4 ms·

FYI - this seems to be the original article on which this is based (granted this is more neutral): http://www.buzzfeed.com/syreetamcfadden/teaching-the-camera-t

by omonra 12y ago

FYI - this seems to be the original article on which this is based (granted this is more neutral): http://www.buzzfeed.com/syreetamcfadden/teaching-the-camera-to-see-my-skin http://www.buzzfeed.com/syreetamcfadden/teaching-the-camera-... That said - I think her chief complaint is misplaced. Ie - it is mostly a technological issue - shooting black subjects well (whether people or objects) is hard. Cameras have only so much "dynamic range" - meaning ability to capture light and dark matter. So if you expose for black skin, it will render rest of the image blown out (meaning you can't see anything else). I found the paragraph describing how the Whoopi Goldberg show is shot illuminating - two separate cameras have to shoot Whoopi and her guests.

tedunangst 12y ago
A lot of both articles actually comes from this Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-colour-photography-exhibition http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-c... What's funny is how the two articles interpreted the same fact differently (the one about the 42% flash boost). Priceonomics and the Guardian note that the extra light feature was there so that black subjects wouldn't be underexposed. But buzzfeed says this: > The ID2 has a flash boost button engineered to add 42% more light on its subjects. Its effect would result in a deliberate darkening of dark-skinned subjects. That's the exact opposite of what would happen! The extra flash was there so they wouldn't be erased. That said, I'm still trying to find where Broomberg got his numbers. Did none of the authors of these three articles question the claim that all black people have the same skin tone? I guess the buzzfeed author did as she didn't repeat that claim, only the one about the flash being 42% brighter, but if you think the guy's pulling one number out of his butt, why trust another number? I haven't had much luck finding any other information about this special South African flash feature (or the magic 42% number).

by omonra 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago

A lot of both articles actually comes from this Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-colour-photography-exhibition http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-c... What's funny is how the two articles interpreted the same fact differently (the one about the 42% flash boost). Priceonomics and the Guardian note that the extra light feature was there so that black subjects wouldn't be underexposed. But buzzfeed says this: > The ID2 has a flash boost button engineered to add 42% more light on its subjects. Its effect would result in a deliberate darkening of dark-skinned subjects. That's the exact opposite of what would happen! The extra flash was there so they wouldn't be erased. That said, I'm still trying to find where Broomberg got his numbers. Did none of the authors of these three articles question the claim that all black people have the same skin tone? I guess the buzzfeed author did as she didn't repeat that claim, only the one about the flash being 42% brighter, but if you think the guy's pulling one number out of his butt, why trust another number? I haven't had much luck finding any other information about this special South African flash feature (or the magic 42% number).