White skin bias in old stock film

Centre Lawn

A
Centre Lawn

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Lacock Abbey detail

A
Lacock Abbey detail

  • 0
  • 1
  • 21
Tyndall Bruce

A
Tyndall Bruce

  • 0
  • 0
  • 39
TEXTURES

A
TEXTURES

  • 4
  • 0
  • 65

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,905
Messages
2,782,829
Members
99,743
Latest member
HypnoRospo
Recent bookmarks
0
Status
Not open for further replies.

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
Back to discussing film. Correct exposure and processing, correcting for skin tone, will produce good prints for all people. However, a problem can come about when there is a mixed crowd. For example, years ago when a photographer attempted to take a picture of the violin students in my daughter's music school the film did not have sufficient latitude. If exposed for the fairest student all that was distinguishable of the very dark black student were his teeth. However, if exposed for his skin color all that was visible of the very white girl were two dots for eyes.
Where there made have been some bias could be found is some early Weston meters that had a "c" index mark for portraits.
Another note. It may be that nobody has a prejudice against your race, they may just not like you.
 

chriscrawfordphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
1,892
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Format
Medium Format
Back to discussing film. Correct exposure and processing, correcting for skin tone, will produce good prints for all people. However, a problem can come about when there is a mixed crowd. For example, years ago when a photographer attempted to take a picture of the violin students in my daughter's music school the film did not have sufficient latitude. If exposed for the fairest student all that was distinguishable of the very dark black student were his teeth. However, if exposed for his skin color all that was visible of the very white girl were two dots for eyes.
Where there made have been some bias could be found is some early Weston meters that had a "c" index mark for portraits.
Another note. It may be that nobody has a prejudice against your race, they may just not like you.


It always upset me to see photos of Black people where they were underexposed. All you could see was eyes and teeth. The thing is, exposing for dark skinned people is not hard.

Here's a shot I did a few years ago of some of my former students at a carnival during the summer. I was their 9th grade English teacher during the previous school year.

three-students.jpg


All three girls are African-Americans, and the photo as done at night under poor lighting. You can see full detail in their black hair, which is quite a bit darker than their skin, and in the white shirt worn by the girl on the left. The kids saw me taking pictures at the carnival and asked me to do one of them! I promised to bring them some prints when school started again. None of them were in my classes that year, but they sought me out on the first day of school to ask if I had the photos for them! I had actually forgotten, and I admitted it. "come back tomorrow, I'll have them then." I printed the picture, an 8x10 for each girl, that night and gave them to them the next day. They LOVED the photo!
 
OP
OP
gr82bart

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
What an ignorant, racist post. There are a lot of whites with no 'privilege' in the country you chose to move to. Millions of American whites live in poverty; they have no political power, no money, and are looked down on for their lower-class origin.

I know from experience. My grandfather had an 8th grade education. My father was the second person in our family's history to graduate from high school. I was the 6th. Rich white people are certainly privileged, as rich people everywhere are, no matter their race. Most white Americans are not wealthy.
There's a common misunderstanding that privilege = wealth. And me calling out white privilege is not racist. Sorry, it just isn't. I might have been a-hole about it, but that isn't racist either.

Now back to the articles on "bias" in old stock films....

I honestly thought the post was innocuous as clearly the articles I posted focused on the Shirley card as the source of "bias" in calibrating film exposure and development. See the quotation marks? Bias is not a bad word. Further, I mention in another post those cards were introduced when most film users in America were whites. And I cite the study by McGill University communications professor who also states the bias stems from the Shirley cards. And she too never said that bias was hateful intentional. I mean come one, these are articles from McGill University, NPR, PDN. These aren't "activist" references, what ever that means.

So what starts as a fascinating read for me in a café at LACMA turns into a perceived attack against all white men. In a way, that too is fascinating. Why so visceral? Re-read some of the replies.

Summary:
"Bias" in quotes - and bias isn't a bad word
I mention old stock film not today's film
I actually quote sources from reasonable references - can someone reference contrary articles?
I quote the source study from McGill University
I mention the focus of the articles is on the Shirley cards actually, not on any hateful intent from Kodak
The articles mention those cards were introduced when most American users of color film were white American families
Another article mentions calibration of Kodak cinema film against white persons - also a symptom of those times - versus Fiji film calibration - duh, they're Japanese; they ain't white

There's no activist subplot, there are only articles on how film calibration against white skin tones was the norm of the times. If that offends you, then so be it.

Regards, Art
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
As working professional photographer and cinematographer for many decades who has shot many thousands of miles of film under all circumstances and subjects in all kinds of environments and countries my considered opinion is that film is not biased to a particular race of people. If there were race biased film I would have known about it, tested it, and had stocks of white person film and black person film in my fridge, because my job is has always been the best possible photographic performance possible under any circumstance. The only thing that may have had "bias" in the day was exposure, development, and printing, because of someone being inept, not some racist desire to make white people pictures better. It's silly as saying reversal film is 'biased' against white people because fools can't expose it either, and BTW you can find far more examples of that, than you can the other.

So, sorry to the professionally offended who will want to go on to beat this subject to death (again), but my professional opinion is that the premise is still as ludicrous as ever. I have nothing further to add.
 
Last edited:

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,086
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
And the incredibly rich history of films made by Afro-Americans in the 30s, 40s and 50s seem to indicate that it is not the film stock itself that is racist.

Chris -- by definition and reality, all whites in the USA are priviledged -- no matter their economic status, their education, family connections, and all. I suggest reading up on the definition.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
2,844
Location
Flintstone MD
Format
35mm
Stumbling through life seeking indignation then being shocked when it's found is a waste of time. South African Apartheid,Australian Aborigines.New Zealand Maori,Native North American,Canadian native and even more recently Rowandan Tutsi,Bosnian Bosniak...........the list is long and old as history itself and far from a Caucasian monopoly. Pointing fingers at the past dredging up wrongs is a doomed approach. Tread lightly through life and treat others (regardless of who they are) as fellow humans is a good start.
 
OP
OP
gr82bart

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
So, sorry to the professionally offended who will want to go on to beat this subject to death (again), but my professional opinion is that the premise is still as ludicrous as ever. I have nothing further to add.
In this thread, the only people offended appear to be middle aged-older white males. Why is that? It's intriguing.....

Regards, Art
 
OP
OP
gr82bart

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Stumbling through life seeking indignation then being shocked when it's found is a waste of time. South African Apartheid,Australian Aborigines.New Zealand Maori,Native North American,Canadian native and even more recently Rowandan Tutsi,Bosnian Bosniak...........the list is long and old as history itself and far from a Caucasian monopoly. Pointing fingers at the past dredging up wrongs is a doomed approach. Tread lightly through life and treat others (regardless of who they are) as fellow humans is a good start.
OK, you white males are a curious fragile lot. No one is dredging up a "wrong" here. Sheesh. Did anyone actually read the articles in the link or the original study? Oiyveh....

Regards, Art
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Art, in the '60s and 70s there were quite a few African Americans on the technical staff in Research. One was a general manager there and another was my technician. He once pointed out a problem that we were actively working on to eliminate. Our photos for test purposes included up to 3 skin types at one time so that one printing setting could print all types of flesh tones. I have posted one of the internal "Shirley's" for this type of test previously on APUG. Poor tests are without merit IMHO. I've been there and done that with good equipment and proper models along with color checkers and gray scale.

PE
 
  • pdeeh
  • pdeeh
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Diversion.

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
OK, you white males are a curious fragile lot. No one is dredging up a "wrong" here. Sheesh. Did anyone actually read the articles in the link or the original study? Oiyveh....

Regards, Art

Perhaps no one on earth has a free pass with respect to some sort of prejudice against another. Your posts seem to indicate one against white males, otherwise you would not bring it up because you don't necessarily know the sex, age or race of anyone posting.

Sorry.

PE
 
OP
OP
gr82bart

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Art, in the '60s and 70s there were quite a few African Americans on the technical staff in Research. One was a general manager there and another was my technician. He once pointed out a problem that we were actively working on to eliminate. Our photos for test purposes included up to 3 skin types at one time so that one printing setting could print all types of flesh tones. I have posted one of the internal "Shirley's" for this type of test previously on APUG. Poor tests are without merit IMHO. I've been there and done that with good equipment and proper models along with color checkers and gray scale.

PE
Hey Ron,

Thanks for the insight. All of the articles posted explained the very same, perhaps with not such personal experience. They all stated that the Shirley cards reflected the general subjects and users of film as the years progressed.

Regards, Art
 
OP
OP
gr82bart

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Perhaps no one on earth has a free pass with respect to some sort of prejudice against another. Your posts seem to indicate one against white males, otherwise you would not bring it up because you don't necessarily know the sex, age or race of anyone posting.

Sorry.

PE
Fair. But as a person of color, I have a feeling based on the visceral defensiveness. Call it experience. Unfortunately.

Regards, Art
 
  • gr82bart
  • gr82bart
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Diversion.

Hatchetman

Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
I think 90% of the visceral response is because this issue has already been discussed at length in one if not more threads. All your links are 2-3 years old!
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
2,844
Location
Flintstone MD
Format
35mm
OK, you white males are a curious fragile lot. No one is dredging up a "wrong" here. Sheesh. Did anyone actually read the articles in the link or the original study? Oiyveh....

Regards, Art

Calling up years old articles with subjects that have been discussed here ad nauseam isn't dredging up a wrong? OK.

Yes I read a couple of them long ago and unfortunately my advanced age disallows instant recall of all content.

Yep I'm Caucasian and male. That hardly makes me complicit in the historic discrimination of film color balance. Nor am I racist in thought or deed. Do not lay that on my shoulders as they carry enough as it is.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
In this thread, the only people offended appear to be middle aged-older white males. Why is that? It's intriguing.....

Regards, Art
That wouldn't be me. I would be referring to the author of your article, a photographer so stupifying ignorant of process that she decided since she couldn't expose or print, that film must be racist. If I take offense, it is with the inanity of the premise. Also, I self identify as the Lost Princess Anastasia, so please call me princess.
 
Last edited:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I present a sample again of a controlled internal "Shirley" photo. Well, three of them you have never seen, and it is controlled. This was taken on Ektachrome. It was shot on Portra in 4x5, a 35mm consumer film, and Kodachrome all at the same time. This was a 35mm example shot in a Nikon by my friend, who was working in the KRL studio.

Extreme white, neutral white and African American. I assure you that the one on the right has quite good tone, but I can't show the face. Sorry.

PE
 

Attachments

  • kodak girls for skin tests.jpg
    kodak girls for skin tests.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 135

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,975
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
At the risk of appearing to stir things up I'd have to say that if you were to have presented me with this picture with obliterated faces out of this thread's context and asked me which one is white, which is neutral white and which is African- American, I'd have said it was a trick question and the answer was none of them was African-American and they were all as near as damn it the same skin tone. If in reality there are clear differences in skin tone between each of them then the Shirley photo seems to have rendered all three as having very similar skin tones.

Sorry, I just have to say it as I see it.

pentaxuser
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
At the risk of appearing to stir things up I'd have to say that if you were to have presented me with this picture with obliterated faces out of this thread's context and asked me which one is white, which is neutral white and which is African- American, I'd have said it was a trick question and the answer was none of them was African-American and they were all as near as damn it the same skin tone. If in reality there are clear differences in skin tone between each of them then the Shirley photo seems to have rendered all three as having very similar skin tones.

Sorry, I just have to say it as I see it.

pentaxuser

Go ahead and say it. I don't blame you. It is representative of the type of photo we took when testing skin tones. The young lady on the left had skin tones that were ruddy and very light in color and the one on the right had skin tones almost like the table on the right. The one in the middle was in-between. I'm looking at the original, hi-res scan as I make these judgments. It is the only photo I have to show this, and it is not the best example.

Having tested other films (not Kodak) with this type of image, I can say that African American skin tones in such photos often appear distinctly purple.

PE
 
  • skorpiius
  • skorpiius
  • Deleted
  • Reason: off the rails

skorpiius

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
648
Location
Calgary, AB
Format
Medium Format
There's a common misunderstanding that privilege = wealth. And me calling out white privilege is not racist. Sorry, it just isn't. I might have been a-hole about it, but that isn't racist either.

Now back to the articles on "bias" in old stock films....

I honestly thought the post was innocuous as clearly the articles I posted focused on the Shirley card as the source of "bias" in calibrating film exposure and development. See the quotation marks? Bias is not a bad word. Further, I mention in another post those cards were introduced when most film users in America were whites. And I cite the study by McGill University communications professor who also states the bias stems from the Shirley cards. And she too never said that bias was hateful intentional. I mean come one, these are articles from McGill University, NPR, PDN. These aren't "activist" references, what ever that means.

So what starts as a fascinating read for me in a café at LACMA turns into a perceived attack against all white men. In a way, that too is fascinating. Why so visceral? Re-read some of the replies.

Summary:
"Bias" in quotes - and bias isn't a bad word
I mention old stock film not today's film
I actually quote sources from reasonable references - can someone reference contrary articles?
I quote the source study from McGill University
I mention the focus of the articles is on the Shirley cards actually, not on any hateful intent from Kodak
The articles mention those cards were introduced when most American users of color film were white American families
Another article mentions calibration of Kodak cinema film against white persons - also a symptom of those times - versus Fiji film calibration - duh, they're Japanese; they ain't white

There's no activist subplot, there are only articles on how film calibration against white skin tones was the norm of the times. If that offends you, then so be it.

Regards, Art

It sounds like the bias was in 'default calibration settings', rather than the film itself, since Shirley cards are to calibrate printing.
If the population in the US was 87% white, and a default setting was to print for white skin tones, is that racist? Or just lazy?
 

RPC

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,628
Format
Multi Format
Correct exposure and processing, correcting for skin tone, will produce good prints for all people. However, a problem can come about when there is a mixed crowd. For example, years ago when a photographer attempted to take a picture of the violin students in my daughter's music school the film did not have sufficient latitude. If exposed for the fairest student all that was distinguishable of the very dark black student were his teeth. However, if exposed for his skin color all that was visible of the very white girl were two dots for eyes.

Assuming the images were printed on paper, then the problem was probably in the printing. The film was likely able to record all the detail in all the skin tones (assuming negative film, exposed properly), but since paper does not have the dynamic range of film, light and dark in the negative can not always be reproduced properly on paper, a common problem when printing. Dodging/burning could have been used to bring out good detail in all the skin tones, but this is of course impractical if any volume is being produced so masking would have been a more appropriate solution.
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Shirley is a brunette. You'd think they'd want to get hair color correct, but maybe not.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,744
Format
35mm
My family photos ran the gamut of colors. From moon pale to dusky tan. Only issues we ever had were bad photographers and printers.
 
  • Vaughn
  • Vaughn
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Diversion.

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Ok, that one ran its course rather quickly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom