|
|
|
|
|
|
by britzkopf
1049 days ago
|
|
|
What's the most parsimonious take.
1) at the inception of ubiquitous photography there was a path of equipment development that allowed for equal quality images of any skin tone, but those in charge spitefully decided they didn't want people with dark skin represented.
2) seeing detail in dark objects of any kind is more difficult (something we all know from using our eyes) and no one felt compelled to spend a lot of time wrestling with this very difficult problem when, at the end of the day, everyone has the general sense that, despite never having met him, they have a good idea of what Miles Davis looks like. |
|
|
But, by the time we got to Google and Apple? The problems with photographing dark subjects would have been well understood. It's sad that it took being "outed" in the media for those companies to actively address the issue.
What I don't know is how much of the issue was "new" (re-introduced by the software behind the phone camera magic) or "existing" (the same problem with color/white balance that has existed since the dawn of photography). If it was "new", that's rather damning, IMO, since the problem space was known, and the product people chose to ignore it. Put another way - some of this is just physics, but how much was physics and how much was software ignoring one set of subjects in an effort to improve outcomes for another?
But, no, probably not intentionally spiteful. Just some combination of lazy, greedy, and ignorant.