Wait...film was racist because it didn't have enough

>>2934243
https://priceonomics.com/how-photography-was-optimized-for-white-skin/
Whoops, forgot link.

>>2934243
sage

Yep, it's 2016. Everything's racist now.

>>2934243
>film was racist
The article is titled
>How Photography Was Optimized for White Skin Color
And there are facts in the article to back up this claim
In fact the only sort of claims of racism come from quotes from elsewhere and are not proposed by the author and are presented as someone else's opinion

Take your underage reactionary behavior back to >>>/pol/

>>2934266
>And there are facts in the article to back up this claim
Nope, there's just twisting limited dynamic range into being racist because it's hard to expose a black guy and a white guy together correctly.
>The earliest color film was not sensitive enough to accurately capture darker subjects subjects, especially when the scene had brighter, whiter elements.
>“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."
>“Film emulsions could have been designed initially with more sensitivity to the continuum of yellow, brown, and reddish skin tones,” Roth writes in her paper, ‘Looking at Shirley, the Ultimate Norm,’ “but the design process would have had to be motivated by a recognition of the need for an extended dynamic range.”

>>2934243
>dynamic range
So movies were less racist in the cinema than on VHS and DVD? The more you know.

>>2934243
inb4 crushed blacks

>>2934243
Yes and no. Let's list off why it is or isn't.
>1. You're a reactionary and kind of annoying
>2. Cheap/affordable film had worse dynamic range than expensive stocks
>3. Lighter skinned people generally had more money and were the main priority in the market
>4. As darker skinned people started facing less systemic oppression and could afford film, the production had to adjust to accommodate their photography needs
>5. It's not racist but is a racist bias because lighter skinned people controlled the majority of the market
It's just economics.
I suppose the antonym to this would be that light skinned people look unpleasant on infrared film/sensors while dark skin appears nicer on it.
The closest thing to actual racism in the camera industry is probably the "did somebody blink" feature on p&s cameras when an Asian person was photographed.

>>2934278
So...what you're saying is that you have no clue how film actually works?

Gotcha.

>>2934289
Learn to read or spew retardation elsewhere

>>2934333
Are you serious?

>>2934334
Do I have to reiterate myself or are you too inbred to comprehend?
Kodaks commercial consumer or "economy class" film was majorly kodacolor, kodacolor had shit DR compared to their nicer films, economic pressure pushed Kodak into introducing more expensive film production processes for their Kodacolor line; being Kodak fucking gold

>>2934347
Good god, you are serious.

File: IMG_5199.jpg (247KB, 750x1249px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 750x1249px

The DR thing is bullshit, because DR is not optimized one way or the other. Exposure can be optimized for lighter or darker skins.

But of course, when the market was there, film companies were happy to produce special versions with tweaked colour response to match the market's preference.

I'll leave this here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	1249

dude, light be racist yo

why black gotta absorb light and white reflect it, all just old white men trying to keep the black man down.

>>2934278
>"did somebody blink" feature on p&s cameras when an Asian person was photographed.

Funny how all those cameras were designed and made by gooks.

>>2934397
>specially formulated to lighten and brighten your model's curry-stained mudflaps