I’m still really liking seeing older cars like this in Brooklyn. When reviewing the above file on screen, I got to thinking about the process of determining whether an image stays faithful to what the camera recorded or creating a greyscale version.
Above, the same photo is shown twice, uncropped, once without any processing (except to create a jpeg file suitable for the internet) and once after converting to greyscale, without any tonal adjustments. It was shot on a Canon 5D Mk2 with an L series 35mm prime lens, set to f/1.8 at 1/800 sec., ISO 100, and neutral camera color-settings.
I often prefer greyscale over color for the tonal richness of certain images for how it can unify the entire frame. In street photography or other candid situations, some stray colorful objects can be very distracting. For instance, I dislike the blue bucket on the steps in the top-left of the frame as there is no other blue like it in the photo and so I find it tugs the eye for no significant purpose (even more so when you see a large version of the photo). The same bucket is completely benign in the greyscale version. The red markings on the parking sign function similarly.
Color, however, offers a special feel, frequently including a better sense of temperature (hot reds, cool blues, etc.), or compositional separations more striking than if done in greyscale. It can also be helpful as an indicator of character, as in the brown painted car. Color also offers some sense of currency, or a particularly specific moment in time, whereas greyscale tends towards an abstract sense of timelessness.
I like color and greyscale about equally under different circumstances (my eyes often getting thirsty for one in the absence of the other). However, with the photo of the car, I prefer the greyscale version. You?
Posts