The author keeps jumping back and forth between Kodak and Polaroid, which are different companies, as different as GM and American Motors.
I can see another possible reason for the boost button: a desire to sell Polaroid cameras and film to Black customers in the U.S. and other countries, a market segment the company was missing. As for Kodak´s changes spurred by the candy and furniture industries, the article doesn´t even say what the changes were. Was it a change in the Kodachrome and Kodacolor film formulas? Was it Ektachrome? The Polaroid camera didn´t even use Kodak film, so I fail to see a linkage between the companies.
This is a very confusing article, seemingly written by a typical modern J-school graduate.

"..decades-old film that had been engineered with only white faces in mind..."

Utter tripe. Any film has given characteristics of latitude -- fitting the contrast range of the subject into the film´s parameters -- and its representation of color -- a bunch of variables here. Correct exposure was based on a theoretical reflectance of 18% gray, not skin tone. Optimizing an exposure for white or black skin is possible, perhaps with trade-offs in overall exposure.

To apply a racial motive to the creation of an effectively performing film, given its inherent limitations is just flat ugly fanning of flames. Go to hell Broomberg and Chanarin, do not pass go.

Agree with #1. Very confusing. And asking if photography is racist, IMO, laughable.

I think these photographers just wanted a theme, a "hook", to lure people to their picture exhibition.

It is no surprise to see this is in the Guardian.

As nearly as I can tell they went to Africa and photographed some plants and animals with an old Polaroid. And some native rituals with old Kodak film. And got only one picture with the old Kodak film.

What really enrages me is the blatant racism in the cosmetic industry with all their different color shades for white skin, brown skin and black skin.

Can a powder puff be racist?
You´re damn right it can!

You really have too much time on your hands to call this racist.

See..they had these things called "negatives"...which made the pictures...made by the MAN!
You people just don´t get it, do you?

Racist film?? What idiocy. Our society has collectively lost its mind. 40 years ago I had a job in a commercial photo lab after school. We printed school pictures. All of the photos were taken and the exact same exposure settings. In those days, most of the kids in the photos were white, so the printer was calibrated toward white people. Before the printer operator pressed the "print" button, she/he would position the negative and determine the race of the subject. If it was a black kid, you decreased the exposure timer by a fixed amount. Some of the more advanced printers had a programmable button to reduce the exposure by the correct amount.

Some schools were mostly black. For these jobs, the printer was calibrated for black people.

This is what is known as efficiency. the profit margins on school photos were very small, so high productivity was a must if you wanted to stay in business.

Of course, these "real world" facts are lost on the politically correct.

For anyone who has taken a photo of a person with very white skin next to a person with very dark skin and had just teeth and eyes on the black person, the answer is obviously just reality...and the limitations of photography. How stupid can we be over analyzing these things. As stupid as suspending a child for having a crude paper gun!

Poloroid films, particularly the non pro emulsions, are contrasty by nature. They have to be boosted to get more exposure on the "toe". How nice were your drivers licenses and passports 20 years ago?

Come on. Enough already.

Ansel Adams: a racist! The truth comes out.

I´m fairly sure that the films mentioned (and all others) were manufactured with a ´midpoint´ based on the market being sold to. That would be the largest target audience. Targeting the low points of the curve at the extreme ends doesn´t sell well. Almost everything we use in real life is built that way. Lawn mower handles are just so high and are difficult for a person that is 6´ 10" or 4´ 0" to use. But selling to that group would require different handles for not much return. Think ´car seat adjustment distance´.

Article is way off base.

Can you imagine the howling if they actually had made ´´White´´ film and ´´Negro´´ (Black, Afro-American, People-of-Color) film? Smith sounds like a card-carrying member of the Society of the Perpetually Offended crowd.

Every single thing white people do, have ever done or will ever do is "racist". White people breath in good, clean, pure air and breath out racism. There is nothing that can be done.

I say we just roll with it.

I have a very hard time photographing my all-black dog - does that mean my camera´s racist?

If the author had talked to anyone with a little knowledge of photography, the racist angle would have fallen apart but I guess that wouldn´t have met the deadline. And I wouldn´t know where to begin with the writing except to say that maybe this is what graduating last in your J-school class reads like.