Kodak, Racial Bias and the "Shirley" Cards

An interesting article:

 

The Racial Bias Built Into Photography

Subbarayan Prasanna gave me some Fuji film distributed in India (Praktina FX (FX-A Version C)) which was color balanced for Indian subjects, as he thought.

Here is an uncorrected image shot on that film. I think he was right.

Shadow detail is always harder than highlight detail.

 

It has been suggested, and maybe that is being done here, that some films prefer certain skin colors.

That is, they will take anything close and make it come out an optimal Caucasian skin color.

I don't know color film technology enough to know how to do that.

 

I noticed in the article mention of "fair skin". What is so "fair" about it, and does that mean that

other skin colors are "unfair"?

 

In the case of black and white, where color balance doesn't come into question, getting appropriate

shading detail is likely hard. There was discussion some time ago about photographing

dark skinned nudes, where shading is especially important.

<snip>

 

I noticed in the article mention of "fair skin". What is so "fair" about it, and does that mean that

other skin colors are "unfair"?

 

<snip>.

 

I took the use of the word fair as meaning light-coloured, as in fair hair, not implying any other interpretation such as mean-ness or prejudicial.

I took the use of the word fair as meaning light-coloured, as in fair hair, not implying any other interpretation such as mean-ness or prejudicial.

 

Oh, I agree, but why does "fair" mean "light colored"?

 

Much of modern prejudice has roots pretty far back, long enough to have forgotten the origin,

but we stick with them now. I don't know the origin of "fair", though.

dictionary definition fair - Google Search

An interesting article:

 

The Racial Bias Built Into Photography

 

It sounds a bit like a gentler rehash of the ideas put forth by Syreeta McFadden and Lorna Roth a handful of years back. As I recall, their big issue (in color neg still photography, at least) had to do with what they called "the Shirley card" and its use.

 

My take is that there was (is) a big misunderstanding of the use of "the Shirley card," etc. (I don't even know what the "card" part means, and I had a great deal of lab experience from the 1970s or so.) I think that perhaps a main trigger for these articles is the existence of such reference negs with the word "normal" on them, and the interpretation that the subject's race is considered as the "normal," in some manner.

 

Since I was involved in lab work, in particular QC, in "the film days" I know what the intended meaning of "normal" was. These so-called "Shirleys" were more correctly called printer setup negs. They were used to set up a thing called "slope" in the machine printers. The setup negs came in an EXPOSURE SET called under, normal, and over. It was well known in the industry that printing color corrections had to be made between these; it's largely attributed to what was called reciprocity failure in the color paper. By individually color balancing each of the slope negs to match, the printer's system could work out it's own internal correction, aka "slope" for variations in exposure. These negs also acted as the bridge between the printers and "negative analyzers" known by acronyms such as VCNA and PVAC, etc.

 

So I would suggest that anyone reading the linked article, or similar, pay attention to the author's treatment of the "slope negative" usage to see if they understand what it really is. If someone ever were to sit down with one of those authors and ask them, "Tell me, exactly, how was a "Shirley card" used in a photo lab?" then I think the depth of their ignorance would come out.

Shadow detail is always harder than highlight detail.

 

This is kind of a simplification. Consider wedding photography, which in the US at least, often involves the extremes of a black tux and a white gown. As often as not, I'd say that fine detail or gradation gets lost in the white gown, at least when photographed by amateurs. Historically this was one of the big challenges for portrait/wedding films - to be able to hold some detail in both of these.

This is kind of a simplification. Consider wedding photography, which in the US at least, often involves the extremes of a black tux and a white gown. As often as not, I'd say that fine detail or gradation gets lost in the white gown, at least when photographed by amateurs. Historically this was one of the big challenges for portrait/wedding films - to be able to hold some detail in both of these.

 

Yes it is a simplification, and seems to suggest that African-American brides should wear

dark colored dresses.

 

Yes the fine detail of the white gown gets lost, but maybe that isn't so bad. The important part is that it is white.

 

(I suspect that many amateur photographers use direct flash, which makes it worse.)

 

The face is always more important than the dress, and if facial detail is there, one can somewhat ignore lost

gown detail. If there is some gown detail, then the mind can fill it in, while looking directly at the face.

 

With some lighting from the sides, there will be some visible shadows (not shadow detail shadow, but actual shadow)

on the gown

 

You can live with lost detail on the gown, tux, but not on the face.

 

I am now trying to think about all the pictures I have seen of Michelle Obama.

I think, in an event like wedding, everything is important, not just the face. Wedding gown is one of the centerpieces in the ceremony and not properly portraying it in the photos is a deal-breaker, in my opinion. Also, the wedding gown is featured quite prominently in many of the pictures in a wedding as is the groom's tuxedo, where the face actually covers a tiny portion of the frame. Also, I don't think the blown highlights always appear in a benign way. They sometimes (not always) are revealing as white patches with sharp jagged boundaries as opposed to being blended with their environment, as in a deliberately high key scene. If I remember correctly, Fuji NPH was a low contrast film specifically marketed for weddings and portraits to avoid the extremes of highlight or shadow clipping.

As far as I now, NPH is competition for Kodak's VPS.

 

VPS was for many years my favorite C41 film. I first found out about it when I asked at

a nearby store about the right film for copying prints. Maybe it is just me, but I tend not

to like my prints to be over colored. I used it for everyday family and vacation scenery.

 

Well, first the store explained that it wasn't necessary to keep it below 55F all the

time, that I could use it as an ordinary film, at ordinary temperatures, especially

if not for wedding photography.

 

Yes all is important, but if you blow the face, you are sunk.

 

ISO ratings are based on the bottom of the characteristic curve, an appropriate

amount above base+fog, with some margin for underexposure.

 

C41 films have a relatively low gamma, and so a large margin above, for overexposure.

 

It will be much harder to overexpose a light colored face, than to underexpose a dark

colored face. But even more, the variation in brightness will naturally be smaller

(on a linear scale) than a light colored one, and even on a log scale, approaching

the curved part at the bottom of the characteristic curve.

 

If you go for available light, for a more natural look, staying in the main part of the

curve is even harder.

 

As for the blotchy look, that seems to me more for digital images, though the

beginning of this discussion is based on film. But that should also be important.

... Also, I don't think the blown highlights always appear in a benign way. They sometimes (not always) are revealing as white patches with sharp jagged boundaries as opposed to being blended with their environment, as in a deliberately high key scene. If I remember correctly, Fuji NPH was a low contrast film specifically marketed for weddings and portraits to avoid the extremes of highlight or shadow clipping.

 

Supriyo, I agree. When I shoot film in a manual camera and I'm concerned about exposure, I use a spotmeter to look at the darkest areas, and plan from there. (Of course, a lot of the time I use 'sunny 16' and get away with it.) ;-) But I've always set my digital SLRs to expose a half-stop or one-third-stop low--I'd rather have to worry about shadow detail than blown-out highs.

Eso-called faux bastion of "truth" and wannabe journalism.

 

Phil, one of the things I love about photo.net is that almost entirely friendly nature of the conversations. I don't think bringing politics into a discussion of exposure settings is going to help that any, if you don't mind my saying so.

It’s not about the NYT and politics. It’s a true fact that (to varying degrees at different times) color photography in general has done a better job for white people that for others. I don’t know if it’s more about the design of the film or the printing calibration but it’s there. Color balance is hard, film chemistry is hard, printing is hard, and Kodak prioritized white skin for years until they had good enough technology to branch out. White people were the market. In the 80s they didn’t want to advertise that their film was good for black people now, so they said that you could use it to shoot a black horse.

 

I can’t find a copy now, but I’m remembering Leica’s early

M9 marketing materials. They were striking because (among other reasons) they used photos of black people in different light, and they looked correct. Even then this was an unusual thing to see used as a selling point.

If course it’s a racial bias issue. I’m sure nobody at Kodak went to work and said “let’s stick it to minorities by making them look wrong in photos” but the fact that when they made decisions about which tones to calibrate the film and processes for they chose white people skin tones is by definition a racial bias. A bias in favor of a race.

Supriyo, I agree. When I shoot film in a manual camera and I'm concerned about exposure, I use a spotmeter to look at the darkest areas, and plan from there. (Of course, a lot of the time I use 'sunny 16' and get away with it.) ;-) But I've always set my digital SLRs to expose a half-stop or one-third-stop low--I'd rather have to worry about shadow detail than blown-out highs.

 

In digital cameras, I use the histogram in live view to detect clippings at extreme ends, with a similar end goal as yours.

When I first "discovered" Fuji, I was warned by the dealer that the color was designed for oriental taste, and would not do well for caucasians. He was right, in a sense. Reala and Velvia should not be used for humans of any sort. Odd that I never saw that in print. I wonder where he came up with it?

An interesting article:

 

The Racial Bias Built Into Photography

 

In your opinion, since you created the OP, is the NYT article about racism within photography's history or is about exposure settings? Or is it both?

LOL. That makes it sound so heavy. Or maybe just maybe it’s just a bias in favor of profit in a commercially driven free market. And. So. What. Do non-white people have a problem nowadays with posting their meaningless snaps of narcissism on Instagram? No, they don’t. Ok, problem solved and hooray for equality in stupidity.

Are you actually serious or is this another dumbass troll session?

Which was precisely my point about the NYT, turning a rather mundane (technical limitation) issue into yet another “racial bias issue." Nevermind their bias of course when it comes to race because I suppose any racial bias that’s of the left wing kind is a good and virtuous racial bias, lol. Let's all feel better about ourselves by singing along with the pre-approved parroted chorus! Let's all repent and pray. All that I can ever hear is a bunch of brainwashed uneducated elitist hypocrite dimwits pretending to be journalists, a title that at least used to mean something.

 

Phil, perhaps you didn't pay enough attention to one of the earliest statements in the NYT article: "Photography is not just a system of calibrating light, but a technology of subjective decisions." If a reporter from the National Review, The American Spectator, or he American Conservative were to write an article analogous to the NYT piece, wouldn't its content have a righty-wing bias? Although I can see you doing so in one of the journals Im mentioned above, I don't understand launching such a tirade against the NYT piece when it was posted in the context of a photography forum on a photography website? Try to look at the article at issue neutrally and you might realize that its primary object was to document a specific area in history of photography. The fact that photography's evolution since 1926 (the only date mentioned in the NYT article) may include some improvement in the way current photography reflects race is merely incidental.

 

And by the way, if an article comparable to the NYT one , i.e., one that discussed the connection between the evolution of photography and the history of race in America, appeared in a strongly conservative newspaper, wouldn't you get really, really p.o.'d if I post comments to this thread similar to the ones you have. In such an instance, I'd be just as guilty as you of needlessly politicizing the matter.

It’s not about the NYT and politics. It’s a true fact that (to varying degrees at different times) color photography in general has done a better job for white people that for others. I don’t know if it’s more about the design of the film or the printing calibration but it’s there. Color balance is hard, film chemistry is hard, printing is hard, and Kodak prioritized white skin for years until they had good enough technology to branch out. White people were the market. In the 80s they didn’t want to advertise that their film was good for black people now, so they said that you could use it to shoot a black horse.

 

Very well said, Andy!

Which was precisely my point about the NYT, turning a rather mundane (technical limitation) issue into yet another “racial bias issue." Nevermind their bias of course when it comes to race because I suppose any racial bias that’s of the left wing kind is a good and virtuous racial bias, lol. Let's all feel better about ourselves by singing along with the pre-approved parroted chorus! Let's all repent and pray. All that I can ever hear is a bunch of brainwashed uneducated elitist hypocrite dimwits pretending to be journalists, a title that at least used to mean something.

 

Think you might try keeping your stick on the ice.

When I first "discovered" Fuji, I was warned by the dealer that the color was designed for oriental taste, and would not do well for caucasians. He was right, in a sense. Reala and Velvia should not be used for humans of any sort. Odd that I never saw that in print. I wonder where he came up with it?

 

Funny I often heard the same odd comment--the work of Kodak reps? Funnier still is that chalky old Fuji NPH was the wedding material of choice for many.

Gentlemen! [Did someone just come in? ...3 Stooges)

 

Please. Don't.

WTF do you expect me to say about such a plastic propaganda piece? I'm an independent thinker, thank you very much. So do you actually expect me to say: Oh you’re so absolutely right, I must now repent for all my white sins and bow down to your virtuous and righteous black oppressed souls. Well, guess what, my brother, I’m un-politically correct going to say that I don’t give a rats ass what precious color your skin happens to be in: I'll just tell you to F$ck Off with a cherry on top if you keep insisting on me juding you by the color of your skin instead of judging you by the contents of your character (you know, that MLK thing). So yeah, there's that.

 

Now that you've vented your spleen, there's nothing for me left to say, with one exception. You refer to yourself as an independent thinker. What you actually stated shows otherwise. You sadly find no place in your universe for differences of opinion. So please pardon me, but I'm done with you.