4 ms·
It goes even deeper than that. If you look at the history of photography, film, and television you'll see a bias towards white skin tones that standards have be
by pfranz 6y ago
It goes even deeper than that. If you look at the history of photography, film, and television you'll see a bias towards white skin tones that standards have been built up around. Just looking at "leader ladies" or common reference images there isn't a bunch of diversity. In practice I've heard cinematographers and photographers bring it up around filming different ethnicities. It starts with changing the exposure, but means you have to spend more attention towards color reproduction.
This can extend beyond the film or image sensor to biasing lighting equipment, defaults, standards, and thresholds.
Looking through the literature you'll see things like, "the design decisions in the NTSC’s test images effectively biased the format toward rendering white people as more lifelike than other races"
https://sterneworks.org/Mulvin-Sterne-Scenes.pdf https://sterneworks.org/Mulvin-Sterne-Scenes.pdf
I'm mostly familiar with the history in the US. I'm earnestly curious about how other countries accommodated these types of things as they adopted the technologies.
- dnautics 6y agoIt's deeper than that. The chemicals used in analog color photography didn't have a dye profile that could capture people of color effectively until the 80s.
- sangnoir 6y agoEven deeper- Kodak only started putting effort to get the process right in the 70s after customers complained about poor color reproduction[1] in wood grain and chocolate 1. https://petapixel.com/2015/09/19/heres-a-look-at-how-color-film-was-originally-biased-toward-white-people/ https://petapixel.com/2015/09/19/heres-a-look-at-how-color-f...
- solarkraft 6y agoI suspect it to be deeper than that: The relevant people didn't think it was worth it to invest all that much into developing it.
- lallysingh 6y agoI'm guessing that nobody cared to try.