Adesuwa @ Photogenics by Lucas Passmore
Adesuwa @ Photogenics by Lucas Passmore
The Abbott Government is introducing a $6 GP fee in the next budget. Ten reasons why this is a bad idea:
- $6 is a lot for the disadvantaged. The dole is about $35 a day.
- It discourages the disadvantaged - pensioners, Aboriginal people, disabled people, poor people - who, ironically, have…
The following is from dearcoquette:
… It may seem simple, but making your bed is quietly one of the most important daily rituals a person can have. I promise, it will change your life. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but it’s not. Those of you who already do it know exactly what I…
I’m not saying Tony Abbott is a sexist, ableist, homophobic, white supremacist, anti-democracy, climate denier with little regard for the impoverished and vulnerable. But if I was a sexist, ableist, homophobic, white supremacist, anti-democracy, climate denier with little regard for the impoverished and vulnerable I’d be pretty happy with the decisions he’s making right now.
In honor of the two conflicting holidays
"Daenerys" - Illustration by samspratt
Finally finished. Had a little too much fun painting all that loose, whispy, wooshy, hair. Now right back to the art cave to continue research on a poster I’m particularly excited about.
Broomberg and Chanarin say their work, on show at Johannesburg’s Goodman Gallery, examines “the radical notion that prejudice might be inherent in the medium of photography itself”. They argue that early colour film was predicated on white skin: in 1977, when Jean-Luc Godard was invited on an assignment to Mozambique, he refused to use Kodak film on the grounds that the stock was inherently “racist”.
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”. It was only when Kodak’s two biggest clients – the confectionary and furniture industries – complained that dark chocolate and dark furniture were losing out that it came up with a solution.
Makes perfect sense to me. The human eye always adjusts to see people’s faces but the technology of photography developed around adjusting to white people only. You can probably dig deeper and look at the cultural institution that developed around photography for what came to be accepted as “what the camera likes” and the aesthetics of palettes and light conditions and such for more normalization of racist standards. Same can probably be said of a great deal of Eurocentric art, aesthetics, and technology in general.
So glad someone identified this tendency. When I did photography, I found my POC friends impossible to light with the reccomendations given by most photography blogs and such. I also found no techniques on how to photograph people with darker skin tones because even DSLRS require different types of exposures for darker skin.
Are these people serious
Yep cause it’s true
Film is an inherently racist medium, which seems unfortunately to bemost discussed by white authors (Richard Dyer, though, does have a lot of good information in White)
But when Spike Lee has to come up with his own methods of cinematography to film black people, something is definitely wrong
Or when I show up as a dark blob in photos with my white friends, or when I’m the only one who’s face isn’t picked up by any recognition technology, then I’d say film and photography are definitely racist media
idk how much we should be taking cues on racism from JLG tbh
Also the filters that get used for photo editing (digital and otherwise). Like, I think loads of pictures are specially developed with this blue tone that really lightens people up (while also making everything look washed out). And all the common tutorials (both on tumblr and elsewhere) to improve the lighting/image quality of screencaps for edits and gifs are totally useless for darker skin tones. I wish there were better fandom resources for this shit because it’s fucking frustrating.
reblogging to add:
“Montré Aza Missouri, an assistant professor in film at Howard University, recalls being told by one of her instructors in London that “if you found yourself in the ‘unfortunate situation’ of shooting on the ‘Dark Continent,’ and if you’re shooting dark-skinned people, then you should rub Vaseline on their skin in order to reflect light. It was never an issue of questioning the technology.” In her classes at Howard, Missouri says, “I talk to my students about the idea that the tools used to make film, the science of it, are not racially neutral.”
Missouri reminds her students that the sensors used in light meters have been calibrated for white skin; rather than resorting to the offensive Vaseline solution, they need to manage the built-in bias of their instruments, in this case opening their cameras’ apertures one or two stops to allow more light through the lens. Filmmakers working with celluloid also need to take into account that most American film stocks weren’t manufactured with a sensitive enough dynamic range to capture a variety of dark skin tones. Even the female models whose images are used as reference points for color balance and tonal density during film processing — commonly called “China Girls” — were, until the mid-1990s, historically white.
In the face of such technological chauvinism, filmmakers have been forced to come up with workarounds, including those lights thrown on Poitier and a variety of gels, scrims and filters. But today, such workarounds have been rendered virtually obsolete by the advent of digital cinematography, which allows filmmakers much more flexibility both in capturing images and manipulating them during post-production.”
and from the original article:
The artists feel certain that the ID-2 camera and its boost button were Polaroid’s answer to South Africa’s very specific need. “Black skin absorbs 42% more light. The button boosts the flash exactly 42%,” Broomberg explained. “It makes me believe it was designed for this purpose.”
In 1970 Caroline Hunter, a young chemist working for Polaroid in America, stumbled upon evidence that the company was effectively supporting apartheid. She and her partner Ken Williams formed the Polaroid Workers Revolutionary Movement and campaigned for a boycott. By 1977 Polaroid had withdrawn from South Africa, spurring an international divestment movement that was crucial to bringing down apartheid.
The title of the exhibition, To Photograph the Details of a Dark Horse in Low Light, refers to the coded phrase used by Kodak to describe a new film stock created in the early 1980s to address the inability of earlier films to accurately render dark skin.
The show also features norm reference cards that always used white women as a standard for measuring and calibrating skin tones when printing photographs. The series of “Kodak Shirleys” were named after the first model featured. Today such cards show multiple races.
Forever reblog with added commentary
Yes! It’s back! I was trying to find this post
Added information. I really really need a book on cinematography techniques for lighting darker skin tones
I’ve posted information about this before, and I want to reblog it again because it’s so important.
People really need to understand what it means that racism is built into so many of our technologies, our education, our lives…too many people seem to believe that racism is about feelings and interactions.
A lot of the photos I have posted of artworks are old photographs that use films that oversaturate dark skin tones or blast them out with contrast. They need to be modified where possible in order for dark skinned people portrayed in the paintings to be visible at all.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what people deserve from other people, like, whether they deserve to know if you have feelings for them, or if you’ve been friends for years, whether they deserve to be the one you go to when you need to talk to someone, or whether they deserve to know what your home life is like, or whether they deserve to know how fucked up you really are.
We have this notion that, at some point, people earn access to these parts of us. But at what point? At what point do we feel like we owe them? This kind of thought process has always troubled me because I’m naturally a very private person, and sometimes I don’t feel like I owe anybody anything. If I choose them, I choose them because I want to, not because they deserve to be chosen.
I think at some point we need to stop expecting people to give pieces of themselves. Those precious pieces may be all they have left, they may be the bones holding them together. And you are not entitled to that, not one bit. You only deserve what you’re given.”
That was so beautiful
Thank God someone finally said this. I’m so sick of stating that Western intervention and invasion of other countries fuels terrorism only for people to respond 'They did 9/11 first!'
In 1953 the UK & the US staged a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed a dictator who was more to their liking. Today the US continues to support brutal dictators (such as in Saudi Arabia) where it suits them to do so. Palestine has been occupied for decades. The list of Western imperial foreign policies over the past decades could go on and on.
9/11 was not only only a result religious extremism and it certainly was not because 'they hate our freedoms.' Terrorism is often primarily politically motivated and anyone who is serious about preventing it had better take some fucking notice of this fact.
when you find that perfect gif but don’t know how to use it
You can reverse the flow of the hotdogs if you concentrate hard enough
oh my god you can