4 ms·

I take issue with this article simply because photography isn't a technology at all. It is an art that uses technology. There are millions of pictures of people

by ohiovr 8y ago

I take issue with this article simply because photography isn't a technology at all. It is an art that uses technology. There are millions of pictures of people of all races that look perfectly fine. I take issue with stirring up people for no reason. If a maker of paints in the 1800s owned slaves does that mean that painting (then, now, in the future) is racist? How ridiculous can we get?

dang 8y ago
Sure it's ridiculous. But also it's not what the author says. Therefore your comment breaks this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and doing a better job of posting substantively here? You've posted one-liner flamebait twice already, which is not cool, especially on a divisive topic.
- ohiovr 8y ago
  I will just avoid these articles. Sorry i hurt the outrage.
mirimir 8y ago
If "millions of pictures of people of all races ... look perfectly fine", that just means that those photographers had requisite skills. And cared enough to get it right. But the issue isn't so much about those photographers. It's about the defaults designed into film, cameras, photosensors, and so on. As TFA discusses. So random users -- and even many technicians -- don't get good results when they rely on the defaults. As in "your jacket is lighter than your face". And that's even an issue for many "white" people, which is why TV makeup is such a thing. And about your paint maker. If they didn't care very much about painting dark-skinned people, maybe they wouldn't put much effort into researching and developing paints that worked well for that. It's exactly the same issue as with Kodak in TFA. So is that racism? One could argue that it's just not caring very much about some race(s) of people. But one could also argue that anything that's race-based is racism.

by ohiovr 8y ago

dang 8y ago

Sure it's ridiculous. But also it's not what the author says. Therefore your comment breaks this site guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and doing a better job of posting substantively here? You've posted one-liner flamebait twice already, which is not cool, especially on a divisive topic.

ohiovr 8y ago
I will just avoid these articles. Sorry i hurt the outrage.

mirimir 8y ago

If "millions of pictures of people of all races ... look perfectly fine", that just means that those photographers had requisite skills. And cared enough to get it right. But the issue isn't so much about those photographers. It's about the defaults designed into film, cameras, photosensors, and so on. As TFA discusses. So random users -- and even many technicians -- don't get good results when they rely on the defaults. As in "your jacket is lighter than your face". And that's even an issue for many "white" people, which is why TV makeup is such a thing. And about your paint maker. If they didn't care very much about painting dark-skinned people, maybe they wouldn't put much effort into researching and developing paints that worked well for that. It's exactly the same issue as with Kodak in TFA. So is that racism? One could argue that it's just not caring very much about some race(s) of people. But one could also argue that anything that's race-based is racism.