3 ms·
The 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 a
by dagmx 5y ago
The 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?