Do You Know - Chocolate, Furniture, and the Film Industry?

In the early 1950s, Kodak created something called a “Shirley Card.” This card was a picture of a white woman wearing pearls and was used for color calibration when film was developed. As one can imagine, this presented a problem when people of color had their film developed. “Shirley Cards” were also used in the broader film industry, and again, the nuances of skin tone for people of color were not properly captured.

Kodak continued to use these cards without change, until the 1990s. It was then that a new multicultural card was created featuring women of different skin tones. 

Do you imagine that Kodak received complaints from families of color frustrated by the development of their film?

YES !

Do you imagine that any action resulted on the part of Kodak? 

NO !

What prompted the change?  

The furniture and chocolate industries were frustrated to see that shades of brown, which characterized their products, were not accurately highlighted. They used their power to force the hand of Kodak, and subsequently other film companies, to improve the technology. 

Sensitivity related to skin tone was non-existent. This racial bias in photography is another example of how people of color have been marginalized. A standard was set with the “Shirley Card” of 1950, sending messages of inferiority and insignificance. The change occurred when companies complained that their chocolate products were not the right shade of brown and furniture companies voiced displeasure about the lack of variation in the color of  wood. 

This is an excellent example of the interplay of power, privilege, and bias. 

• Thirty years later, has the landscape changed? 

• Currently, how visible are non-white skin tones in film, photography, make-up, etc.?

• Is non-white skin appreciated, celebrated, and highlighted in a way equal to white skin? 

• What other legacies follow this practice?