Color film is an invention, designed for a market. When they designed the film, they set the chemicals for dead center of the market, a girl of medium whitish color. This left out people any darker (or lighter for that matter, except Johnny Winter has a better chance of a good picture than Yaphet Kotto).
I guess when sickle cell anemia is ignored getting film right is not a high priority. But in a free market, all of these things that capitalism makes "orphan" would be addressed, through the normal free market functions. Here is a problem widely known:
In a free market, such film would already exist, because the pie keeps growing and although people are no different, the ability to oppress others is limited for lack of exceptional wealth which gives exceptional power over others.
Wealth is not how money people have how much money, but hoe many people can afford what array of goods and services with their own money.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
I guess when sickle cell anemia is ignored getting film right is not a high priority. But in a free market, all of these things that capitalism makes "orphan" would be addressed, through the normal free market functions. Here is a problem widely known:
The Guardian notes that filmmaker Jean Luc Godard was quite vocal, famously refusing to use Kodak film stock in 1977 while on assignment in Mozambique because the product was “racist.”The stuff is not designed to capture African skin. Which leads a storyteller/photographer to passion, or suffering:
I only wonder if unbiased technologies were available to us then, could they have enabled an alternative story? If images produced by Western culture represented a wider variety of black and brown identities, images in stock agencies that showed black women in professional settings, or just carefree girls, jumping rope, swimming, camping, with all shades of light highlighting how light changes on our skin, that together we’d reach some accord, some comfortable vernacular about the diversity of beauty and humanness. I wonder if the technologies available to us in those days would have taught me early how to love the richness of my brown skin.Joy, in solving the problem. Now as the article points out, Kodak is happy to up their game so chocolates and furniture will show up, but not people.
I began shooting color film again in 2000. The Fuji film I use now still struggles with a bias toward lightness in its color standard. But it does seem to be more forgiving to darker skin. More satisfying are my experiments with cross-processing slide film. It’s a process where you develop e6 film, which gives you a positive image, then mix with c41 to get a negative image. Double processing the film stock skews colors, and leaves me with a more vivid range to play and document the world.So at no real financial cost, just breaking the rules on film processing, she is creating a work around with much improvement. From here I would advise Syreeta McFadden to share with Fuji what she has done, and then ask them under what conditions they would develop film stock to her specifications? Fuji has billions in R&D equipment, and massive excess production capacity. Working with Syreeta would make news, enhance the image and grow the business. And everyone is looking to Africa as a market, even the USArmy now has an Africa Command, in order to command Africa. Fuji may very well work with her. She might call the film stock F-41 after the immigration status "Brother or sister of US Citizen" given the 2nd class status of people of African ancestry in USA, or better yet "Jambo stock" after the friendly African greeting.
In a free market, such film would already exist, because the pie keeps growing and although people are no different, the ability to oppress others is limited for lack of exceptional wealth which gives exceptional power over others.
Wealth is not how money people have how much money, but hoe many people can afford what array of goods and services with their own money.
0 comments:
Post a Comment