11 ms·
Shirley Cards
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spoonjim 5y agoAs a dark skinned photographer I always am annoyed by the take that “white people who designed cameras made them take better photos of white people.” No, that’s not what is happening. The fact is that you get a lot less light from a dark face, and the nature of light sensing technology means that it’s going to be harder to take a picture of a dark face holding all else constant. Of course you can use exposure compensation etc but the “white supremacy” hot take is very misinformed.
- Swizec 5y agoMy understanding of the argument is that institutional racism means all the white people simply didn’t think about photographing dark people. Not so much “omg evil they purposely excluded blacks!!” and more “wow it didn’t even cross their minds as important, if there were more black people in those positions they’d probably think of that” ie. it’s about using more inclusive test cases and acceptance criteria for engineering projects Edit: then again they could still decide to make the tradeoff to “ignore” 13% of the population in their products if the extra engineering required increased costs/time by enough
- silisili 5y agoI (an outsider), think you're about half right. Most photography until relatively recently was just dumb tech. Decide an exposure and go. It just so happened that it worked out well for lighter skinned people, and less so for others. In that I mean, I don't think the companies were ever purposefully blind to darker skins - just stuck with it and said 'good enough ship it.' It also makes me wonder what if a darker skinned person invented the tech. Would they say it's garbage? Did that give light skinned people an advantage? Interesting thoughts. Even today this is only accomplished on phones by HDR to the point of making every photo look fake. Apparently photography is hard, it must be if we are still here with this problem... which makes me appreciate my own eyeballs even more.
- Swizec 5y agoIn the 99pi episode they talk about how Kodak released better film in the 70s/80s that could take good pictures of dark people and marketed it as “Able to photograph the details of a dark horse in low light”. Widely considered a coded phrase for black people.
- silisili 5y agoMarketing speak, no matter how poor taste. I mean, how long have laundry soaps been saying they make whites whiter? At my age, soaps should be making plasma if these advances held any credence. That aside...my wife is a dark skinned person. That I cannot take a normal photo of her without blowing out the background is infuriating. Think a simple sunset pic. If I just snap, she looks like a black blob. If I click her face, she looks normal but standing in front of a nuclear blast. Not because I think any company is racist, but because I wonder why we are still stuck with it. If our eyes see people in a way, and have for all of time, why in the age of nanobots and ai and everything else still failing so badly?
- jacobolus 5y ago> cannot take a normal photo of her without blowing out the background If your wife’s skin is significantly darker than the background and your photographic process doesn’t have the dynamic range for both, you can e.g. use fill flash, bounce extra light off a large reflector onto her face, use a filter over the lens (works well for taking B&W images in some situations), or take a picture using a process with better dynamic range (and optionally play with the image when printing, either lightening specific parts or applying some global lightness curve; e.g. you can take 2 pictures with one exposed for the foreground and the other exposed for the background and blend them in software). > Think a simple sunset pic. If I just snap, she looks like a black blob. This happens to a substantial extent to people of all skin tones, though the darker the skin the harder it gets. The sunset is much, much brighter than foreground objects. Try fill flash (and if the results are poor, try to figure out how to position your flash somewhere further from the lens, e.g. by using a separate flash).
- michrassena 5y agoI think essentially that's what this boils down to. Color slide film of the time, like Kodachrome, had a narrow range of exposure. I see no reason to believe this was anything but a technical limitation. A slide film with more stops of exposure would have been a huge commercial success. Given that narrow range, you could either expose for lighter or darker skin tones. And this is where institutional racism creeps in. In a group where everyone had similar skin tones, you wouldn't face an issue exposing the film properly. But where there was a variety, it was commonplace to treat exposing for the lighter skin tones as more important. The group with darker skin was treated as if it didn't matter, or mattered far less. I think this is the key idea. Even rejecting the idea that Kodak and other film companies made the choice to exclude a group of people, they created a default, an inertia, which had to worked against to be equitable. My mind keeps coming back to the Pareto principle. In pursuing the 80% of customers might be the wealthier group, the easier to convert, the most likely to use your product, is it often the same %20 who are left out and don't they matter?
- dagmx 5y agoIt's not just about exposure though. It was about color reproduction too.
- michrassena 5y agoThat's a fair criticism. You could make the case that the film companies didn't care enough to test the film's color reproduction for anything but caucasian skin tones, or didn't put the research dollars into fixing the problem. At the root of that would be racism.
- dagmx 5y agoI like the term this presentation took for situations like this with "anti racist research" https://youtu.be/ROuE8xYLpX8 https://youtu.be/ROuE8xYLpX8 Like you said, at the root of that is racism, but the presentation frames it in an interesting way. Not everyone who takes part in this research is racist, but they're the products of racism in society. So color not being accurately reproduced could either be a direct product of racist people or the result of people in a society that doesn't value everyone equally. But I like the wording of "anti racist research" because it pushes the onus to actively trying to analyze if things are fair, rather than assuming they are. Even people who aren't actively racist can benefit their research from trying to push past the biases inherent in society that permiates everything
- dagmx 5y agoThe difference in exposure is perhaps part of it, but the reality is that film at the time couldn't accurately represent darker skin tones. It's not even just about exposure, but color itself wasn't accurate. That's compounded by how much lighting education is based around white people with blond hair. This talk from SIGGRAPH 2021 is excellent at going into the history of film and lighting and how it favors a very specific look https://youtu.be/ROuE8xYLpX8 https://youtu.be/ROuE8xYLpX8
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoThe color was not just inaccurate for black skin tones, but for everything, though. So it seems likely it was a technical limitation, not racism. At first there was no color film at all, only black and white photography. People seem to take color film for granted but it was a genuine technical invention.
- user-the-name 5y agoThere is no such thing as accurate colours when you create a picture on paper. It is simply not possible. What you are doing is making tradeoffs of what looks good and what doesn't. And the tradeoff that was made was that white skin needed to look good and black skin didn't matter.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoIsn't the issue rather with the background that is woo white (at least in the sample photographs of the article)? How do you even make black skin look bad?
- pvg 5y agoThis particular article doesn't contain a 'white supremacy' hot take, though.
- iratewizard 5y agoNo, it's just meant to be a subtle reminder of your white guilt.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThe article didn't say supremacy. I think the closest it came was bias. It cited a former manager of Kodak Research. And 1 of its points was holding all else constant was part of the problem.
- LogonType10 5y agoDo you think it's impossible to imply something without saying it ("dog-whistling", if you will)?
- arrrg 5y agoDidn’t even imply it. The criticism is pretty clear: even though this was obviously a problem it wasn’t addressed for decades. That’s the point. There is no talk about the initial design.
- LogonType10 5y agoDidn't imply what?
- nicoburns 5y agoI think it's certainly possible to imply something without saying it. But I think it's important that we don't assume that anybody who doesn't say X is implying X just because they talk about Y which other people use to imply X. Otherwise it becomes impossible to talk about Y. If you think in this specific case that the authors are implying X by saying Y, then you need to explain why you think that.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoThat former manager, Earl Cage, is long dead. I don't think he was interviewed for this article.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThe interviewed a professor who interviewed him. Does it matter?
- bo1024 5y agoA few issues with this. (1) it can be both. Disadvantages of dark skin tones combined with apathy/lack of effort to address it. (2) It can be an effect of systemic racism without being an intentionally conscious effort at white supremacy. (3) People did tune the technology specifically to improve for their main subjects, who were white. Again that's not to say they intentionally made them worse for others, but that was still the outcome. (edit: 4) do you disagree with anything specific in the article?
- makeitdouble 5y agoAre you talking about now ? 20 years ago ? 50 years ago ? What specific fact are you disputing from that piece ?
- resonious 5y agoI only skimmed the piece but from my skim it had some undertones of "institutionalized racism in the camera industry". In particular: > ... And that’s because, even if we think of the camera as a neutral technology, it is not. In the vast spectrum of human colors, photographic tools and practices tend to prioritize the lighter end of that range. And that bias has been there since the very beginning. And that bit is in the intro portion of the article, making me think that it's part of the premise that the camera is "not a neutral technology".
- makeitdouble 5y agoYou are right, in that the article doesn't see camera (or any technology really) as neutral. For those not familiar with 99pi, the focus is on how makers/designers make choices that can often be invisible to us, but influence the environment we live on. This is a fantastic podcast I would recommend to anyone curious about the world we live in. It has biases, but they are stated and argumented, not just thrown around irresponsibly. In this specific case, there was two specific angles: - the film industry as a whole didn't really care about diversity, and film dynamic range was deemed good enough if it could represent lighter flesh tones and bright surroundings. Kodak exec is quoted on this subject as really not giving a damn about darker skins, and their rationale for making efforts to expend dynamic range a lot further was to allow better representation of white and dark chocolate products, among others. You might disagree with that take, but it all comes from Kodak employees from that area, as far as I understand. - the other was on print calibration: whatever you did with your camera, printing at a Kodak shop would be done with presets setting adjusted for light tone skins (the "Shirley cards" of the title are the photos of white girls used as reference) Here again, the info comes from technician working on printing at the time. PS: Then there's more stories on group photos, light meters etc. if you care at all I would recommend listening to the whole thing. I also do photography (as an amateur) and it was still interesting to me.
- elil17 5y agoThis makes no sense given what it says in the article: that the problem more or less went away once black consumers started complaining and Kodak changed their film chemistry.
- LukaszWiktor 5y agoThe article says that Kodak changed their film chemistry _not_ because of they were listening to the complaints from people of color, but rather because they were going to lose the business of two big professional clients: a chocolate company, and a furniture company.
- munificent 5y agoA typical camera can take a well exposed photo indoors under natural light and outdoors in full sun. The former is about 50 lux, and the latter is 100,000. It seems unlikely to me that the amount of light reflected off darker skin fundamentally confounds cameras when they can handle four orders of magnitude of illumination variation gracefully.
- 908B64B197 5y ago> No, that’s not what is happening The issue is, you might get a thousand reader interested in the physics and chemistry of film in a specialty magazine about photography. And the oral history of black photographers of that era and the tricks that they used to capture these hard to get ranges of color. Or, if you write it online and blame racism, you can get 100'000 readers once you get someone majoring in liberal arts to share it.
- ufo 5y agoBy the way, the audio version of the episode also has a bonus story about at the end about the Lenna image.
- cloudyglider 5y agoYeah I thought it was really interesting, spoiler alert - in a random sequence of events Lena, the model from the JPEG study ends up becoming a Kodak Shirley girl too.
- nomdep 5y agoSpeaking of Lenna, the latest Shirley cards seems like a great replacement to the Lenna image
- klodolph 5y agoColor films used to come in two varieties, more or less. Films designed to represent caucasian skin tones in a desirable way, and films designed to make colors that pop. Fuji had 160C and 160S, while Kodak had Portra 160NC and 160VC. I think they tweaked something in the sensitivity curves of the “suitable for skin tones” product lines which reduced contrast in the relevant parts of the curve. My sense is that this would keep it looking peach-colored without going into the more brilliant reds or magentas. The sensitivity curves for “makes colors that pop” were tweaked to increase the contrast in certain places. This was great for nature photos, product photos, or photos of food, but but if you put caucasian skin in the picture, it might come out looking somewhat reddish or magenta, and skin blemishes stand out more. Worst case you get crab people. This is just my perspective on the film itself, based on my experiences shooting and printing color film (in a wet lab). I was printing slowly, trying to get the best out of each print. I spent a lot of time looking at prints and sussing out variations in color, stuff that you could fix at the touch of a button in Photoshop, if it were digital.
- i_am_proteus 5y agoStill do, although there aren't that many color films left. Portra 160 these days is like the old 160NC and Ektar is like a more-saturated VC (or a higher contrast, negative Ektachrome). Both run about $6 per 4x5 sheet, so I don't work with them much.
- dagw 5y agoKodak had Portra 160NC and 160VC Worth noting that Porta was a fairly recent and 'modern' film development, and showed up on the market long after the events depicted in the story. Film used to be split into if it was balanced for daylight or tungsten lights
- dustintrex 5y agoIn the last 5 years, an obscure Chinese company called Transsion, selling brands like Tecno, Infinix and Itel, has quietly become the largest mobile phone maker in Africa. Why? Because their phone cameras are tuned out of the box to work well with dark skin. https://qz.com/africa/1633699/transsions-tecno-infinix-camera-phones-made-for-dark-skin-tones/ https://qz.com/africa/1633699/transsions-tecno-infinix-camer...
- elil17 5y agoLooking at their demo real cor the Camon 18 camera, this seems like the perfect example of universal design. It capture beautifully color-balanced dark skin, and does so right along side pale skin and vibrant colors.
- gorgoiler 5y agoWow: no notch, edge to edge screen, side mounted fingerprint scanner, face unlock, stabilized video, 3.5mm audio jack, USB C port…
- dustintrex 5y agoAnd the list price in the Philippines is US$190.
- nine_k 5y agoGreat hardware and competent design, apparently. I won't trust the software too much, sadly. Say, Xiaomi used to make beautiful smartphones, and was also found to have spying and remote control code in the firmware. I don't think that the smartphone makers are evil; the state forces their hand even if they aren't.
- enriquto 5y ago> I won't trust the software too much, sadly. Yours is a very reasonable stance. And for exactly the same reasons, you should trust android and ios software just the same: not too much.
- DeathArrow 5y agoPhysics is racist. Lighter objects reflect more light than darker objects. Film and sensors can not capture the dynamic range between something very light and something very dark. Whether those subjects are humans or not. If you photograph a brown bear near a polar bear, you would have difficulties discerning details in both. The maximum of dynamic range that can be capture by common cameras these days is 15Ev. Even photographing light skinned people into sunset or dark skinned people at night is an issue, and you have to use additional light like flash or a reflector if you want details in both the persons face and the surroundings.
- michaelgrafl 5y agoAnd yet, Kodak managed to tune the gamma curve of their film stock to be more flattering to dark objects due to pressure from the chocolate and furniture industries. 15 stops of dynamic range are plenty, by the way.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoIt was years later, so presumably there was also simply technical progress that made it possible.
- theshrike79 5y agoTechnical progress driven by financial incentives from large industries.
- cbzoiav 5y agoRace still provides a major financial benefit. Its what - 30%+ of the US population thats not caucasion / very light not white skin? And thats before you look at the international market. While white is going to be the priority you don't want to fall behind competitors on film that does better accross the board. Not only do you lose the dark skin market but also potentially professionals like school/wedding/corporate photographers who need to photo everyone and don't want to faff around with different films for different photos.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jl6 5y agoInteresting how the multi-racial Shirley card still uses a black woman whose skin isn’t all that black. I suspect media representations of black Americans still prioritize those with lighter skin tones.
- civilized 5y agoOh yes. There is no question about this.
- nicbou 5y agoThis is something I noticed as well. She always has the same exact haircut too.
- cbzoiav 5y agoCould also just be awareness of the limitation of the film. You're not going to send a card out to every lab in the country that looks crap.. And they still need caucasian skin to look good / its their biggest market.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoGoogle's main marketing slogan for their new phones is that it is good at taking photos of different skin tones. Makes me wonder how diverse most people's acquaintances really are, to make it a selling point.
- noneeeed 5y agoI watched a video recently by a reviewer who had taken 1000 photos with both a Pixel 6 and iPhone 13 Pro. The difference was really quite striking, the Pixel 6 was much better at handling faces of different skin colours. This appears to be handled computationally, by detecting faces in the frame and then adjusting appropriately.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoI don't doubt their claims, I was just wondering how relevant it is for most people.
- arketyp 5y agoIt makes me think that biases were always committed to with profit in mind.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoIf profit results in a demographic no longer being underrepresented or an afterthought, I'm all for it.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWas it really an issue before, though? The article mentions that digital cameras were already better at taking photos of darker skin. I never noticed that photos of black people were of bad quality on the internet.
- pseudalopex 5y agoBetter doesn't mean can't improve. And maybe Google and Africa's largest phone maker[1] know something you don't. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29224140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29224140
- PaulHoule 5y agoKodak got into a lot of trouble over the color rendition of their films in that time period. For one thing they refused to publish data about how the colors faded over time, and the truth was awful. Wedding photographers were taking a good chunk of change to make a product that should last a lifetime and instead the prints faded quickly. Everything from the most ephemeral color snaps to art prints was affected, they didn’t make any product that would last unless you kept it in a dry freezer.
- civilized 5y agoThis is a really neat little article. To make something "just work", you have to make technical decisions for the user. To make those decisions you need assumptions. It's a lot of work to make assumptions that work for every user, so a lot of times people focus on making them work for the "target market": those who we feel will most effectively sustain the product, who tend to be those we're most familiar with, or those with the most social privilege or economic clout. But we shouldn't stop there. All of this was true 100 years ago when Kodak was designing cameras, and it's true today as we build machine learning models.
- PaulHoule 5y agoIf you tune up your camera to "see what is there" people complain that their blemishes are too visible. So generally the processing chain is tuned up to be more flattering. I took a photo of my son who had acne at the time and did the opposite and made it look like he'd smoked 10,000 cigarettes. He and I thought it was a good photo artistically but I wouldn't show it to his grandmother. What's flattering is going to depend on your skin type. People with very light skin have bad problems in this respect. Auto-exposure is also an issue. It assumes the scene is middle gray and if the objects in the scene are unusually light or dark it will get it wrong. I took a photo of a friend who was wearing a black gothic dress and the +2 ... -2 exposure dial was not enough to get her face right and make the dress really black and I had to go to full manual. Now that I think about it, I haven't taken a lot of portraits of black people and I think I want to take some to learn how.
- mzs 5y agoReminds me of the boost button on Polaroid's ID-2: https://kimon.hosting.nyu.edu/physical-electrical-digital/items/show/1017 https://kimon.hosting.nyu.edu/physical-electrical-digital/it... > One of the Polaroid ID-2’s most important design features was a “boost” button that when pressed would boost the flash exactly 42%. Polaroid advertised this spectial feature for general lighting pruposes. However, researchers and artists assert that the ID-2 camera was actually created for and catering specifically to South Africa’s policies of Apartheid., and boost button, The white minority South African government largely used this camera for dompas, or the passbooks, which helped to sustain the Apartheid regime via surveillance. This was partially because the device was portable, fast at taking and developing photos, and created difficult to forge images because of its powerful lamination. But the most compelling feature was that the boost button increased the flash’s intensity by the exact amount it took to account for the extra light absorbed by black skin: 42%. > Polaroid claimed only 20% of the film they sold in South Africa ended up being used for passports and according to Polaroid in 191, only 65 systems were sold before sales were stopped, and none of those systems were sold to government agencies. However, the Polaroid Revolutionary Workers Movement countered that sales were still going through indirect channels. Polaroid continued lying from 1971 to 1978, claiming that they had ceased supplying materials to the regime, when in fact there was an elaborate shell game which allowed them to sell through a third party (Caulfield 2015).