Photography or Racism

Originally Posted by Arkady
However, if he'd turned around and said "...because if I don't all you'll see are teeth and eyes..." then that would be racist...
Click to expand...

No, even that wouldn't be racist. It might just be construed as an exageration of the facts. But it is not derrogatory.
If you said "Because your dark skin is in some way inferior to light skin all you'll see..." then that would be racist.


One angry mother said: "My 10-year-old was told to go further back in the line as she was not white enough.
Click to expand...

Well that's conclusive then. If one 10 year old brat says that not being allowed to stand next to her mate in a queue is racism then racism it must be.
What is the likelyhood of a 10 year old in a state school being able spell racism let alone understand what it means?
What the hell is going on in this country when a 10 year old is playing the racism card because they don't like being made to do as they are told.
 
spannerdude said:
What the hell is going on in this country when a 10 year old is playing the racism card because they don't like being made to do as they are told.
Click to expand...

The sad, sorry state of the world that we live in today, unfortunately :crying:

Yes, racism does exist, but not here.
 
spannerdude said:
No, even that wouldn't be racist. It might just be construed as an exageration of the facts. But it is not derrogatory.
If you said "Because your dark skin is in some way inferior to light skin all you'll see..." then that would be racist.




Well that's conclusive then. If one 10 year old brat says that not being allowed to stand next to her mate in a queue is racism then racism it must be.
What is the likelyhood of a 10 year old in a state school being able spell racism let alone understand what it means?
What the hell is going on in this country when a 10 year old is playing the racism card because they don't like being made to do as they are told.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, even at 10 they know how to wave it even if they have no real idea of what it means and their parents have singularly failed to explain true racism from preceived racism based on anything related to skin colour :bang:
 
IMO racism.. in fact anythingism must shirley have intent !
No intent , no foul. /oversimplifying so the PC brigade can be offended by it.
 
DiddyDave said:
If you're taking a shot of a landscape on a sunny/cloudy day, when the sun comes out or goes in you change the exp appropriately don't you?

Same when the light source stays the same but the subject changes tone
Click to expand...
I don't understand.

I admit I don't know anything about photographing people, but I do have lots of experience of photographing cats. If I've just taken a photo of my black cat, then I want to take a photo of my white cat, I don't change the (manual) exposure. I want the black cat to look black and the white cat to look white. Am I missing something?

(I know, I know, I should have got 18% grey cats and life would be much easier. But they didn't have any at the rescue centre. Maybe another photographer got there first.)
 
There's a difference between getting the correct 18% grey exposure and exposing for the best tonal range of the subject.
 
OK, that makes sense. And I guess the tonal range is affected by the reflectivity of someone's skin and stuff like that. Whereas for cats it's mostly a non-issue, unless you have extremely strong backlighting. Thanks for the advice.
 
The rule applies regardless of the subject - people, cats, jelly beans, etc. The camera can only record a limited range of shades and the 18% exposure is just the accepted middle point of those shades. If you shoot the black and white cat at the 18% setting chance are you'll have lost highlight and shadow details. It the same reason why getting the exposure right for weddings can be tricky - white dress & black suit.

By moving away from the 18% you can get smoother tones and lose less detail at the top or bottom ends. Try it sometime with the cats or a white shirt and black jacket...
 
I happened to be up in London when this was on the radio and oh boy did I shout at the radio while I was driving. They had several of the parents phone up. One said that they were lined up in order of skin colour, lightest to darkest and that the children came home and said that the school was racist, I would like to know if it had been the other way round darkest to lightest skin colour would it still have been conceived as racist?
The other thing that really wound me up was the number of people who phoned in and said that digital camera's did everything and all the tog had to do was push the button to take the picture wtf. I feel that the last comment sums the whole thing up as people really do not know anything about photography and think anyone could do the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top