""but that book character has blue/grey/light eyes so obviously they’re white!!"" ://///
(Reminder that light eyes and blonde hair can be caused by conditions, such as Waardenburg Syndrome and albinism, but they are still real people that can (and should) be represented in media and such)
And also I can add that I have news for y’all, people can be black and naturally blonde
And literally people from ANY KIND can be a redheadand have freackles and such
So please, stop pretending only white people can have those characteristics, jfc, it’s sofucking annoying.
Boom de yada
Just to add on - While race is a very, very, very significant issue, race as we know it is a social construct. When you acknowledge that all people on earth have veeeery little genetic variation in the scope of things, it’s much easier to break oneself from the training of “only white people have this, only black people have that, only asian people have this trait, etc”
the funny thing ist though, even if a character is described as having dark skin, dark hair and brown eyes, theyre still being cast as white
It’s also worth noting that the fact that a black person has blonde or red hair doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve got a white ancestor kicking around in their family tree. Recent genetic studies suggest that the gene that codes for blonde hair in black African populations is completely different from the gene that codes for blonde hair in white European populations, and that blond hair among Aboriginal Australian populations is connected to yet a third gene. The same trait has independently arisen at least three times in humanity’s generic history, and only one of those cases is linked with light skin per se.
(Interestingly, this also means that the widspread belief that blonde hair is part of a complex of adaptations to low-sunlight regions is probably false, since populations that live in the sunniest parts of the world have their own blonde-hair mutations unrelated to the European one.)
Canon EOS 70D
How does being a photographer help you with filmmaking / video editing?
The interesting thing about this question is I started off in film and video. I never really picked up a camera to shoot stills until maybe only recently. A few years if we’re talking “seriously”.
When you shoot still pictures, you only present what is on one frame, meaning you must make sure that what you choose to show is exactly what you want to show. I guess this part of photography helped me realise that each frame in a sequence of video is just as important as the entire sequence together. It allowed me to focus a more macro orientated editing style, making sure that I could say to myself; at any point I will pause the video, will this frame make sense in the sequence? While it may not always be relevant or possible to edit (or shoot) this way, it’s good for me to get into that frame of mind. It has allowed me to think a little bit more about planning the entire sequence, and shooting a video with as much detail and care as a still.
Do you think photographers / videographers have an advantage over still photographers in the way in which they are able to portray beauty not only in photography, but also in moving image?
I would say that they both have their advantages and disadvantages. It’s not always easier to explain something just because there’s more than one frame to show it in. Sometimes more frames leads to more ambiguity, just like a still. You can be very precise with a single frame. If you get it right though, a moving image can certainly show more of the picture.
I think they are pretty similar in many ways, it all depends on what you’re comparing. I do like to think that I have learned to appreciate a single frame still after having the luxury of a moving image though! While it may be easier to have the advantage of showing a beautiful landscape over multiple frames, it might not always be ‘better’. There’s still beauty in the unknown and wonder.
Mamyia RB 67 Pro S | Canon 1000D
Tell us about your ‘Altered’ project. What’s the meaning behind it?
The project Altered came out of the ideas around change and development with in the modern world. The world is ever changing and our cities are growing, gradually invading on areas of natural beauty. While this development is a part of our western culture, I found it sad too think that in a few years time we could be faced with choice’s about what landscapes we loose and what ones we keep.
The work in this sense challenges this idea, by taking photos of areas that could be seen as sublime and digitally altering them in a way that could be seen as scaring the landscape. I chose the pylons to do this as they are something we see on a daily basis, and are essential to our modern desires for energy. I added them as if they were blueprints; just an idea, nothing more, in doing this I wanted the viewer to make their own judgements on the work, to bring their ideas about energy and our ever changing landscape to the work it’s self.
Why isn’t anyone talking about this?
A ‘Ring of Fire’ solar eclipse is a rare phenomenon that occurs when the moon’s orbit is at its apogee: the part of its orbit farthest away from the Earth. Because the moon is so far away, it seems smaller than normal to the human eye. The result is that the moon doesn’t entirely block out our view of the sun, but leaves an “annulus,” or ring of sunlight glowing around it. Hence the term “annular” eclipse rather than a “total” eclipse.
my god that last one!!!