4 ms·

Issues are going beyond face recognition and algorithms : photography has a long history of bias [1]. Besides the issue of insufficient testing, I had to ask my

by tangue 8y ago

Issues are going beyond face recognition and algorithms : photography has a long history of bias [1]. Besides the issue of insufficient testing, I had to ask myself : what if these algorithms are relying on a biased process thinking it was impartial ? [1] https://jezebel.com/the-truth-about-photography-and-brown-skin-1557656792 https://jezebel.com/the-truth-about-photography-and-brown-sk...

creato 8y ago
Can anyone explain exactly what is missing in photography due to "bias"? I'm just an amateur photographer that developed film in high school and plays around with RAW and Lightroom. I can't think of anything in the process that isn't simply a matter of light sensitivity and dynamic range. Film and image sensors don't understand high level semantic features like skin. The hardest thing to take a photo of is a black haired cat, and I don't think that's because Adobe is biased agains black cats.
- tangue 8y ago
  Following the link I posted might be a good start.
  - creato 8y ago
    Do you really think Kodak didn't want to make a film that could capture dark subjects until furniture companies asked for it? The reason I commented is because that article makes a lot of complaints that drum up outrage. As far as I know are of the complaints all much better explained by either 1) less light is harder to photograph, or 2) photographing bright things and dark things at the same time is harder than photographing just bright things or just dark things.
- swish_bob 8y ago
  In the days of colour film photography, one of the stages applied was skin tone matching. When trying to set your printer up you printed a fairly standard picture, and checked the skin tone looked right. For a long time nobody thought to do the test with people who weren't white, so often the skin tones of darker people were off - hence the pictures you got developed were more likely to be accurate if your subjects were white. https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s-shirley-cards-set-photography-s-skin-tone-standard https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s...
- michaelt 8y ago
  The issue is the physical inevitability of performing a political act. 1. There have been instances of photos of black people being postprocessed to make their skin darker. For example, OJ Simpson's mug shot on Time's cover was "artistically interpreted" [1] and attack ads against Obama darkened his skin [2]. Also of Kerry Washington's skin being made lighter [3]. 2. Some people interpreted darkening photos as a political move, embodying a belief that dark skin is scary. And lightening the photos as embodying a belief that light skin is more beautiful. 3. Photographers can't keep their hands off the postprocessing tools. And even if they could, they've still got to choose an aperture and exposure when they take the photo. 4. Some people would say, because lightening and darkening black people's skin is political, and photography can't avoid lightening and darkening, photography is inherently political. (and that saying you don't photograph black people is more political, not less) Of course, some would see that argument as a bit of a stretch. I can understand where it's coming from I just don't agree - or at least, I'm not sure what it means in terms of my personal actions. [1] http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/darkened_mug_shot/ http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/darkened_mug_shot/ [2] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/obama-street-thug/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/obama-street-... [3] https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a36108/kerry-washington-instyle-cover/ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a3610...
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  The main point seems to be that photography was made by whites for whites, and thus discriminates against non-whites. What I don't understand is how the article seems to imply that there's something wrong with that. Consider that - Photography was invented and for the longest time mostly used in a majority white area. - It makes a lot of sense that, in predominantly white cultural spaces, lighter skin is preferred, as it historically indicated that a person didn't need to work in the open, which implied some degree of wealth. - Most importantly, it seems to not understand how light works. Dark surfaces reflect less light, so there's less contrast between strongly lit areas and shadows, meaning it's both harder to make a photo look clear and for an AI to analyze it.
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
You know an article should be taken seriously when it unironically references buzzfeed /s

by tangue 8y ago

creato 8y ago

Can anyone explain exactly what is missing in photography due to "bias"? I'm just an amateur photographer that developed film in high school and plays around with RAW and Lightroom. I can't think of anything in the process that isn't simply a matter of light sensitivity and dynamic range. Film and image sensors don't understand high level semantic features like skin. The hardest thing to take a photo of is a black haired cat, and I don't think that's because Adobe is biased agains black cats.

tangue 8y ago
Following the link I posted might be a good start.
- creato 8y ago
  Do you really think Kodak didn't want to make a film that could capture dark subjects until furniture companies asked for it? The reason I commented is because that article makes a lot of complaints that drum up outrage. As far as I know are of the complaints all much better explained by either 1) less light is harder to photograph, or 2) photographing bright things and dark things at the same time is harder than photographing just bright things or just dark things.
swish_bob 8y ago
In the days of colour film photography, one of the stages applied was skin tone matching. When trying to set your printer up you printed a fairly standard picture, and checked the skin tone looked right. For a long time nobody thought to do the test with people who weren't white, so often the skin tones of darker people were off - hence the pictures you got developed were more likely to be accurate if your subjects were white. https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s-shirley-cards-set-photography-s-skin-tone-standard https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363517842/for-decades-kodak-s...
michaelt 8y ago
The issue is the physical inevitability of performing a political act. 1. There have been instances of photos of black people being postprocessed to make their skin darker. For example, OJ Simpson's mug shot on Time's cover was "artistically interpreted" [1] and attack ads against Obama darkened his skin [2]. Also of Kerry Washington's skin being made lighter [3]. 2. Some people interpreted darkening photos as a political move, embodying a belief that dark skin is scary. And lightening the photos as embodying a belief that light skin is more beautiful. 3. Photographers can't keep their hands off the postprocessing tools. And even if they could, they've still got to choose an aperture and exposure when they take the photo. 4. Some people would say, because lightening and darkening black people's skin is political, and photography can't avoid lightening and darkening, photography is inherently political. (and that saying you don't photograph black people is more political, not less) Of course, some would see that argument as a bit of a stretch. I can understand where it's coming from I just don't agree - or at least, I'm not sure what it means in terms of my personal actions. [1] http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/darkened_mug_shot/ http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/darkened_mug_shot/ [2] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/obama-street-thug/ https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/obama-street-... [3] https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a36108/kerry-washington-instyle-cover/ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a3610...
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
The main point seems to be that photography was made by whites for whites, and thus discriminates against non-whites. What I don't understand is how the article seems to imply that there's something wrong with that. Consider that - Photography was invented and for the longest time mostly used in a majority white area. - It makes a lot of sense that, in predominantly white cultural spaces, lighter skin is preferred, as it historically indicated that a person didn't need to work in the open, which implied some degree of wealth. - Most importantly, it seems to not understand how light works. Dark surfaces reflect less light, so there's less contrast between strongly lit areas and shadows, meaning it's both harder to make a photo look clear and for an AI to analyze it.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago

You know an article should be taken seriously when it unironically references buzzfeed /s