Now imagine, just imagine.. if people watched this video and just said,
"Dang! I never knew that!" It could cause some people to stop, reflect
and... possibly even think. But uh-uh, that's not happening- that thinking part's for losers! Deny-Deny-Deny... and call people a few names while you're at it.
It's the exposure, it's the lighting... it's the fact that I simply refuse to believe, evidence be damned, that they purposely skewed the film chemistry to benefit lighter skin tones- and anyone who believes that is an (anti-White) racist!
PS- And if (just saying if now) it was done, then it was strictly for economic reasons to best serve their main demographic- that's just good business sense!
PPS- Exactly, like... slavery, just business.
PS- And if (just saying if now) it was done, then it was strictly for economic reasons to best serve their main demographic- that's just good business sense!
PPS- Exactly, like... slavery, just business.
"In the last decade it has become clear to those who seek out this information that the chemistry for stock colour film for still cameras was designed originally with a positive bias for "Caucasian" skin tones because of its high level of reflectivity. (Personal interviews with multiple chemists and film designers at Kodak, Rochester, NY, 1995; Winston, 1985, 1996)."
"It was also believed at the time that physics was physics, chemistry was chemistry, and science was based on reasoned decisions without consideration of cultural or racial subtleties. It is now becoming acknowledged more widely within the industry that refinements to the chemistry of film emulsions have never been issues of physics or chemistry exclusively, but have been the result of cultural choices as well." -Prof. Lorna Roth
2 comments:
I did commercial work for years. Never did the wedding, family photography gig. All the models I shot were white. One day a fellow photographer begged me to sub for him on a wedding that weekend. Said he was REALLY sick. Me being the nice guy I am (read sucker) said I would. Loaded up with VPS and off I went. Well turns out the bride and groom were from Jamaica. They were so black they had a blue tint to their skin. Wonderful people but trying to get printable negatives when the bride was wearing white, the groom black was HELL! I suggested we do the formals in my studio but they insisted on doing it in the blazing sun. It took hours and I mean hours of masking and just about every other trick we knew to produce professional quality prints. Years later when advertisers where more racially accepting of non-white models we found ways to light the subjects so everything turned out as it should. B&W was never a problem. I still have one of those "Shirley" negatives in my files somewhere. Just as a side note I found Agfa colour films were better balanced for our latitudes than Kodak. Kodak I understand was balanced for a more southern US latitude. Colour temp was off on Kodak. Just a bit but noticeable. I wouldn't blame Kodak for being racist, it would have been more likely the advertising industry. Kodak was primarily responding to demand.
Ha! Technically, that is one nightmare scenario of extremes. Personally, I would have explained (best I could) and insisted... open shade And fill/strobe. But the original Shirley Card is proof unto itself that the the film's color balance was meant to benefit lighter skin tones. There's little argument there, and yes, they were serving their largest demographic- understood. But immediately, you had people going Ballistic (some comments were fortunately deleted) for simply stating the obvious- that the film was at least somewhat finessed to best serve a certain section of society.
Naturally, the video, presentation, professor (and I, natch) were accused of being "racist," when if fact, what was Really knotting up their drawers was that it was blatantly obvious that something was actually specific tailored to suit their specific racial needs... which punches a hole (whatever size) into the whole White Supremacy Mythos of self made men that excel without being catered to, without handouts, or any kind of aid or special consideration from anyone or any organization. No sir, not them... not ever! Special considerations are only for those lesser people.
Post a Comment