I will agree with the argument that a greater tone range is required to present a greater diversity of skin tones but to imply that somehow the limits of a new technology has an intentional or unintentional bias on behalf of "Whitey" is just dumb.
The video throws up a few examples of good and bad photos and then makes the claim that they are proof that film was racist. I wonder if there are any good photos of red herrings?
The truth is photography used to require a great deal of skill in order to produce a quality image regardless of skin color and the examples given with mixed races, where one group appears "In a better light" than the other is more of an example of a bad photographer than a bad film product.
Is it probable that certain light meters had default "Ideal" values and the people reading them were biased towards lighter skins? Of course but to claim that color film somehow hurt people with dark skin is just ridiculous. There were plenty of images where the lighting was incorrect and the white people looked washed out like vampires or phantoms too, this video just chose to omit them to make a false and divisive argument.
Yes film companies like Kodak chose to market certain film products towards dark skinned people in the 70s but that is not proof of a racist product but rather a company targeting a demographic with rising purchasing power. In fact a better argument could be made that marketing towards specific demographics under the guise of inclusivity is manipulative and predatory.
I think in some ways because we live in an age of extremely low priced and high quality digital cameras, people forget the amount of work that was required to produce a quality photograph when color film first came out.
Edit* The Video also begins by mentioning the Shirley cards used in the developing of film, developing of film required just as much if not more skill than taking the picture. Again I believe the understanding of the amount of time and care required to produce a quality photograph back then is not understood by many people these days.
Apologists showing up in huge numbers! It's just the way film works, they cry. Nobody's fault!
Why then did film manufacturers advertise 'realistic skin tones' for a century. And never do anything whatsoever about how that was false for a significant fraction of humanity? That, of course, is 'just how it works' too. That's the point of the article - that it's easy to ignore black people because {reasons}.
It was not inconceivable that somebody could make film that worked for all. Ignoring that critical idea shows a willing suspension of rationality in the service of a really obviously biased situation.
But no, continue apologizing for institutional racism, because of course that's how it's supposed to work. Everything for white people since, money.
3 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 20.3 ms ] threadI will agree with the argument that a greater tone range is required to present a greater diversity of skin tones but to imply that somehow the limits of a new technology has an intentional or unintentional bias on behalf of "Whitey" is just dumb.
The video throws up a few examples of good and bad photos and then makes the claim that they are proof that film was racist. I wonder if there are any good photos of red herrings?
The truth is photography used to require a great deal of skill in order to produce a quality image regardless of skin color and the examples given with mixed races, where one group appears "In a better light" than the other is more of an example of a bad photographer than a bad film product.
Is it probable that certain light meters had default "Ideal" values and the people reading them were biased towards lighter skins? Of course but to claim that color film somehow hurt people with dark skin is just ridiculous. There were plenty of images where the lighting was incorrect and the white people looked washed out like vampires or phantoms too, this video just chose to omit them to make a false and divisive argument.
Yes film companies like Kodak chose to market certain film products towards dark skinned people in the 70s but that is not proof of a racist product but rather a company targeting a demographic with rising purchasing power. In fact a better argument could be made that marketing towards specific demographics under the guise of inclusivity is manipulative and predatory.
I think in some ways because we live in an age of extremely low priced and high quality digital cameras, people forget the amount of work that was required to produce a quality photograph when color film first came out.
Edit* The Video also begins by mentioning the Shirley cards used in the developing of film, developing of film required just as much if not more skill than taking the picture. Again I believe the understanding of the amount of time and care required to produce a quality photograph back then is not understood by many people these days.
Why then did film manufacturers advertise 'realistic skin tones' for a century. And never do anything whatsoever about how that was false for a significant fraction of humanity? That, of course, is 'just how it works' too. That's the point of the article - that it's easy to ignore black people because {reasons}.
It was not inconceivable that somebody could make film that worked for all. Ignoring that critical idea shows a willing suspension of rationality in the service of a really obviously biased situation.
But no, continue apologizing for institutional racism, because of course that's how it's supposed to work. Everything for white people since, money.