4 ms·

> In northern Cape York (Australia) I have several friends who cannot be successfully photographed because their skin is so dark that cameras are unable to reso

> In northern Cape York (Australia) I have several friends who cannot be successfully photographed because their skin is so dark that cameras are unable to resolve their facial features If recent flagship cellphones can take amazing pictures at night time, then perhaps there's no one who has "skin so dark cameras are unable to resolve their facial features". It's a limitation of the Cape York equipment; they ought to have procured cameras with higher dynamic range and/or adjust exposure. If it's an ongoing problem, then the people in charge haven't bothered to research and/or replace the shitty cameras that literally have one job. They ought to spend a little more money on better camera sensors that are critical to basic service delivery. This is like saying "There are people with names so complicated that the Cape York software can't handle them", just because the names have an apostrophe/diacritic/multiple last names. The problem is with the system, not the people.

numbsafari 3y ago
Have you seen photos taken with “recent flagship phones” of his friends?
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Have you seen photos taken with “recent flagship phones” of his friends? While you were being snarky - this is a great idea for an experiment, if gp can give judgement on pictures of their friends taken by a recent Google Pixel phone. I say pixel because Google boasts its photography AI makes and Pixel hardware people with all skin tones look good.
- worthless-trash 3y ago
  I come from a nearby area to OP (Daintree) and have witnessed the same problem about 8 years ago. The new samsung gear (even the lower-end A52) no longer struggles with this. I can't speak for other brands.
- totetsu 3y ago
  The only thing that matters in this case is the types of devices used to make the pictures in the training data, and the device being used to make the picture that is analyzed by the algorithm. Advances in computational photography software in “flag ship phones” is not really relevant. Also both sides of this argument are making the mistake of equating photos that are visibly recognizable to a human, with a photo what would provide enough distinct features that an algorithm could make an ID prediction. There could be some bias in when people assembled the data set they chose humanly recognizable images, but it’s not necessary. Also it’s obvious that the kind of features on a pixel level that would be identifiable on a photo of a dark complexion and a fair one would be different. so either you train separate algorithms or you make sure your training data set has enough examples of both.
jacknobody 3y ago
Of course with good equipment and care I'm sure you're quite right. I admit that I should have specified "casual" photographs, and I now sheepishly acknowledge great advances in camera technology since I followed that claim up with a modern digital camera. Yet even with good quality film cameras, and darkroom development, people have always had difficulty photographing very dark skin. So I expect that will be a continuing problem for facial recognition.
- webmaven 3y ago
  > Yet even with good quality film cameras, and darkroom development, people have always had difficulty photographing very dark skin. So I expect that will be a continuing problem for facial recognition. This is simply because film equipment materials and processes have also been optimized for lighter skin. It isn't a problem with dark skin, it's a problem with photography as an industry systematically privileging better results for lighter skin, and even defining paleness as "normal". https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    What are you talking about? Racial bias does not affect the reduced ability to project shadows onto dark substrate. No matter how much or how little ilford optimized for pasty English skin, the physics doesn't change: black absorbs, white scatters. Btw this is exactly the same reason why camera lenses are black on the inside.
    - jacknobody 3y ago
      Some think that if white people had been a dark colour, photography of dark skin would have been a priority, and the technology would have been developed accordingly.
      - ForestCritter 3y ago
        It is extremely difficult to get definition on a black cat no matter what technology you use. For that matter, it is harder to see definition on a black cat with the human eye. Just like it is harder to see definition in the dark. Its called color theory, refraction, absorption. Its also difficult to get depth and definition without reflective distortion on metal jewellery. Are we racist against metallics too?
danielheath 3y ago
Recent flagship cellphones take amazing pictures at night time, in part, by making up features they think should be there. See, for example, https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp... Confabulated data is nice to look at but possibly ill suited for facial recognition.

numbsafari 3y ago

Have you seen photos taken with “recent flagship phones” of his friends?

sangnoir 3y ago
> Have you seen photos taken with “recent flagship phones” of his friends? While you were being snarky - this is a great idea for an experiment, if gp can give judgement on pictures of their friends taken by a recent Google Pixel phone. I say pixel because Google boasts its photography AI makes and Pixel hardware people with all skin tones look good.
worthless-trash 3y ago
I come from a nearby area to OP (Daintree) and have witnessed the same problem about 8 years ago. The new samsung gear (even the lower-end A52) no longer struggles with this. I can't speak for other brands.
totetsu 3y ago
The only thing that matters in this case is the types of devices used to make the pictures in the training data, and the device being used to make the picture that is analyzed by the algorithm. Advances in computational photography software in “flag ship phones” is not really relevant. Also both sides of this argument are making the mistake of equating photos that are visibly recognizable to a human, with a photo what would provide enough distinct features that an algorithm could make an ID prediction. There could be some bias in when people assembled the data set they chose humanly recognizable images, but it’s not necessary. Also it’s obvious that the kind of features on a pixel level that would be identifiable on a photo of a dark complexion and a fair one would be different. so either you train separate algorithms or you make sure your training data set has enough examples of both.

jacknobody 3y ago

Of course with good equipment and care I'm sure you're quite right. I admit that I should have specified "casual" photographs, and I now sheepishly acknowledge great advances in camera technology since I followed that claim up with a modern digital camera. Yet even with good quality film cameras, and darkroom development, people have always had difficulty photographing very dark skin. So I expect that will be a continuing problem for facial recognition.

webmaven 3y ago
> Yet even with good quality film cameras, and darkroom development, people have always had difficulty photographing very dark skin. So I expect that will be a continuing problem for facial recognition. This is simply because film equipment materials and processes have also been optimized for lighter skin. It isn't a problem with dark skin, it's a problem with photography as an industry systematically privileging better results for lighter skin, and even defining paleness as "normal". https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/
- thsksbd 3y ago
  What are you talking about? Racial bias does not affect the reduced ability to project shadows onto dark substrate. No matter how much or how little ilford optimized for pasty English skin, the physics doesn't change: black absorbs, white scatters. Btw this is exactly the same reason why camera lenses are black on the inside.
  - jacknobody 3y ago
    Some think that if white people had been a dark colour, photography of dark skin would have been a priority, and the technology would have been developed accordingly.
    - ForestCritter 3y ago
      It is extremely difficult to get definition on a black cat no matter what technology you use. For that matter, it is harder to see definition on a black cat with the human eye. Just like it is harder to see definition in the dark. Its called color theory, refraction, absorption. Its also difficult to get depth and definition without reflective distortion on metal jewellery. Are we racist against metallics too?

danielheath 3y ago

Recent flagship cellphones take amazing pictures at night time, in part, by making up features they think should be there. See, for example, https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_space_zoom_moon_shots_are_fake_and_here/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/11nzrb0/samsung_sp... Confabulated data is nice to look at but possibly ill suited for facial recognition.