Actually, in Maxwell’s case, it was best to be both lucky and good.
I just put up what I hope is a respite post over at my nascent newsletter* and thought to mirror it here. This is one which, despite what the great sage Janis Joplin once observed, has no great social or political import. Instead, it’s a tale of lucky mistakes in a 19th century demonstration by one of the greats in the history of physics, James Clerk Maxwell. So read on for the strange but true story of the Tartan Ribbon (largely drawn from a lovely 1961 Scientific American article by Ralph Evans, a Kodak researcher who was a member of the team that retraced Maxwell’s steps.) Jackals cannot live by wretched news alone, amirite?
This is a quick weekend note to offer a little distraction from the various travesties being wrought on American science (and much else).
One of my favorite (minor) genres in the history of science are stories of what might be thought of as useful errors. And in that one, I particularly love the story of the great physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s public display of what is often considered the first color photograph.
This is an anecdote that has given joy to a lot of people in and around the history of science, especially that of physics. That’s partly because Maxwell is at once a giant in the field—arguably, the most significant theorist between Newton and Einstein—and was, by all accounts, one of the good guys, someone a biographer can spend a lot of time with and feel that they’ve been in fine company. So it’s fun to see him make a mistake (perhaps better, be lucky); even the great ones can mess up! And because he is easy to root for, it’s also nice that the error didn’t get in the way of what he was trying to accomplish.
So what did Maxwell do?
The just-the-facts-ma’am version of the story is that in 1861 Maxwell gave a lecture at the Royal Institution (one of the great monuments to public engagement with science) in which he displayed this image:
That’s the famous Tartan Ribbon, an image created by Maxwell’s collaborator, Thomas Sutton.
For Maxwell, the significance of the image was the argument it helped him make in favor of the claim that the full color range that the human eye can perceive could be built out of three primary colors—an idea first proposed by Thomas Young almost six decades earlier. Maxwell advanced Young’s thinking (and that of Hermann von Helmholtz, who built on Young’s work) when he provided a mathematical account of the three color hypothesis.
The tartan ribbon experiment was an empirical follow-up to that work of theory. The experimental problem to be solved was how to create a multi-color image out of the monochromatic photographs of the day. That’s where Sutton came in.
Sutton was one of pioneers of the early age of photography. What he did to create an example of Maxwell’s conception of color has been described in detail in a Scientific American article from 1961, written by Ralph Evans, one of a team of Kodak scientists who recreated the original experiment. Sutton first created three filters by dissolving metallic salts in water that he then placed in glass vessels. Each dissolved compound produced a different color: red, green and blue. He then photographed the ribbon through each filter, capturing the images on silver iodide emulsion. He printed the three images on glass to create transparencies. When Maxwell delivered his lecture, those three slides were illuminated with the appropriate shade of light—red for red and so forth, and projected to form a single colored image to astound the audience.
So far so good. Where’s the error?
Well…none of it should have worked. As Evans writes, the silver iodide emulsion Sutton used is only sensitive to light with short wavelengths—blue light. It can’t “see” red or green hues, and whatever was captured on the negatives shot through those two filters it wasn’t what a naked eye would have seen as those colors in the ribbon itself.
What happened? When the Kodak researchers tried to figure that out, they recognized that both their film stock and Sutton’s original plates could record not just blue light, but ultraviolet as well—electromagnetic radiation invisible to the human eye with wavelengths even shorter than what we perceive as blue. Even better, Sutton’s red and green filters were sensitive to different regions of the ultraviolet slice of the spectrum. Also, as Evans speculates, some red dyes reflect ultraviolet light as well as what we see as red—which means that (assuming the tartan ribbon’s red swatches were colored with the appropriate dyestuff) Sutton’s procedure would detect the red regions in the photographic subject even though it was only picking up an ultraviolet signal.
All of which is to say that the ground-breaking photograph was an accident. The tools he and Sutton had available should not have been able to achieve what they wanted; it did because the emulsion and the filters possessed unexpected and at the time unknown properties that allowed the expected result to emerge. The Tartan Ribbon image might be better described as the first false-color photographic image ever made. Except, of course, that the point it made was correct: Maxwell’s three color argument does indeed describe a part of reality.
I’ll let Evans have (almost) the last word:
Be that as it may, the principle devised by Maxwell and put into practice by Sutton was a valid one for producing a color photograph. And because of the fortuitous circumstances we have described, the experiment worked, allowing Maxwell to invent three-color photography almost 15 years before there were sensitizing dyes that would have made his experiment “possible. “
One more thing:
I hope anyone who has read this far has had fun with this little story of serendipity. It has certainly given me pleasure for a long time—but as I revisited it this weekend, I find that along with the fun of catching out a great one in a error, it has a bit of a somber cast to it. The last two weeks have seen a sustained attack on US science mounted by the Trump/Musk administration. A lot of damage has already been done, and if the moves both made and announced go unreversed, that harm will become catastrophic.
In that context, the story of this scrap of ribbon contains an important message: Maxwell’s mistake was a productive one. He got to a true fact: three color imagery can produce a powerful representation of reality, confirming both theory and prior observation. That’s what science does: imperfectly but with great power make incrementally more sense of the world around us. Gutting our ability to do that work will not just deprive us of the fun of such insights—think all those glorious images (in spectacular false color) captured by the Hubble and Webb telescopes, for example—but will also limit (cause us not to find) the knowledge vital to human flourishing that would otherwise have emerged.
There will be a lot more to say—and to fight to protect—in the coming days and weeks. Alas.
This thread is as open as a shutter on a deep space observation.
*If you’re so moved, subscribe! I’m aware of the disagreement on the use of Substack as a platform. My response is to offer Inverse Square as a free site. Barring unforeseen stuff, all content there will stay free. It is part of my likely feckless attempt to build a more sharply defined online presence in support of my public writing. Also I don’t think I’ll mirror everything, but if there’s anything I think might particularly appeal to our community, I’ll try to be sure to get it up here as well.
Image: Thomas Sutton and James Clark Maxwell, Tartan Ribbon, 1861
Tom Levenson
Question to the Jackaltariat. As you may recall, I’m a wordy fellow. Would y’all like me to put most of the above below the fold (for this post and similarly prolix stuff in the future?) Or are you alright with a vast expanse of text from time to time?
Baud
I currently follow the Royal Society lectures on YouTube.
Baud
I’ve unfortunately been neither lucky nor good.
Elizabelle
It did not seem that long. Good to see you posting here, and I hope we can reverse The Felon and Elon’s attack on science.
TBone
I love serendipity and have tried to make it a specialty area of expertise in my life haha! “TBone Challenge” be damned.
TBone
@Tom Levenson: a vast expanse of text makes me feel right at home. But I am always an outlier.
Randal Sexton
Nice Diary, and nice to see really anything about Maxwell. One of the great periods of my life was when I went from being a dropout-stoner-climber-construction worker to being what I described myself as a ‘born again student’ – going back to school at age 28, and eventually getting to being a physics major. The period in calculus and physics learning div/curl ect and maxwells beautiful equations was a wondrous period. All my stoner-climber buddies got sick of me trying to explain it to them, hahah.
HinTN
Fold or no fold, I’m a gonna read what you write, @Tom Levenson:.
The serendipity of Einstein’s seeing the roofer across the way and that leading to relativity was the crux of the biscuit for me in The Search for Vulcan. That and the fact that I was reading the tome when Mrs H and I were at Wind River for the 2017 eclipse (chosen for the high probability of good viewing) and you told the story of the sandstorm. Gah
TBone
You have stolen my heart with inevitability and stoked my fire simultaneously.
TBone
@Tom Levenson: for you in return 🎶
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMTujAlsvqg
John S.
@Tom Levenson:
I don’t mind lots of text, but I enjoy reading. As much as I love the posts with social media roundup, those are the only ones that get too unwieldy for me if there’s too much above the fold.
CaseyL
Tom – Anything by you, on any subject, in any venue is a treat and a treasure. I’m an absolute groupie for good science writers, and you are way better than “good.”*
I also have some qualms about Substack: I followed some of my fave writers who went to other platforms but did not drop all of the ones who didn’t migrate. I’m happy to add a subscription to Inverse Square.
PLEASE NOTE: There is also a Substack called “Inverse Squared” (with a “d”), as I discovered when I went looking for yours.
*ETA: Not to embarrass you or anything, but you’re a terrific WRITER, not just a terrific science writer.
Geminid
@Tom Levenson: It all reads well. I saw a couple spots where I might have divided one paragragh into two. Shorter paragraphs seem easier to read in this format.
But I probably overdo paragraphing in my own comments. I try to split ’em when and where I can.
bbleh
Re serendipity, see also the discovery of Viagra.
TBone
@bbleh: oh dear lort! Suppressing giggles might make me have a rapid, unplanned disassembly!
trollhattan
Very cool!
When taking photography I was, the school had a dye transfer lab and I was able to finagle color prints from monochrome sources and it was a satisfying and utterly labor-intensive process.
Kodachrome technology was (sadly now past tense) a bogglelingly [that a word?] complicated process, both the film itself and the processing. When Kodak spiked it I should have taken it as the death knell for consumer film photography but at the time, naively thought digital and film would coexist as happy cousins. As if.
Ektachrome, E-6 remains viable in various forms for shooting slides and was also possible to process by oneself. (Feel free to ask “why?” but expect a “because I can” reply.)
Today it’s subtractive colors on our ink and laser printers, but except at the tippie-top quality is a far cry from a properly made print from a nice negative or positive. While film exists still, local labs are largely gone as are the million one-hour processing services. Film and processing-printing are several times more expensive and take a loooong time.
Tip: if you have an ink jet printer used intermittently, “exercise” it weekly by printing a page of color swatches. Will help prevent permanently clogged print heads–had to throw away ours in December because of this.
Betty
Fascinating story. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Spanky
It reads fine the way it is, but needs a couple of edits:
Spanky
Tom, someday you should follow up with a story of his eponymous equations.
(Then do gravity.)
Central Planning
I like these kinds of stories/historical review. I suspect it’s the same reason I liked the Connections show that was on PBS.
Speaking of Kodak, I used to work there in the 90s. Years after I left, I learned that a guy I knew from the Adirondacks worked at Kodak and was one of the people responsible for making digital sensors able to accurately/correctly record RGB. It’s a small/connected world!
cope
Great story I had not heard before, thanks.
It reminds me of a biography I once read of Kepler. It describes a series of arithmetic errors Kepler made over time that eventually cancelled each other out.
TBone
If it weren’t for mistakes, I wouldn’t exist. Both kinds.
Redshift
What a great story! I hadn’t heard of it before.
Tom Levenson
@Spanky: You don’t like me, do you?
Redshift
@Central Planning:
Connections and The Day the Universe Changed were so good. I watched them obsessively.
Tom Levenson
@Spanky: Clerk, of course. And Hemholtz.
I have always sucked at spelling; consistency is not one of my strong suits either. Thanks for the catch(es).
West of the Rockies
@Baud:
Nevertheless, Baud persisted.
Also, too… The Baud abides.
West of the Rockies
I think your posts are just fine. My only complaint? We need more of them! I mean, what is Cole paying you for?
Tom Levenson
@West of the Rockies:
A question I often ask myself.
TBone
@West of the Rockies: praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
TBone
You know what they say about the wages of sin hahahaha!
Denali5
Shared your story with my husband who worked for Kodak for 33 years. It was a great company, until it wasn’t.
Spanky
@Tom Levenson: Helm! Don’t neglect the L
PS – And I love ya, man.
Tom Levenson
@Spanky: Arrrgggh.
Fix’t now, I hope.
dexwood
Good story. No opinion about the fold. I’m ok either way. I see a psychedelic rabbit instead of a ribbon.
Kelly
I don’t remember where I first read it but
“Make better mistakes”
is a useful motto when mastering something new
Elizabelle
@dexwood: I hate to say that my first thought was, hey, is that the Playboy bunny?
But tartan ribbon works too. Once pointed out.
laura
Magenta- my earliest favorite color does not exist on the color spectrum, and yet, Magenta!
I hope there’s more of this kind of post if your so inclined to do that. Count me in with the James Burke fan club- in a “the stars aligned” incident, I was fortunate to see him speak on the Connections/Day the Universe Changed method of looking at the world and he did not disappoint. What a time to be alive when Donna Dixon and Brian May are both current Members of the Royal Society.
Magenta!
Tom Levenson
@Elizabelle: What has been seen cannot be unseen.
WereBear
What a fascinating story! You convinced me to buy your books for a while now :) So of could I welcome lots of your writing.
What an amazing photograph. May we all be wrong AND right as we move forward :)
TBone
@Kelly:
fail again. fail better!
Starfish (she/her)
@Tom Levenson: Does anyone else see one of these images as broken?
TBone
@laura: I have a personal reason for my love of magenta – shortly after his death, my Dad (not a big gifter in life) brought me 3 gift bags in a dream. The biggest one was magenta (there was also a dark evergreen bag and a small, white gift bag). A few years later, one day I was ruminating about why those colors and I glanced up and finally noticed the color of the unruly rosebush lit by the sun at my new home – magenta, with evergreen colored leaves in a bed of white landscaping stone. Thanks for the house with magenta roses, Dad! (My inheritance.)
PS I was so happy to see him in the dream I never looked inside the bags, I just woke up happy.
Betty
Pleased to day I have joined Inverse Square and look forward to learning more interesting science history and such.
Tom Levenson
By the way, everyone: thanks for all the kind words. I really appreciate the welcome (back).
FelonyGovt
You have the gift of making scientific subjects intelligible and actually fascinating to a non-science person like me. (I took an extra foreign language in high school to avoid any science beyond the dummy course). I will read what you write any time and walls of text don’t intimidate me!
Elizabelle
@Tom Levenson: We all only wish it were under better circumstances.
And. Need update photo on Tikka and the little one.
FelonyGovt
Why am I not finding Inverse Square on Substack? (I find Inverse Squared with a “d”- don’t think that’s you?) would you kindly post a link?
Tom Levenson
@FelonyGovt: Don’t know why you aren’t finding it. (And didn’t know about Inverse Square’d. I’ve had my name up as a placeholder for a couple of years there…)
Anyway, here’s the link: https://tomlevenson.substack.com/
kalakal
@laura:
Magenta has some fun history attached to it that tells us why cutting scientific research is a bad thing
William Perkin more or less invented the synthetic dye industry while trying to synthesize quinine to combat maleria in 1856 he got a pretty colored oil that didn’t run when you stained fabric with it. He called it Mauveine.
Synthetic (anilene) dyes exploded commercially* and in 1859 Nicholson and Maule came up with Roseine. In 1860 the French defeated the Austrians at the battle of Magenta in Italy and the colour was renamed in honour of the French victory ( it was the colour in Paris fashion that year).
*Anilene dyes were and are huge commercially, the A in the BASF , the worlds largest chemical company, stands for Anilin. Musk is destroying the US economy by destroying scientific research
KenK
Tom, the format is fine. Thanks for the article, I thought it is very positive and encouraging. Keep doing ‘sciencey’ stuff and who know what good will happen? It’s another touchstone to keep grinding through the next few years. Thanks, again.
opiejeanne
@Tom Levenson: Tom, that was great, but why did he use green as the third color? It’s not a primary color. Yellow is the third primary color, green is a product of blending blue and green.
opiejeanne
@trollhattan: Are you old enough to remember the attempt to introduce color into tv programs, on b & w televisions? I think it was in the early 1960s.
Kayla Rudbek
@opiejeanne: for pigment, red/yellow/blue are primary colors, but for light sources, red/green/blue are primary colors (so your image sensor chip in your cell phone camera has a pixel array of red/green/blue color filters which add together and produce all the colors in the image).
pluky
@opiejeanne:
Building on Kayla. The cones in the retina are divided into three classes with sensitivity peaks at red, green, and blue wavelengths. excite R&G perceive Y.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model
🐾BillinGlendaleCA
Generally, you don’t expose that long, maybe a couple of minutes*; you just do it over and over again.
* My longest exposure time has been 5 minutes, but I’ve normally shot 3 minutes. Though I’ve seen some guys shooting 15 minute exposures, they usually have really good mounts and a lot of time to shoot dark frames.
Chris T.
@Kayla Rudbek: Actually the pigment colors are magenta, cyan, and yellow … which are the “in-between” colors made by mixing pairs of the additive light colors.
Printers use CYMK (K = black) because the “black” made by using the three subtractive colors usually isn’t all that black, and using black ink directly gets you much sharper-looking text (you can’t get a registration error like you can with the colors).
opiejeanne
@Kayla Rudbek: Thanks.