3 ms·

Dark-skinned faces are inherently more difficult to photograph. Dark skin is in the lowest range of values in most images, but the specular highlights of that s

Dark-skinned faces are inherently more difficult to photograph. Dark skin is in the lowest range of values in most images, but the specular highlights of that skin can reach the highest range of values. Underexpose and you lose all shading; overexpose and you lose the geometric definition given by specular highlights. Pale skin can be made easier to photograph in challenging lighting conditions by using a matte powder, which diffuses specular highlights and reduces the value range. This doesn't work well on dark skin, because subtle shadows are less visible and you lose the impression of shape; you need the specular highlights, but they greatly increase the value range. The problem with early colour films wasn't really hue (all human skin falls into a remarkably narrow range of hues), but a lack of sensitivity and dynamic range compared to monochrome films. They coped with over-exposure reasonably well, but even slight under-exposure would obliterate the detail on dark skin. This limitation of chemistry was a constant problem in all forms of colour photography, but the social burden fell disproportionately on dark-skinned portraiture subjects. Later emulsions had far better rendition of lowlights and smooth compression of highlights, which vastly improved their performance with dark skin.

aeturnum 8y ago
I just want to note that the technical causes you list here are, arguably, totally beside the point. All technical systems have strengths and weaknesses. When systems are conceived and developed their goals are set through a culturally-created understanding of what the system "should" do. The lack of attention to darker faces (from chemical process selection to selection of people depicted in kodak's system calibration cards) explains how we got this particular set of technical limitations instead of one that, say, tended to over-expose easily. > Dark-skinned faces are inherently more difficult to photograph I would say that dark-skinned faces are inherently poorly captured by the photographic technology we have developed, which has focused on detail rather than dynamic range.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >selection of people depicted in kodak's system calibration cards The choice of the model does reflect some amount of bias, but it doesn't cause bias in the printing process. Precise calibration was done with a test chart and a densitometer. Shirley was just a quick reference used throughout the day, to check at a glance whether prints were unnaturally blue or purple or washed out due to changes in the developer chemistry. Fuji usually supplied test films and prints with Asian models, even in European markets; the motion picture industry originally used porcelain dolls. A multi-ethnic test image wouldn't have provided better accuracy. >I would say that dark-skinned faces are inherently poorly captured by the photographic technology we have developed, which has focused on detail rather than dynamic range. Except that the opposite was true for the entire duration of the film era. The photographic film industry was acutely aware of the fact that most consumer photographs were taken on compact cameras with mediocre lenses and usually printed at 6"x4". They were also aware that the main complaints from consumers and darkroom technicians were about exposure latitude and colour accuracy. Their development efforts and marketing materials reflected this awareness. Most consumers had never even heard the word "resolution" until the megapixel wars. Ektar, the only Kodak colour negative film specifically marketed as being especially fine-grained and high-resolution, failed commercially and was discontinued after five years.
  - aeturnum 8y ago
    This is not the only argument that color films were developed in a way that excluded people of color[1]. I'm not an expert. You're correct that the film ecosystem of photography was not developed with resolution in mind. I was thinking of the way in which digital sensors capture the most bit depth in the upper tones [2]. This would likely not have been pursued if test targets had subjects with darker skin colors than their surroundings. [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias [2] https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/ https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right...

aeturnum 8y ago

I just want to note that the technical causes you list here are, arguably, totally beside the point. All technical systems have strengths and weaknesses. When systems are conceived and developed their goals are set through a culturally-created understanding of what the system "should" do. The lack of attention to darker faces (from chemical process selection to selection of people depicted in kodak's system calibration cards) explains how we got this particular set of technical limitations instead of one that, say, tended to over-expose easily. > Dark-skinned faces are inherently more difficult to photograph I would say that dark-skinned faces are inherently poorly captured by the photographic technology we have developed, which has focused on detail rather than dynamic range.

jdietrich 8y ago
>selection of people depicted in kodak's system calibration cards The choice of the model does reflect some amount of bias, but it doesn't cause bias in the printing process. Precise calibration was done with a test chart and a densitometer. Shirley was just a quick reference used throughout the day, to check at a glance whether prints were unnaturally blue or purple or washed out due to changes in the developer chemistry. Fuji usually supplied test films and prints with Asian models, even in European markets; the motion picture industry originally used porcelain dolls. A multi-ethnic test image wouldn't have provided better accuracy. >I would say that dark-skinned faces are inherently poorly captured by the photographic technology we have developed, which has focused on detail rather than dynamic range. Except that the opposite was true for the entire duration of the film era. The photographic film industry was acutely aware of the fact that most consumer photographs were taken on compact cameras with mediocre lenses and usually printed at 6"x4". They were also aware that the main complaints from consumers and darkroom technicians were about exposure latitude and colour accuracy. Their development efforts and marketing materials reflected this awareness. Most consumers had never even heard the word "resolution" until the megapixel wars. Ektar, the only Kodak colour negative film specifically marketed as being especially fine-grained and high-resolution, failed commercially and was discontinued after five years.
- aeturnum 8y ago
  This is not the only argument that color films were developed in a way that excluded people of color[1]. I'm not an expert. You're correct that the film ecosystem of photography was not developed with resolution in mind. I was thinking of the way in which digital sensors capture the most bit depth in the upper tones [2]. This would likely not have been pursued if test targets had subjects with darker skin colors than their surroundings. [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias [2] https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/ https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right...