Y'all ever notice this about our historical black figures?

videogamestashbox.com

Hotep
Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
7,572
Reputation
3,597
Daps
22,620
Reppin
When I win I bring we with me
Last edited:

Buddy

thekick-back.com
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
21,486
Reputation
7,545
Daps
89,149

Fact check: Civil rights-era images weren't intentionally made black and white​




USA TODAY - June 20th ,2020
This is exactly what I was thinking. I've always heard and understood that having a color tv was a huge flex back then so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to photography
 

xXOGLEGENDXx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
9,088
Reputation
7,148
Daps
64,329

:jbhmm:



USA TODAY - June 20th ,2020
:heh:

All of that is bullshiit.
Exposure had nothing to do with it. Acting like MLK was vanta black or something. Even for older cameras, skin exposure is roughly the same for black people and white people. All skin tones live on the same spectrum in photography. Malcolm X was fairly light skinned, so exposing for him and Richard Nixon would not be different at all.

They would have a leg to stand on if everybody from the 50s, 60s & 70s were in B&W, and this wasn't the case...


1.png


2.png


3.png


4.png
 

Buddy

thekick-back.com
Joined
Apr 28, 2014
Messages
21,486
Reputation
7,545
Daps
89,149
:heh:

All of that is bullshiit.
Exposure had nothing to do with it. Acting like MLK was vanta black or something. Even for older cameras, skin exposure is roughly the same for black people and white people. All skin tones live on the same spectrum in photography. Malcolm X was fairly light skinned, so exposing for him and Richard Nixon would not be different at all.

They would have a leg to stand on if everybody from the 50s, 60s & 70s were in B&W, and this wasn't the case...


1.png


2.png


3.png


4.png
Those are presidents breh. Leaders of the free world. That's a different kinda media coverage. I get where you're coming from with the thread but if you think about the people involved, their station in life, and the people interested in covering them, it starts making more sense.
 

Diyhai

En Causa Sui
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
14,178
Reputation
763
Daps
20,140
Reppin
Baltimore
:heh:

All of that is bullshiit.
Exposure had nothing to do with it. Acting like MLK was vanta black or something. Even for older cameras, skin exposure is roughly the same for black people and white people. All skin tones live on the same spectrum in photography. Malcolm X was fairly light skinned, so exposing for him and Richard Nixon would not be different at all.

They would have a leg to stand on if everybody from the 50s, 60s & 70s were in B&W, and this wasn't the case...
you sound dumb skin exposure is still an issue for modern photography and video
 

xXOGLEGENDXx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
9,088
Reputation
7,148
Daps
64,329
you sound dumb skin exposure is still an issue for modern photography and video
Not to the level where black and white is an alternative.

Exposure and color correction does not magically get fixed when in B&W. If you over/under expose a subject, they are going to look over/under exposed in black and white too. It's not a fix.

Again stop acting like MLK and Malcolm looked like Grace Jones on Nightclubbing. There are plenty of color photos of black folks next to white people and the whites don't look like bright white overexposed subjects.

Do you have to expose differently? Yes. But it's not at the level where the only thing that can be done is to make it B&W because that doesn't even work.
 
Top