'Racism' of early colour photography explored in art exhibition

[Austerby]

Interesting article on the Guardian's website about how early colour film from Polaroid and Kodak was made for photographing light skin tones and that it could not be used to photograph darker tones without additional boost - I guess because of the film latitude.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jan/25/racism-colour-photography-exhibition

Is this a post-event re-interpretation of the technology limitations of the time or an actual example of institutional racism of its period?

 

[ZorkiKat]

Some Kodak films destined for the Indian subcontinent (some marked with stickers "for sale in Pakistan" ) which found their way here were advertised to be made specifically for "Indian complexions". It's in the Kodak webpage for their film "Kodak Ultima 100".

And a few years back, a rep from the local distributor of a famous-brand compact digital camera tested the 'face-detection' feature of one of this brand's better cameras. The distributor received reports that the camera would not recognise dark-skinned faces as faces and won't shoot. We did a test. In almost all the times that the camera clicked, it was pointed on a fairskinned target.

 

[DamenS]

"Institutional racism" ? It doesn't sound like it. Aren't products invariably designed for, and marketed towards, the majority of people who are likely to want them and be able to afford them; those who actually buy them ? There is certainly no reason for that not to be the case.

Now if people with darker skin tones were the ones buying film at the time, then a film designed for lighter skin tones MIGHT have been racist (assuming it were not a technical limitation). If Kodak/Polaroid had have stated that the reason for designing the film to be best for photographing lighter skin tones was that people with darker skin tones are "not worth being photographed", that would certainly be racism. Anything else seems a vast stretch of logic.

 

[tunalegs]

Photography books of the era advised to give extra exposure to dark subjects even when using B&W, so that one would have to do the same with color film doesn't really seem counter intuitive or suspicious.

Besides, film being an inanimate, non-sentient object, probably with no knowledge of or pre-conceived notions about race, I don't really think has the capacity for racism. To be used by racists certainly, but that's a different matter. As for racism within the photo industry, that's probable. But if they're suggesting that Kodak specifically balanced their film to make black people look bad in photographs, I'm afraid they might need to loosen their tinfoil hats - pardon my figure of speech.

 

[ssmc]

I don't know about racist film, but the face-detect AF on my D700 would focus accurately on my medium-grey cat (RIP). It worked even if I held the camera upside-down, which I found amazing.

Digital camera profiles routinely mess with skin tones, so it would not surprise me that film destined for specific locations where the majority of people might be rendered less-than-flatteringly by standard film might be "tweaked" to give more pleasing results.

I have also read that most caucasian skin is reasonably close to 18-23% grey in B&W (which is why you can meter off the palm of your hand in difficult conditions) so if the emulsion had a narrow latitude it might make sense to have a different one intended primarily for use with darker skin tones (depending on metering method). But I'm just guessing...

 

[sevo]

"Institutional racism" ? It doesn't sound like it. Aren't products invariably designed for, and marketed towards, the majority of people who are likely to want them and be able to afford them; those who actually buy them ?

What is the assumption that the middle class is white and does not have dark-skinned friends, if it is not institutional racism?

 

[DamenS]

What is the assumption that the middle class is white and does not have dark-skinned friends, if it is not institutional racism?

My assumption was that "early colour film" from two large American companies (Kodak and Polaroid) would have been produced somewhere around about 1905-1920, for a predominantly American audience.

I was unaware, till your comment, that middle-class America was not predominantly white during those time frames ... in fact, I had thought that this was not long after slavery had even been abolished - and that there was still a degree of racial segregation. However, I am from Australia and did not check my American history facts beforehand. If my assumption that the the middle-class of America in the early 1900's was predominantly white is incorrect, then I must profusely apologise, as it renders your statement correct.


PS: I just looked up when the first colour film (for still cameras rather than motion pictures) was produced by either company, and I WAS incorrect, in that it wasn't released till 1935. I still suspect that the USA middle-class was predominantly white back then, but I could certainly be mistaken.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Interesting 'spin' I like these statements:

Broomberg and Chanarin made two recent trips to Gabon to photograph a series of rare Bwiti initiation rituals using Kodak film stock, scavenged from eBay, that had expired in 1978. Working with outdated chemical processes, they salvaged just a single frame. Broomberg said: "Anything that comes out of that camera is a political document

The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that "if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth"

Not sure that using 1978 vintage slide film and complaining about the latitude and poor results is a proof of racism

 

[Spicy]

I'd say it's a little extreme to say that it's inherently racist. From a physics standpoint dark skin absorbs more / reflects less light, so naturally it's going to need more exposure. Early films were limited in their latitude. Not exactly racism...

The article is pretty stupid, in my opinion -- "black skin absorbs 42% more light, so thus it's no coincidence that a flash boosts exposure by 42%". I didn't realize than skin, black or otherwise, was the same color. Interesting. :shrug:

Sounds more like psychological projection than anything else.

 

[DamenS]

I'd say it's a little extreme to say that it's inherently racist. From a physics standpoint dark skin absorbs more / reflects less light, so naturally it's going to need more exposure. Early films were limited in their latitude. Not exactly racism...

The article is pretty stupid, in my opinion -- "black skin absorbs 42% more light, so thus it's no coincidence that a flash boosts exposure by 42%". I didn't realize than skin, black or otherwise, was the same color. Interesting. :shrug:

Sounds more like psychological projection than anything else.

Yes. An equally valid point to make (simply by extending the article's warped "logic") is that the manufacturer of the "flash" is therefore racist, as it discriminates against exposing fair-skinned people accurately, in preference to exposing the skin of darker-skinned people accurately !! :bang:

 

[sevo]

I still suspect that the USA middle-class was predominantly white back then, .

Well, that IS institutional (and more than just that) racism...

 

[S.H.]

Interesting 'spin' I like these statements:

Broomberg and Chanarin made two recent trips to Gabon to photograph a series of rare Bwiti initiation rituals using Kodak film stock, scavenged from eBay, that had expired in 1978. Working with outdated chemical processes, they salvaged just a single frame. Broomberg said: "Anything that comes out of that camera is a political document

The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that "if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth"

Not sure that using 1978 vintage slide film and complaining about the latitude and poor results is a proof of racism

Not sure either. He's just saying that he doesn't know how to meter, or how film works. And wanting good results with expired chemicals... 🙄

 

[DamenS]

Well, that IS institutional (and more than just that) racism...

If you are suggesting that this is not only institutional racism BUT "more than just that" (racism on MY part I assume), then you should at least support your accusation with some merest semblance of fact.

How is suggesting that "the middle class in the USA in the mid 1930's was predominantly white" an example of racism rather than a statement of fact ? What facts do you have at your disposal which refute this suggestion ?

It doesn't appear as though you have the slightest idea of what "racism" actually is or how it is constituted. I suggest looking up the word in a dictionary to familiarise yourself with its meaning and usage - and being significantly more careful as regards utilising the label against anybody else in future.

 

[sevo]

Interesting 'spin' I like these statements:

Broomberg and Chanarin made two recent trips to Gabon to photograph a series of rare Bwiti initiation rituals using Kodak film stock, scavenged from eBay, that had expired in 1978. Working with outdated chemical processes, they salvaged just a single frame. Broomberg said: "Anything that comes out of that camera is a political document

Using WASTE to document rare rituals is at the very best a meta-ritual of its own - more likely it is idiocy. It would not have been that hard to scavenge Kodak film from ebay that won't expire until 2014, and salvage ALL frames...

The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that "if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth"

Not sure that using 1978 vintage slide film and complaining about the latitude and poor results is a proof of racism

Well, there is inherent racism in exposing for the white kid, as if that was the main subject (presumably not so in a Bwiti initiation ritual). The authors have to blame themselves for that, they ought to have exposed for the black kid instead, even if that reduces the white kid (which did not have much reason to be in the picture) to a pair of pupils and nostrils!

 

[Addy101]

Interesting 'spin' I like these statements:

Broomberg and Chanarin made two recent trips to Gabon to photograph a series of rare Bwiti initiation rituals using Kodak film stock, scavenged from eBay, that had expired in 1978. Working with outdated chemical processes, they salvaged just a single frame. Broomberg said: "Anything that comes out of that camera is a political document

The light range was so narrow, Broomberg said, that "if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth"

Not sure that using 1978 vintage slide film and complaining about the latitude and poor results is a proof of racism

Yep, doesn't this simply mean the writers of the article are racist? It seems their argument is: these films were made by whitemen a long time ago, they must have had racist motives. So, I think the article reflects our time!

Btw, I found the remark 'bout exposing for the white kid interesting. It is not the film that is racist, but Bloomberg. When you know that you have to expose for the black guy to get the best picture, why do you insist on exposing for the white kid :bang:

 

[sevo]

How is suggesting that "the middle class in the USA in the mid 1930's was predominantly white" an example of racism rather than a statement of fact ?

The notion that it is perfectly ok for film to render only the skin of middle class members ok is already discriminatory, regardless of any question of racism - it implies that film should only be used by the middle class to depict their peers...

 

[user237428934]

Talking about exposure problems when you have bride (white dress) and groom (black suit) in front of you is pretty normal. Talking about the same photographical problem when you have a white and black person in front of you seems to be a racist thought per se. What a stupid world we live in today.

 

[flip]

As racist as capitalism ever is. Organizations don't think; they seek a point of easy profit. This tells us where inequities in society are and doesn't necessarily cause the inequities.

 

[DamenS]

The notion that it is perfectly ok for film to render only the skin of middle class members ok is already discriminatory, regardless of any question of racism - it implies that film should only be used by the middle class to depict their peers...

Except that it was actually you and not I who even introduced the term "middle class" into this discussion; which I also thought was discriminatory of you, not to mention a limitation upon my original statement (why did you exclude "the upper class" - did THEY not also buy film - or portions of "the lower class" who could also afford film ?), but I wasn't going to raise this as an issue. What I said is that companies produce products aimed primarily at the people who are most likely to buy their products (which certainly means those people have to be able to afford their product in addition to any ancillary costs).

I did not even say that this is "OK" (though I certainly think it is), only that it is not racist; as I suggested, it is simple marketing. This IS certainly "discriminatory" in that it is discriminating a product's features and attributes towards the market most likely to buy it - so, good grief ! You still haven't explained which companies don't do that, and why you believe they should NOT do that ? I agree that Rolls Royce not making a car for people with no money is "discriminatory" - so what have you actually proven through gleaning such an admission ? It is an entirely specious argument you present. As I suggested, this is not an example of racism at all. You have stated that it IS still "institutionalised racism and more" without having presented the slightest explanation as to why or how.

You are also very loose with your words such as when you state that there is an implication the film "should ONLY be used by the middle class to depict their peers". There is no such connotation, let alone a denotation. It simply means that the film is at its BEST when taking a certain type of photograph; the type of photograph the manufacturer's market research has determined is the most likely to be taken by those people who buy their film. They can however take photos of other things with it. So, why is this wrong ? You have yet to state why this is an example of ANY form of racism, let alone "institutionalised racism".

You have also not yet responded to my question as to why you believe that stating the middle-class of America in the 1930's was predominately white is racist and factually incorrect. Even if I was to ignore that it is eminently likely you were attempting to accuse ME of being racist (merely because you disagree with my opinion) without any supporting argument, your entire contention of "institutionalised racism AND MORE" relies upon this statement being factually incorrect. So I ask you again: In what way is it an incorrect statement ? I'm not holding much hope as you keep changing your argument or introducing different arguments to avoid answering any of these questions, but still ... they are pertinent questions and you can only avoid them by misreading other people's posts, making specious arguments or resorting to ad hominem attacks for so long.

What is the assumption that the middle class is white and does not have dark-skinned friends, if it is not institutional racism?

Why is the middle class being predominantly white (not entirely white as you erroneously suggest) in 1930's USA a racist "assumption" ? Why is it not just a simple, honest to goodness, actual fact ??

Who said anything about a racist assumption that these white middle-class people don't have ANY dark skinned friends ?? Given the levels of racial segregation in 1930's USA, it would probably be fair to suggest white middle-class people generally had MORE white friends than they had dark skinned friends, but so what ? The argument is that Kodak/Polaroid made their film work BEST (not exclusively) for a majority of their users, which you (unrealistically) argue is racism - or even a racist belief on Kodak/Polaroid's part that white people couldn't have ANY black friends. Good grief again ! See how loose you are with your words, your thoughts, and your comprehension of other people's arguments ?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Well, there is inherent racism in exposing for the white kid, as if that was the main subject (presumably not so in a Bwiti initiation ritual). The authors have to blame themselves for that, they ought to have exposed for the black kid instead, even if that reduces the white kid (which did not have much reason to be in the picture) to a pair of pupils and nostrils!

I don't think so. When I was a studio photographer in the early 1980's I often had couples of different race to photograph. The secret was to balance your lighting in order to give good tone to both.
I never thought of myself as a racist in doing that anymore than I did when I exposed for the brides dress and tried to keep detail in the grooms jacket.

Also I wonder how we today can judge a company making film in say the 1950's in the USA for making studio materials for white skin. Just look at the fashion magazines from that time, how many black faces do you see on the cover of Vogue or Harpers in the 1950's?
It's a chicken and egg situation as far as I can see.
Society at the time was different, black people didn't have the same rights in some places, and it's hard to put a C21 perspective on historical events from 1950.
I know from personal experience with Fuji that they used a wide range of skintones for testing by 1988 certainly I saw Asian, Northern European and southern European aims.
So I'm not sure how a company can be considered racist wrt those issues.