials
    • In Focus
    • People & Ideas
    • Spotlights
    • Viewpoints
    • Reviews
    • biobytes podcast
    • biosights podcast
  • Alerts
  • About
    • History
    • Editors & Staff
    • Permissions & Licensing
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Publication Fees
    • Author Services
  • Subscriptions
  • Rockefeller University Press
  • JCB
  • JEM
  • JGP
  • LSA

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
JCB
  • Rockefeller University Press
  • JCB
  • JEM
  • JGP
  • LSA
  • Log in
JCB

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Subject Collections
    • Meeting Collections
  • Reviews & Opinions
    • Editorials
    • In Focus
    • People & Ideas
    • Spotlights
    • Viewpoints
    • Reviews
    • biobytes podcast
    • biosights podcast
  • Alerts
  • About
    • History
    • Editors & Staff
    • Permissions & Licensing
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Publication Fees
    • Author Services
  • Subscriptions

You are here

jcb Home » 2004 Archive » 5 July » 166 (1): 11
Feature

What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation

Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada
Mike Rossner
Managing Editor, The Journal of Cell Biology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenneth M. Yamada
Editor, The Journal of Cell Biology, and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200406019 | Published July 6, 2004
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Gross manipulation of blots. (A) Example of a band deleted from the original data (lane 3). (B) Example of a band added to the original data (lane 3).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Gross manipulation of blots. Example of a duplicated panel (arrows).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Manipulation of blots: brightness and contrast adjustments. (A) Adjusting the intensity of a single band (arrow). B) Adjustments of contrast. Images 1, 2, and 3 show sequentially more severe adjustments of contrast. Although the adjustment from 1 to 2 is acceptable because it does not obscure any of the bands, the adjustment from 2 to 3 is unacceptable because several bands are eliminated. Cutting out a strip of a blot with the contrast adjusted provides the false impression of a very clean result (image 4 was derived from a heavily adjusted version of the left lane of image 1). For a more detailed discussion of “gel slicing and dicing,” see Nature Cell Biology editorial (2).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Manipulation of blots: cleaning up background. The Photoshop “Rubber Stamp” tool has been used in the manipulated image to clean up the background in the original data. Close inspection of the image reveals a repeating pattern in the left lane of the manipulated image, indicating that such a tool has been used.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Misrepresentation of immunogold data. The gold particles, which were actually present in the original (left), have been enhanced in the manipulated image (right). Note also that the background dot in the original data has been removed in the manipulated image.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Misrepresentation of image data. Cells from various fields have been juxtaposed in a single image, giving the impression that they were present in the same microscope field. A manipulated panel is shown at the top. The same panel, with the contrast adjusted by us to reveal the manipulation, is shown at the bottom.

Previous articleNext article
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation
Mike Rossner, Kenneth M. Yamada
J Cell Biol Jul 2004, 166 (1) 11-15; DOI: 10.1083/jcb.200406019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address

Email logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo Reddit logo CiteULike logo LinkedIn logo
The Journal of Cell Biology: 217 (4)

Current Issue

April 2, 2018
Volume 217, No. 4

  • Table of Contents
  • All Issues

Jump To

  • Article
    • Why is it wrong to “touch up” images?
    • Journal guidelines
    • Blots and gels
    • More subtle manipulations
    • Micrographs
    • Resolution
    • Other data-management issues
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
 

ARTICLES

  • Current Issue
  • Newest Articles
  • Archive
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds

FOR AUTHORS

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors

ABOUT

  • About JCB
  • Editors & Staff
  • Permissions & Licensing
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Feedback
  • Newsroom

CONNECT WITH JCB

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Instagram

Online ISSN: 1540-8140
Print ISSN: 0021-9525

Copyright © 2018 JCB by Rockefeller University Press