Photographer
DwLPhoto
Posts: 808
Palo Alto, California, US
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Given the choice, based solely on the merits of visual return, I would always prefer to photograph a dark skinned subject... The range of tones is breath taking. The author of that article is either using the race card as a marketing ploy, or simply doesn't know how to make a photograph.
Photographer
GH-Photography
Posts: 9424
Jacksonville, Florida, US
I totally think my Canon 60D might be racist, last night I packed it up in its bag, and then this morning I opened it and somehow it made a little white lens hood, and some tiny wooden crosses... I don't know what to do, you try to raise you camera to believe that all people are created equally and that intolerance based on race, religious beliefs or sexual preference is wrong, but then it goes and pulls a stunt like this. I may have to scrap the damn thing.
Photographer
DwLPhoto
Posts: 808
Palo Alto, California, US
Their comments on how film was developed (developed, not developed  ) is a bit odd...You'd think a photographer would have seen a gray card before, which is hardly "white skin"
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Lord more of this sh** again.
If photography is biases it's to our eyes; and they are biases to 18% grey or, not surprisingly, the same as green foliage. Generally the species that see in color (or a lot of colors) are the herbivore or omnivore, it's good to know the poison from the food.
There is no racism in film or digital sensors, only the minds of small people.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Could not finish reading or listening.
What a load of pretentious bullshite.
A couple of people in link comments and here explained it. If you do not get it, then do a major refresher in lighting, photography and printing.
I shot black models with K-II and the images were absolutely delicious. And I had tons more exposure leeway. With Caucasian models, 1/3 stop over exposed and I had garbage.
And could somebody please tell me what is the standard colour of a black person, or a white person, and what is the only true colour of a red rose?
The whole discussion is a laugh to anybody who has a clue about colour.
Photographer
Another Italian Guy
Posts: 3281
Bath, England, United Kingdom
AJScalzitti wrote:
Lord more of this sh** again. +1
Pure clickbait, both the article and this thread, in my opinion.
Just my $0.02 etc. etc.
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 7026
Eugene, Oregon, US
The authors need a basic photography class.
Maybe they never heard of the zone system for black and white.
or a incident meter
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5805
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Robert Randall wrote:
Given the choice, based solely on the merits of visual return, I would always prefer to photograph a dark skinned subject... The range of tones is breath taking. The author of that article is either using the race card as a marketing ploy, or simply doesn't know how to make a photograph. +1
I think I may be becoming addicted to shooting darker skin. There are things that I can do with low-key lighting and dark skin that I can't do with light skin. (Well, I can, but it doesn't look as good.) Also, I find it much easier to get beautiful, uniform skin texture (including in the highlights) with dark skin.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Robert Randall wrote:
Given the choice, based solely on the merits of visual return, I would always prefer to photograph a dark skinned subject... The range of tones is breath taking. The author of that article is either using the race card as a marketing ploy, or simply doesn't know how to make a photograph. +1
Some people should just learn to take their camera off "auto" and learn a bit about photography.
Also this "journalist" is just regurgitating another recent article.
Who needs skill these days? They don't it seems.
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5805
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Darren Brade wrote:
Also this "journalist" is just regurgitating another recent article.
Who needs skill these days? They don't it seems. Most of the *photo*journalists I know have been laid off or expect to be. Newspapers and magazines are cutting back (or completely eliminating) their photography staffs right and left.
/jack
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
DwLPhoto wrote:
The Racial Biases That Remain In Photography There is absolutely NO Racial Bias in photography because photography is light, chemicals, emulsion, celluloid, sensor, digital signals and electrons... they are not able to THINK, FEEL, HATE and be POLITICALLY CORRECT. They are INANIMATE objects.
The real RACIST here in this discussion is the author of the article, who is trying to stir up the pot of hatred, confusion and bias inherent in man.
Do not fall upon the authors trap. The article is pure pristine TRASH.
.
Photographer
Carbon Decay
Posts: 1466
Brooklyn, New York, US
light people overexpose easily.
dark people tend to underexpose much easier.
that's about it...
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Carbon Decay wrote:
light people overexpose easily.
dark people tend to underexpose much easier.
that's about it... I would humbly suggest that how you light them makes a difference as well.
You shape very light objects by the use of shadows relative to the correct diffuse value (the object's natural tonality, in the case of people, this would be their natural skin tone).
You shape very dark objects by the use of highlights relative to the correct diffuse value.
Most humans (as opposed to objects), regardless of race, are not that pale or that dark, allowing for a mix of both. As people on that continuum get more pale, you should use more shadow contouring; conversely, as people on that continuum get darker, you should use more highlight contouring. This assumes, of course, that the goal is to create a sense of dimension.
I see a lot of photos of dark skinned people where they are lit in such a way as to shape their features using shadows, this often causes (unless corrected in post) a diffuse value that is incorrect, i.e., it renders the base skin tone inaccurately.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I would humbly suggest that how you light them makes a difference as well.
You shape very light objects by the use of shadows relative to the correct diffuse value (the object's natural tonality, in the case of people, this would be their natural skin tone).
You shape very dark objects by the use of highlights relative to the correct diffuse value.
Most humans (as opposed to objects), regardless of race, are not that pale or that dark, allowing for a mix of both. As people on that continuum get more pale, you should use more shadow contouring; conversely, as people on that continuum get darker, you should use more highlight contouring. This assumes, of course, that the goal is to create a sense of dimension.
I see a lot of photos of dark skinned people where they are lit in such a way as to shape their features using shadows, this often causes (unless corrected in post) a diffuse value that is incorrect, i.e., it renders the base skin tone inaccurately. Yep. Well said.
But that has nothing to do with racism, but has everything to do with lack of knowledge of light.
And of course, experience of using light with light or dark subjects.
If all your experience is photographing white and cream coloured cars, you are going to have problems with dark blue or black cars.
So it is also very much the amount of experience with certain subjects.
|
) is a bit odd...You'd think a photographer would have seen a gray card before, which is hardly "white skin"
