Tonality I cannot describe

[distributed]

For some time now I'm seeing black and white photos of a particular tonality that I quite like, but couldn't describe. See examples [1][2][3]. Very often, it's in industrial photography like [1][2], but sometimes I see it outside of that genre, like [3]. I have noticed the same look also in older images taken, for instance, in the 1950ies.

As mentioned, I find it hard to describe this look. I find the tones to be lush, very rich, and satisfying to look at. How would you describe the tonality? How is it achieved?

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breuer_Lokomotor#/media/Datei:Breuer_Lokomotor.jpg
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/RMS_Titanic_ready_for_launch,_1911.jpg
[3] http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2018/06/13/ccrfrb-review-16-rollei-rpx-25/ . The second (train station) and last (prison yard door) picture are good examples.

 

[radiant]

The Wikipedia images 1&2 I totally agree. Nice tonality and really sharp.

But for the Rollei review images. The first house example is described "I mean the negatives are sharp enough to cut yourself on." - I don't agree with that all. For my eyes the Rollei examples are totally out of league compared to 1&2. Most of the Rollei examples have really smushy look. The tones are not separating and darker tones are bit dirty. Or am I totally wrong?

 

[miha]

Two words: Large Format

 

[radiant]

One word: Tmax

 

[distributed]

@vedostuu:
I agree that [1] and [2] are better examples than [3]. But do you think that the second and last (train station and door) image have badly separated tones? What about the second to last image, the cannon? At least those three examples look maybe not super great to me, but at least reasonable. I still find it very difficult to speak about tonality as a of words are used, but few are ever defined

I am a bit surprised about the Tmax remark. I would be pretty certain that all images shown were not made on T-Max. The first two examples are from before T-Max was brought to market, the last is statedly taken with APX 25.

@miha:
I am certain that using larger formats helps with tonality. But do you see tonality as in the examples as unachievable with 35 mm or even 120?

 

[removed account4]

Two words: Large Format

+1, and the internet

 

[halfaman]

Nice midtones but too low contrast for my taste. APX 25 is high contrast film by definition, the author of the images you like declares that contrast has been tweaked in post to match his taste.

The film itself is fairly high-contrast, not so much here, the contrast is toned down to a pleasing level

I agree that TMax developed in TMax Dev or D-76 is closer to that look without the need of post-processing.

 

[radiant]

But do you think that the second and last (train station and door) image have badly separated tones? What about the second to last image, the cannon? At least those three examples look maybe not super great to me, but at least reasonable. I still find it very difficult to speak about tonality as a of words are used, but few are ever defined

Yes sure those were the best examples, but still I think those are lacking of shadow tones. It goes pretty fast to black. But I'm totally not expert on this and I would like to hear others thoughts too

 

[lecarp]

One word: Tmax

There was no such thing at the time! And photography was better for it!

 

[NB23]

All has been said; Large format. And that tmax tonality. Sure, there was no TMAX back then but the look is close.

I’d also try perceptol.

 

[lecarp]

The OP is talking tonality, "I find the tones to be lush, very rich, and satisfying to look at." not necessarily sharpness.

 

[cjbecker]

This is the reason I shoot large format.... TONALITY

 

[removedacct1]

It’s not about film choices, it’s about the photographer exposing the film to get good shadow information, developing it properly, and printing it on a paper grade to maximize the grey values. A prints lifeblood is in its greys: the more you preserve these values, the more tactile the image is.

 

[distributed]

@paulbarden:
By "developing properly" you mean controlling development (time) such that all your highlights are in a reasonably straight part of your negative curve? (That would be "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" if I am not mistaken).

and printing it on a paper grade to maximize the grey values

How do I choose the grade that "maximizes the grey values"?

 

[koraks]

How would you describe the tonality?

Flat.

How is it achieved?

As @paulbarden says, ample exposure, hold a bit back on development and print on fairly low contrast paper. Preferably use straight-line materials such as Tmax for the film and certainly not Fomapan & co (although you can get something similar if you know what you're doing; see also the RPX25 example).

 

[distributed]

Flat.

That's the first adjective we get! I guess I can see what you mean, there no strong blacks or bright whites that dominate the image. Altough I have to say that I have the impression that the given images, especially the first two, look different from what I imagine a very soft graded print would like. Or do you think this is just what we see, a rather low grade?

Knowledge and experience.

I do not understand yet. What do you mean by maximizing grey values? I can bring basically any non-extreme negative density to be some gray (and not white or black) by using a very soft grade, one so soft that blacks are only a darker grey and whites are not white but only a lighter gray. Is this what you mean?

 

[Helge]

Large format has nothing to do with tonality.
There is the erroneous notion that you need to have space to let tonality develop over.
Probably stemming from the widespread falsehood that film grain is binary.

 

[NB23]

Large format has nothing to do with tonality.
There is the erroneous notion that you need to have space to let tonality develop over.
Probably stemming from the widespread falsehood that film grain is binary.

Of course there is something to do with tonality.

Otherwise why would people go through such suffering and angst to shoot just a few sheets?

 

[MattKing]

How would you describe the tonality? How is it achieved?

Like many, many people, you are responding to the mid-tones and lower highlights.
And that is a good thing.
IMHO in too many cases photographers evaluate the qualities of a print or screen image based on the shadow and highlight parts of the subject.
In comparison, most non-photographers notice the mid-tones and lower highlights first.
The examples you refer to have good tonal separation and contrast through the important mid-tone and lower highlight areas, and you find them pleasing. That should tell you something.
If they were my negatives, and I was printing them:
1) I would be really old (the Titanic was launched 108 years ago); and
2)) I would aim for mid-tones and detailed highlights that appeared similar, with maybe a bit more density in the shadows, to help add presence.

 

[removed account4]

how to get prints that look like this ?
Under develop your film a little bit and make your final prints on the lowest contract grade paper or filter that will give you blacks and whites.
Use a low contrast developer like Xtol, or the teaspoon version of caffenol c -- they will give you lots and lots of mid tones, shoot on overcast days if you are photographing outdoors, and learn how to read light and maybe use artificial lighting set ups that do not make lots of shadows/contrast.
Look at the photographs of the Bechers, they were masters of flat lighting >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_and_Hilla_Becher

You don't *really* need a LF camera to do that sort of photography, I did it for years with an inexpensive Pentax k1000, stock 50mm lens, trix, plus x pan x, and other non tabular grain films. I was using sprint developer. The trick is just don't be overly aggressive in your film-developing strategy, bracket your exposures to figure out what exposures like your underdevelopment. and judge from the print, not from the film.
If you have a LF camera, you can do this too, with any kind of film, expired or fresh, or with paper negatives. if using paper negatives, shoot with a yellow filter to tame the contrast, or just shoot on flat light days and develop in regular print developer or if you like caffenol c, start it in your regular developer and when the image starts to peek through put it in the caffenol and go back and forth. older non-contrast-coated lenses work well too.

good luck !

John

 

[removedacct1]

That's the first adjective we get! I guess I can see what you mean, there no strong blacks or bright whites that dominate the image. Altough I have to say that I have the impression that the given images, especially the first two, look different from what I imagine a very soft graded print would like. Or do you think this is just what we see, a rather low grade?



I do not understand yet. What do you mean by maximizing grey values? I can bring basically any non-extreme negative density to be some gray (and not white or black) by using a very soft grade, one so soft that blacks are only a darker grey and whites are not white but only a lighter gray. Is this what you mean?

I suggest finding a paper grade that allows there to be SOME black (only as much as is absolutely necessary - don't allow shadow information to fall completely into inky obscurity) and SOME white (90% of "whites" should retain a very tiny bit of detail - not be blank textureless white), and everything else falls into the scope of "grey". You do not want to make a print that has NO black and NO clear whites, or it will appear lifeless and flat. This is something that can only be fully understood by making it happen in your own darkroom. I can tell you want you might want to aim for, but the technical details you must learn by doing.

 

[Helge]

Of course there is something to do with tonality.

Otherwise why would people go through such suffering and angst to shoot just a few sheets?

To get the superior resolution, very small grain and shift and tilt galore.

 

[NB23]

To get the superior resolution, very small grain and shift and tilt galore.

hm... resolution is nothing without the tonality. Large format rarely gets enlarged very big while 35mm regularly goes beyond.

Here is a quiz for you: why does Large format pinhole photography look better than 35mm pinhole photography? There is no sharpness to speak of, no tilt and shift. Grain is never objectionable when there is no sharpness to speak of... what’s left to make a difference?

 

[Helge]

Tonality and resolution are connected, like the pages of a book (like most other things in this realm). But they are separately concepts.

Pinhole large format looks better because it’s the size of the pinhole that determines the resolution. And the hole is smaller WRT the image plane in paper/LF than with 135.

 

[distributed]

@MattKing:
Thank you for your answer. When you say the images have "good tonal separation and contrast" in the mid-tones and lower highlights, would that also be describeable as a higher contrast in the named regions and a lower contrast in the darker parts? That, in turn, could be described with an HD curve that starts off steep and has a long, flatter portions for the high density areas, i.e. the shadows. Please correct me if I am wrong.

@jnantz:
Thanks for outlining how you would approach this. You'd use the X-Tol for the film, not the paper, right? I did not know the work by the Bechers. Tonality wise it's spot on for this thread.

@paulbarden:
I am still learning and I find judging print lightness and contrast extemely challenging. I think I understand what you are aiming for, though.