This is a pretty accurate statement of the situation (from the San Francisco Sentinel) except that I would pretty much disagree with the implication that serious shroud researchers ignore any of the data and that in general skeptics do:

Many believe that Jesus imprinted his image on his burial cloth during his resurrection, and others think that the shroud is the authentic burial cloth but that the image was formed by natural processes. Skeptics maintain that the shroud is a forgery created by a medieval artist seeking to display it to relic-hungry pilgrims. The debate often is bitter; each side accuses the other of twisting facts and ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit its view.

I am quite convinced that there is no remaining, valid evidence that it is a fake. That doesn’t make it real. You need to look at all of the evidence and draw your own conclusion. I think it is real. I am in the camp that thinks the image is naturally produced.

San Francisco Sentinel » Blog Archives » SHROUD OF TURIN BACK TO DRAWING BOARD