4 ms·
I can now reply so I will say what I added in an edit: the question of whether a skin tone is a dark one or a light one has in the past had severe real life imp
by bemusedthrow75 3y ago
I can now reply so I will say what I added in an edit: the question of whether a skin tone is a dark one or a light one has in the past had severe real life impacts on people whose lives are now only represented in photographs.
You shouldn’t write this off as micromanagement; it's about the ethics of representation. It is better to leave the original image uncoloured than to colour it automatically based on some fundamentally ill-informed model.
Hand colouring that image based on individual knowledge (for example that someone could or could not pass as white) is ethically better, if colourised images are needed.
Important nuances of culture and history, important and complex stories of discrimination and survival, are damaged by automatic colourisation by models that have no knowledge of the source of the mono image they are colourising.
- coldtea 3y agoI also remember reading articles about film stocks on the same subject. But in light of the actual tangible harm caused to blacks, I think worries about the exact shade in photos, are basically overcompansating for things that should have been (or still should be) improved outside the realm of film stock/photo retouching... Which makes it mostly american baggage. Other places who didn't have that history don't have much of an issue with whether a person is shown this or that exact shade in a photo, as it doesn't change anything, the same way making a white guy a little pinker doesn't change anything.