Vintage Mike: The Grays Camera

[Originally published in Black & White Photography magazine c. 2006]

By Mike Johnston

I'm nearing the half-century mark in age, and I've been in love with pictures since early childhood, when my parents, bless their hearts, allowed me to clip out my first "collection" from the pages of old National Geographic magazines. Fortunately my love of pictures continued and my sanguine acceptance of vandalism did not.

My biggest problem with photography these days is one that fits right in with the mission of the magazine you hold in your hands: for the most part, I don't like color photographs as well as black and white ones.

Yes, I know that many human beings are wired to feel the opposite. My little boy startled me at age five when he offered his first critique of Daddy's artwork. He had asked me to take a picture of how small his watermelon hard candy had gotten in his mouth, opening his mouth wide and presenting the remarkably diminished candy on his tongue. Never one to refuse a proffered photo opportunity, I took the picture. Later, though, when I showed the print to him, he launched into a tirade that I still think is wonderful: "Daddy, you need a new camera. Your camera is a grays camera. You need a colors camera. When you buy another camera next time you should make sure it has colors in it." And so forth. It was a pure critique, succinct and pointed—art criticism direct from a five-year-old heart.

I have an old friend, Kim Kirkpatrick, a (color) photographer who teaches at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, who I know has a visceral attraction to colors for their own sake. He's a gardener, and he'll plant particular flowers just because of their colors. He and his wife used to drive around to look at Christmas lights just for the pure visual pleasure all those colors offered. Once in a while, the point of one of his photographs might be summed up with a comment such as, "just look at that orange!" Kim doesn't just see colors. He feels them. Others can't even really "see" his gardens, I suspect, even if they are sensitive to the arrangements of colors, because I'm sure he plans for the colors to shift and change as various plants go into and out of bloom. It's an artwork in time that itself unfolds like a blossom, with a pace across the season and a life that progresses in phases and stages. Seeing it once is like seeing two minutes of a movie: you can't get the whole picture, the whole effect.

Whenever in my life I have mimicked a successful photographer, it has been with color photographs. My "best seller" is a color 5x4 photograph of a distant sunlit yellow canoe on a lake at dusk under a cloudy blue-gray sky. It would have served as the "cool with warm accent" shot we were required to do in my basic color theory class in school. People love it, and no doubt they would love it much less in black and white.

Oddly enough, too, I have a well-developed color sense and I’m fastidious about color. My brother, now a Ph.D. psychologist in Rhode Island, once worked for Dr. Norman Rosenthal, who developed the diagnosis and treatment for seasonal affective disorder or SAD. They had for one reason or another developed a series of color perception tests where test subjects were presented with mixed-up colored disks representing a scale of slight variations in hue, value, or chroma and asked to arrange them in order. I aced the tests. I find I’m quite sensitive to the polluted colors common in tri-layer films and papers, what Dr. Bertram Miller called “arrastres” in his color photographic theory. Given an adequately calibrated monitor and printer, I'm very good at color corrections, and I often dislike what passes for "adequate" color correction in other photographers’ work: it sometimes seems obvious that they can't see what their own pictures need.

Old analog techniques
I've never really liked color photography from a technical standpoint. Digital color is better than the color of most analog techniques. The history of color analog techniques is a history of make-do, of never-quite-good-enough. I was repelled by Cibachrome, unless it was masked; John Szarkowski, the great curator, was so disturbed by carbro prints that he seldom showed the work of Paul Outerbridge, who worked in carbro. The only traditional color methods I really cared much for at all were the very rare Kodak Azochrome process (a sort of midway point between color and black and white), dye transfer, and, sometimes, Kodachrome 25 (not 64), provided that the subject luminances matched the film's scale adequately. Digital color is getting better, but it's "simple" in that there are just not enough colors represented in the average DSLR color palette, to my eye at least—digital prints miss the subtle variations seen in large format color. But they are more often much more pure, which is an improvement.

But still, there is just something about color that robs photography of what photography offers me at its best. I think most people have an emotional response to color, which can then be educated and refined by practice, delectation, and connoisseurship. But to me there is just something so pat about color snaps—so quotidian. There is no mystery to them. Or something. I really have no idea, you see, what it is. Tones of gray move me, and colors don't.

This is often lumped into the common criticism, "color is too decorative," a tidbit of dismissive wisdom I think began to circulate in the 1970s. "Color is distracting" is another once-common cavil.

I'm not sure either of those things ever really meant anything to me. Neither accusation has any power any more; where black and white was once the standard and color had to prove itself, the situation is now fast reversing. But it's not a political position in my view. It's a matter of personal response. What seems to be the bottom line for me is that black and white grabs me, satisfies some gut need; it speaks to me. I have an appetite for it, a love for it that is emotional, somehow, native, and wordless at its root. I drink it in. Color doesn't slake that thirst or nourish me as much. Somehow the way that black and white transforms the world makes the subject of the picture more real to me, even though it's less literal—richer, even though there's less information there. It's as if it shows the bones of reality beneath the surface flesh of colors, the truth behind the world's mask. Maybe that's just me.

Proud New Papa Richard, with Keller: A pleasant enough
family snapshot in color...

...Achieves much more richness, resonance, balance, and emotional depth in black and white. I simply find it more satisfying. Other
peoples' mileage, of course, varies.

Tones move me, colors don't
I've been shooting more in color recently, because I'm shooting more digital and color is digital's natural mode, at least in the technology that's available to me. My friend Carl Weese once said that digital is the coming of age of color photography, and I think he's right. Yes, you can convert color digital pictures to black and white, and I often do. But how silly is that? You take a Bayer array, that devotes four photosites of three colors to every "parcel" of light rays, and then arrives at intermediate colors by very complicated extrapolation algorithms. How much simpler it would be to simply record value only—that is, illuminance—at every single photosite! Black and white sensors would have more resolution as the same number of megapixels in color, and the processing would be considerably simpler. Perhaps the dynamic range could be better, too. I hope we'll have dedicated black and white sensors someday soon, even though most people can't see why we should want them. I do. I like "grays cameras."

In the meantime, I shall continue to photograph in color, convert it when I can, and miss the days when the colors of photography, as Robert Frank once famously quipped, were black and white.

Mike

Copyright 2006, 2014 by Michael C. Johnston

[Note: This post is a "rerun." I've been recuperating from a health event and trying to minimize workload, so the Comments Section has been closed for most of these rerun posts. However, I'm feeling better, so I'll keep the Comments open for this one. It might be a good way to ease back into work. —Ed.]

Comments

[Herman Krieger]

When I take photos in black and white, I think in terms of lines rather than tones. With color, which I rarely use, I think more in terms of areas.

[GH]

Oddly enough, I prefer looking at and shooting color photography, and Harry Gruyaert is probably my favorite photographer, yet I think I may be a better b&w photographer. Color photography adds another element, and, if the color doesn't add to the scene, it's probably better left to b&w. I'm not sure that I'm good enough to shoot great color work.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Glad to hear that you're feeling better, but as you ease back up to your full crazy blogging level, keep up the reruns. Especially the ones which are now lost on shelves of print periodicals. I liked this one, but I wonder if you have evolved your opinions any. I heard you wavering a bit about the primacy of the print, while hardly going to the extreme of saying "it's all just data." Has your view of the roles of color and B/W become more nuanced after 10+ years of digital photography?

scott

[Marek Fogiel]

As you know, we have some monochrome sensors now. I still prefer to stick to B&W film for a variety of reasons, but digital is constantly getting better, also in colour. I share your preference for B&W photography, although at times I admire colour work, particularly when it is more abstract - Saul Leiter's "Early Colour" comes to my mind as an example. For the same reason, I tend to prefer impressionist or early modernist paintings to earlier masters, because form and colour in these works have acquired dominance over factual reproduction of reality, and as a result, they foremost transmit emotions, just like black and white works.

[cfw]

I'm curious - Has the D800e Nikon you wrote about purchasing a while back been the "answer" to your dismay in the 2006 article regarding the need to convert color sensor images to black and white? I've never seen an 800e physical print (or any physical print from a B/W only sensor camera), and I'm curious (all things being equal) if the result is noticeably better (or different) from a color to black and white conversion.

cfw

[cfw]

oops - I realized looking at older posts that the 800e is not a B/W only sensor, just one without an AA filter. For some reason I thought it was B/W only. So I guess the only B/W only sensor camera is the Leica.

cfw

[Dan Khong]

Mike

I prefer to shoot and display people pictures in B&W. "Brings out the soul", as some would say.

The Leica Monochrom-M camera does an excellent job shooting in pure B&W producing amazingly rich tones. The price tag is enormous.

One can always preset a camera to record in B&W. I wonder whether the camera does a straight job from subject to pure B&W file or does it in two steps, i.e. first to color and then to B&W seamlessly?

Dan K.

[Gordon Brown]

Does Ed. want/need a Leica Monochrome?

[Roger Overall]

I remember that Black an White Photography is where I first met you. At the time, my world was black and white. I have changed. Colour appeals more to my documentary spirit. To me, it feels closer to the integrity of the subject being photographed. But as you say, our mileage varies. Glad you're back. You're a great mentor.

[John Krumm]

A very satisfying Saturday morning read. I guess I "swing both ways" when it comes to color and black and white, though out out of sheer laziness I produce way more color photos (digitally). A digital black and white only camera would be a good way to get past this. I wish I could send an old camera away for a conversion like you can with IR.

[Sarge]

The Grays Camera: Where Mike first(?) mentions the anatomy of a B&W sensor.

[Miserere]

Mike, you once posted a link to a website featuring an online test of one's colour perception capabilities; I took the test and scored 100%.

I am mainly a B&W photographer.

I'm probably as confused as you are as to why we are this way, but I bet you could take a stab at writing down a few theories. When you're feeling better, of course.

[Colin Dixon]

Someone said "Colour is everything but black and white is more". For me colour is too easily read whereas black and white allows for alternative readings over time. Great old posts and get well soon.

Colin

[Dave Millier]

--- Living with B&W and Colour ---

I discussed this colour vs B&W issue with Scottish landscaper Bruce Percy recently.

What he told me was that he loves B&W photography and that Ansel Adams' work was an inspiration but that he shoots almost exclusively in colour because that is how he sees the world. More on this later.

I told him that I love colour work and am hypnotised by B&W. I find that when I have been looking at B&W prints for a while, I find colour shockingly garish and ugly.

However, it's not quite true. What I actually find is that I find "typical" colour shots garish and ugly. There's one kind of colour landscape I find still resonates - colour shots like Bruce Percy's.

What characterises these kind of shots is that the colour is harmonious, almost monochrome colour. His colour work is almost like tinted B&W with the colour hues showing only subtle variations. And I agree - I find colour works when it is not full of bold "popping" colours but is very subtle and becomes an enrichment of otherwise mono tones. When I look through my own colour work that I like best and my favourite work of other photographers, I find this to be true. My favourite is still B&W but the colour I like is monochrome colour.

I think that Bruce and I share this sentiment because we share something else - a preference for minimalism and simplicity in compositions. I find the art of photography is about paring away extraneous distractions from the shot "concentrating the goodness". Monochrome or colour harmony helps with this. (Another trick that Bruce and I have both intuitively hit upon is the use of heavy vignetting to lead the eye).

I do have one exception to this liking for mono colour, almost the opposite in fact. Pete Turner-ish graphical colour abstracts. Super simple compositions consisting of two or three slabs of saturated colour. Keeping the number of colours to two or three seems to avoid garishiness because it is simple, graphic and the colours are the composition.

ps

Although I seem to be claiming simularities between my work and Bruce's, there is one big difference - he's good!

[Peter Wright]

I think that good B&W photographers are more sensitive to colour than the average person (and perhaps photographer). Hence for them, making a good colour photograph is significantly more difficult than making a good B&W picture. Most people only have a vague awareness of colour and hence don't see it as distracting when it is in a picture but not 'controlled' in any artistic way.

Just my 2c of course. Don't rush back too soon, Mike. Take lots of time to listen to jazz and look at (B&W) photography books.
Peter.

[C.R. Marshall]

I know that it is possible to convert a digital camera to IR. What would it take to convert it to B&W? I assume you would need both camera modification and a specialized raw converter.

[MikeR]

Mike, I am enjoying these excursions into your archival treasury. If it helps you get through this rough patch, I wouldn't mind your taking it easy for a while longer while you publish more of them. Nothing wrong with going on vacation every so often.
As Kurt Vonnegut said, "I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different."

[John Willard]

I have two 35mm cameras, one with transparency and one with BW. My brain switches how it views scenes based on which camera I am using. I prefer BW. But, I can't convert a color picture to BW, I shot it in color for a reason. When I use my DSLR I am strictly shooting color. When comparisons come up I have my take...Black and white is the book, color is the movie. Those that have read a book and then seen the movie know what I mean.

[Rory O'Toole]

I'm really enjoying these reruns. I first 'discovered' Mike Johnston back around 2006 when I used to buy Black & White Magazine. I pretty much stopped buying it when you stopped writing for it too.
This particular rerun is interesting for where colour digital photography obviously was back in 2006 (low dynamic range), and how only recently the first (I think) b+w only digital camera has arrived.
I would have kept that particular family snapshot colour though, funnily enough

[YTChen]

I have been wondering about this same question for long enough. I don’t know why so often I much prefer the final processed photos for printing to be black-and-white. Recently I have been re-reading a wonderful book by Margaret Livingston (Vision and Art - The Biology of Seeing, 2002 ed), in it she did not use one single (straight) photography piece as an example, which, still, brings insights that photographers might appreciate just as well.

“ … color and luminance are analyzed by different parts of the visual system, each of which is responsible for different aspects of visual perception. The area of our brain that process information about color are located several inches away from the areas that analyze luminance - they are as anatomically distinct as vision is from hearing.”

Maybe I simply prefer using one “sense” (luminance) instead of two (color + luminance) for most of my photos because I am wired that way?

[James Sinks]

I find that color gives depth and context, even if the image is rendered only in shades of sodium vapor orange. It gives us more information. It gives us clues. It gives us context.

I'd take the color family snap over the black and white version any day. I'd like see the contrast between the peach face of the baby and the pink arms. I'd like to see the color of the stripes on Papa Richard's shirt. I'd rather know that the leaves are green, the roof is grey, Papa's eyes are grey-blue, and grandma's shirt is blue, than lose all that to a sea of lifeless grey.

[John]

Glad you're feeling better. Don't rush it.

[Shaun O'Boyle]

Perhaps Fujifilm will someday answer with a B&W sensor camera. They seem to be the one camera maker who is willing to try different approaches to sensor design and technology, and offer them at attainable prices. Would love a B&W only version of the X100 camera.

[Don]

"A digital black and white only camera would be a good way to get past this. I wish I could send an old camera away for a conversion like you can with IR."

I have no experience here, but I did recall seeing something like this before and did a quick web search. It seems there is at least one company doing moncochrome conversions.

If you are OK with links being copied into posts, this is the site I remember finding before:

http://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm

Otherwise just google maxmax B&W. Again, I have no experience or connection with them, but it sounds interesting.