Read on Twitter
This thing about B&W photos being some covert, psychological operation is pretty wild lol. But, I think it does bring up an interesting conversation regarding race, racism, & film photography. Some thoughts 
For the better part of the 20th century, [film] photography was done in B&W. It's just the way photography was practiced, & accepted as such.
Also, B&W photography, in comparison to color, was viewed as the "superior" form. Photographing in color was thought of as a gimmick.
Also, B&W photography, in comparison to color, was viewed as the "superior" form. Photographing in color was thought of as a gimmick.
But this doesn’t mean people didn’t photograph in color. In 1935, Kodak developed the first color film, Kodachrome. Photographers used it, but again, it was thought of as being gimmicky, an after thought.
If you wanted to be taken “seriously” as an artist, you used B&W (another convo on the “art world”)
Something else was also going on with color film, racism (no surprise here). Here's how: when Kodak was developing the emulsion (layers of color on the film) & chemistry used to develop film, they were organized in a way to “capture white skin.”
Quick, but important, diversion: Photography, at its core, is about [the study of] light, how it reflects, how it’s absorbed, and so on. When a camera’s shutter opens, it allows light into the camera, and an image is “printed” onto the film.
To “bring out” that “printed” image from the film, you have to go through a development process, which includes a series of chemicals, water, and agitation. B/c it’s not a foolproof process, the colors may not be totally accurate.
Knowing this, Kodak included a guide of sorts known as the “Shirley Card” — and it’s not named after Shirley Caesar, either.
But, as you might suspect, “Shirley” was a series of white women on different cards that were used as a baseline for the photographer - big yikes.
But, as you might suspect, “Shirley” was a series of white women on different cards that were used as a baseline for the photographer - big yikes.
Here’s why that diversion on light is important: light, as filtered through a lens and shutter, responds differently to “white” skin than it does brown skin/skin of darker hues. Kodak did not make film with the intent of Black people being photographed or remembered or gazed upon
It wasn’t until advertising photographers who were photographing wood furniture + brown upholstery complained that their images looked “muddy,” that ultimately pushed Kodak to adjust it’s chemical processes! So, even then, Black people were not in mind.
Given many of the photographs we see of Dr. King are from the 1960s, many photographers were hesitant to use the medium. Remember, color photography is “gimmicky.”
Also, my theory on textbooks having black and white images vs color lol. Look, it’s cheaper to use B&W images than it is color (?) These school districts/systems don’t care about kids, you think they gonna spend extra $ on them for some color pictures?
At any rate, if you’re interested in this sort of thing, here’s some stuff to check out:
- Gordon Parks: The Atmosphere of Crime, 1957
- Gordon Parks: Segregation Story, 1956
- John Szarkowski’s writing on William Eggleston’s “Guide”
- Gordon Parks: The Atmosphere of Crime, 1957
- Gordon Parks: Segregation Story, 1956
- John Szarkowski’s writing on William Eggleston’s “Guide”
“Color film was built for white people. Here’s what it did to dark skin.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=133&v=d16LNHIEJzs&feature=emb_title
