Is Photography Racist?

[Norbert 145]

24 minutes ago, SheffieldForum said:

*ignoring other posts in the hope this can get on track*

Good luck with that.

[peak4 282]

It's maybe getting too late in the evening for a difficult and complex question, particularly when it's not well defined.
Even more so at the moment when we have many commentators who seek to use the actual topic of racism as a means to divide people, rather than exploring solutions.
I'd be interested to know how long ago Norbert's conversation took place, and the actual photographic experience of the other person(s) in the discussion.

Undoubtedly some photographers will use the medium as an extension of their own racism, but obviously that doesn't reflect the photographic process itself.
This article explored the use of a particular Polaroid film by the South African police force for example

Racism' of early colour photography explored in art exhibition  The Guardian

Can the camera be racist? The question is explored in an exhibition that reflects on how Polaroid built an efficient tool for South Africa's apartheid regime to photograph and police black people.

 

To take issue with one of Norbert's original comments, that film is linear; that most certainly isn't the case.
I spend quite a lot of time behind a camera, though  never for portraiture; each film stock represents different parts of the visible spectrum in different ways.
It's a bit hard to demonstrate these days, due to the lack of film stock availability, though something like DxO Optics Film Pack gives very good digital approximations of a wide variety of older films for modern digital cameras.
Even in digital photography, the visible dynamic range is less than the human eye, though it's getting better as technology progresses.

I wonder if the original conversation centred, even inadvertently, around "Shirley Cards"??

 

The “Shirley Card” Legacy: Artists Correcting for Photography’s Racial Bias  National Gallery of Art  Longish article but worth reading if anyone is genuinely interested on the topic

Printing machines were only being calibrated to the appearance of Shirley and other white women.

Pictures of people with darker skin were often poorly rendered, particularly if people with different skin tones were photographed together.

Calibrating the machines to prefer lighter skin tones could even make people with darker skin unrecognizable. These poorly printed images have hidden the faces of Black subjects, including from their loved ones and future generations.

 

It's further explored here
The Racial Bias Built Into Photography  New York Times via archive.is  Again a longish article, but worth exploring.
Sarah Lewis explores the relationship between racism and the camera.

Can a photographic lens condition racial behaviour? I wondered about this as I was preparing to speak about images and justice on a university campus.
“We have a problem. Your jacket is lighter than your face,” the technician said from the back of the one-thousand-person amphitheater-style auditorium.

“That’s going to be a problem for lighting.” She was handling the video recording and lighting for the event.

The phrase hung in the air, and I laughed to resolve the tension in the room then offered back just the facts:
“Well, everything is lighter than my face. I’m black.”  “Touché,” said the technician organizing the event. She walked toward the lighting booth. 

 

The word "Racist" to me normally has negative discriminatory overtones, but sometimes it's completely unintentional by the one being accused, though that doesn't lessen the impact on the subject who feels discriminated against.

Flash gets mentioned earlier, and also in at least one of the above links; it's obviously very relevant with regard to correctly illuminating different skin tones.
Lighting generally is what it's all about, particularly with portraiture; we're not just putting a flash on the camera and shooting away.
If anyone's interested, one of the masters of lighting is Damien McGillicuddy, who's Youtube channel is worth a look, though it's a bit limited in some ways.
Do a search on the internet, or look Here for other stuff or on Instagram .

[Norbert 145]

18 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

@Norbert

 

Good work.

 

Pretty much a full house.

 

Woukd you like chips with those?

Yes it's been a wonderful welcome back. If I put everyone who's contributed so far except for you, the site owner, peak4 and hackey lad on ignore then SF might be actually useful and a nice place to be.

 

I shall attend to the useful input of peak4 after taking advantage of the nice morning weather.

 

Good day sir.

[Prettytom 1,648]

3 minutes ago, Norbert said:

Yes it's been a wonderful welcome back. If I put everyone who's contributed so far except for you, the site owner, peak4 and hackey lad on ignore then SF might be actually useful and a nice place to be.

 

I shall attend to the useful input of peak4 after taking advantage of the nice morning weather.

 

Good day sir.

I’ve just been out with the dog

 

Put your wellies on.

 

And take your camera.

[peak4 282]

I though last night I'd seen a comment that this topic might be better discussed in the Photography Interest group forum, but it seems very quiet there these days.
I did add a couple of photos last month to see if they sparked any interest, but without  much success.

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/479289-ir-photography/?tab=comments#comment-8780055

 

Briefly touching on dynamic range of digital cameras/images, it's not just about skin tones.
I can recall in the earlier days of digital photography, just how hard it was to capture good detail in both black and white in the same photo.

Consider a trip to Fairburn Ings nature reserve; I'm quoting that as it's one of the few places I know where there were regularly black swans amongst the  white.
In a single image of a black swan, you could capture good feather detail, similarly with a single image of a white swan, with slightly different exposure.
Trying to get one of each in the same frame, and capturing feather details in both was difficult if not impossible; try and find good early digital images of magpies for instance.

Even in film days it was problematic, which is why the really good photographers were experts in dodging and burning in the darkroom when printing; look at Ansel Adams photos of the Yosemite Valley.

Extrapolate that to crowd photos of a mixed black and white population, and it becomes clear that many images show one group in a more favourable light; I'm using that expression deliberately.
It's less of an issue these days, as sensor dynamic range is greater, and for those who process from raw rather than just using out of camera jpg files, much of the photo processing software make the boosting of dark tones, and pulling back blown highlights much easier.

 

[Beechwood_S6 101]

I've found since the digital era its less skewed, I used to shoot way back on medium format cameras and done several black weddings for friends pre 2006 and they were much harder to process correctly, when I started out the earlier digital cameras were very noisy in low light, but when I invested in the higher end cameras for press work, it was markedly improved to the earlier days of digital.

 

 

[butlers 261]

Better class of chat in this thread...

[Norbert 145]

Having followed up on the useful links provided by peak4 I’m coming to the conclusion that:

 

Photography used to be racist in that it did little to address capturing detail and colour tones in dark skin, and subsequent processing and printing made it even worse. The Shirley Card was a problem but hardly surprising as it was introduced in the 1940s when America was overtly racist. It took too long to change though.

 

These days most of the problem is lack of skill, thoughtlessness, and insensitivity. The technology is no longer inherently racist.

 

To answer peak4’s question about when the issue was posed to me, it was recently, and to do with phone pictures in low light (and with back lighting) that made a mixed bunch of people look like some were missing.

 

I think that to say modern photography is inherently racist is now a tad ridiculous. But I could be wrong.