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.
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.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.
In this thread, the only people offended appear to be middle aged-older white males. Why is that? It's intriguing.....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.
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....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
Hey Ron,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
Fair. But as a person of color, I have a feeling based on the visceral defensiveness. Call it experience. Unfortunately.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
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
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.In this thread, the only people offended appear to be middle aged-older white males. Why is that? It's intriguing.....
Regards, Art
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
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?