Tonality I cannot describe

[MattKing]

@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.

I was limiting my comments to the mid-tones and lower highlights, where the contrast is good - not too high, and not too low.
As I said at the end, I might choose to adjust the shadow and highlight rendition as well, but I would address them separately, through localized burning and dodging, using individualized contrast controls. Those adjustments would improve the impact of the print, without a large affect on the overall tonality.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

I agree with John, although I'm predominantly an LF and sometime MF shooter I can get that sort of tonality from 35mm and have done with FP4 and AP/APX 100 (Agfa not the new stuff) and could do the same with Delta 100.

You expose and develop to achieve the tonal range you desire, best done with some simple testing.

Ian

 

[NB23]

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.

I’m not conviced.

Another quiz: why does a Kodachrome 8x10 on a light table look so good even when viewed at 4 feet distance? And we know that looking at any 8x10 image at 4 feet distance, our eye cannot differentiate grain and sharpness. What makes it so good looking, then?

 

[Helge]

I’m not conviced.

Another quiz: why does a Kodachrome 8x10 on a light table look so good even when viewed at 4 feet distance? And we know that looking at any 8x10 image at 4 feet distance, our eye cannot differentiate grain and sharpness. What makes it so good looking, then?

You’re not convinced of simple facts?
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

And the answer to the last question is real contrast, and real dynamics.
Dmax of slide is simply excellent.

 

[removed account4]

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.

YW about the Bechers.
Xtol is for film, it is a vit c developer, long tonality not heavy on the contrast ( or at least for me, I always only got low contrast film from it ). Im not sure if you can use Xtol for paper, maybe? people do all sorts of crazy stuff
I use caffenol as described ( 2 bath with either dektol or. ansco 130 ) as the 2nd bath) and a tiny bit ( maybe 20cc/L in the coffee ) regularly both for film and prints. If you go to the caffenol-cookbook.com you can see what I submitted, done with caffenol...

You expose and develop to achieve the tonal range you desire, best done with some simple testing.

+1

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Back to the original question: what makes the images linked to so special?

Luminous shadows with lots of detail. Detailed high values. Not a great difference in density between shaded and sunlit portions of the scene. Etc.

How to achieve the look?

Favorable lighting conditions, proper exposure (for shadow detail), proper development (don't blow out those highlights!) and printing on a long-scale paper.

Things that help get the look:

Orthochromatic film, or the use of a suitable filter (e.g., Wratten #44 or even an 80B). These filters will help boost the shadows in relation to the sunlit portions of a scene, and can give gratifyingly luminous foliage.

To the OP:

Try this experiment: Find a scene you like and want to render in this way. Make a negative. Then make a negative at one stop more exposure. Develop the first one "normally," develop the second 20% less than normal. Print both and see what you get. I'm betting you'll like neg #2...

Best,

Doremus

 

[PFGS]

How to achieve the look?

Favorable lighting conditions

This is a big factor, especially for those of us with more rudimentary skills. If you start out with nice, diffuse "bright overcast" light, all you really need to do is avoid gross overdevelopment.

Contact printing seems to naturally bring out this tonality too - I'm not a LF shooter (yet) but sometimes I fool around with "wallet size" 6x7 contact prints, and it's easier to get them this way. Perhaps that's where some of the association of this look with LF comes from?

 

[albireo]

You are completely right. Just another example of a blogger who is somehow not that much into the actual photography.

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?

 

[NB23]

You’re not convinced of simple facts?
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

And the answer to the last question is real contrast, and real dynamics.
Dmax of slide is simply excellent.

Well, sir, your answers aren’t satisfactory at all.

The bigger the format, the better the tonality.

Call it grain, sharpness, dmax, threedeeness, mydadzstrongerthanyours and whatever else, this all contributes and intermixes onto a bigger surface to create superior tonality. You need the physical surface.

 

[Helge]

Well, sir, your answers aren’t satisfactory at all.

The bigger the format, the better the tonality.

Call it grain, sharpness, dmax, threedeeness, mydadzstrongerthanyours and whatever else, this all contributes and intermixes onto a bigger surface to create superior tonality. You need the physical surface.

Now you’re just into mysticism.
I can give you lots of reasons for why LF is worthwhile.
Tonality is not one of them.
Give me a rational scientific reason for why tonality should be better.

 

[NB23]

Now you’re just into mysticism.
I can give you lots of reasons for why LF is worthwhile.
Tonality is not one of them.
Give me a rational scientific reason for why tonality should be better.

The reasons you previously gave weren’t satisfactory, therefore I think it is you who would have to provide scientific proof for why tonality isn’t improved with LF.

 

[distributed]

@jnantz:
I didn't find your work. Is it on the part of the site that requires Flash?

@Doremus Scudder:
Thanks for qualifying the look and detailing how you would arrive there. I agree that lighting does indeed help, at least the first two pictures are definitely taken on overcast days. On the Titanic pic is was not too overcast, but shadows seem softened still. I haven't though about the filters. Do the shadows contain more blue because they are comparably more brightened by the sky than directly lit parts?

Some exposure/development experiments are still on my list. Luckily I now a have a 4x5, so this is easier and faster than with other types of film.

 

[JPD]

If you use the same film in 35mm and 4x5", same lighting and development, the larger format will have better tonality, because the details on the larger negative will be bigger and made up by many times more grains, so they will pick up many more nuances in tones. Think of it in pixels. A tiny detail that makes up one pixel in size will look like a square with one single colour shade. Now double the amount of pixels, and that detail will now be made up of four pixels that may have slightly different colour shades. The image will have double the amount of information.

Of course, there is more that goes into the percieved tonality. A super sharp apo lens may look too sharp and harsh, while a classic Dagor may look sharp and smooth, which can contribute to the tonality. Lower contrast, like pulling the film, may give a longer tonal scale, and then printing it with a contrast filtering that looks good to your taste. Too flat contrast and too many tones will look too similar, and make a boring print.

Our eyes are different just like our ears. We can have different sensitivity to the frequencies of light and sound. You may see a greater tonality on a cold tone paper than on a warm or neutral one, even if the contrast is the same on all of them.

And sometimes it's just luck. A combination of random things that clicked.

 

[voceumana]

Tonality can be better on LF work because you can develop the negative to a slightly higher density range without causing excessive grain because you enlarge to a lower magnification. and because each exposure can be developer to the extent that works best for its scene.

 

[Helge]

If you use the same film in 35mm and 4x5", same lighting and development, the larger format will have better tonality, because the details on the larger negative will be bigger and made up by many times more grains, so they will pick up many more nuances in tones. Think of it in pixels. A tiny detail that makes up one pixel in size will look like a square with one single colour shade. Now double the amount of pixels, and that detail will now be made up of four pixels that may have slightly different colour shades. The image will have double the amount of information.

Of course, there is more that goes into the percieved tonality. A super sharp apo lens may look too sharp and harsh, while a classic Dagor may look sharp and smooth, which can contribute to the tonality. Lower contrast, like pulling the film, may give a longer tonal scale, and then printing it with a contrast filtering that looks good to your taste. Too flat contrast and too many tones will look too similar, and make a boring print.

Our eyes are different just like our ears. We can have different sensitivity to the frequencies of light and sound. You may see a greater tonality on a cold tone paper than on a warm or neutral one, even if the contrast is the same on all of them.

And sometimes it's just luck. A combination of random things that clicked.

You're confusing concepts. What you are talking about is essentially microcontrast (in the original as invented by Kodak sense of the word).
Tonality in the sense meant here, and in 99.9% of the time people use the word, alludes to larger swathes of the image with gradations and absolutely global contrast differences.

 

[koraks]

Tonality in the sense meant here, and in 99.9% of the time people use the word, alludes to larger swathes of the image with gradations and absolutely global contrast differences.

I think part of the problem underling this small/large format debate is the lack of a clear and unified definition of 'tonality'. We all have our ideas what it means and we probably also all think that others will have the same kinds of ideas, but the devil is going to be in the details on this one. To be frank, I think I know what I mean by 'tonality', but if I were pressed to formulate it specifically, I know it would be challenging. It would be something like "how the different tones/shades relate to each other across the image, how they relate to the impression they give of the original scene and the extent to which they are (or aren't) a linear or at least evenly distributed translation of light intensity to image tone." Pretty complex in my view, with some dimensions that are rather hard to quantify or approach objectively. I think any debate on format vs. tonality that doesn't involve some serious work in trying to get people on the same page on what 'tonality' means to everyone is going to be fraught with misunderstanding.

 

[NB23]

The scientific explanation is extremely simple.

Start with a theoretic piece of film that has 2 only grains, therefore the size of a fraction of a micron. Shoot a scene with it and enlarge it to 5x7.

On the other side, take a regular 35mm film, shoot a scene, enlarge it to 5x7.

The conclusion to this test is that “as you tend towards less grain, thus a smaller film size, you tend towards less tonality.



——-//——


Or if you prefer, take TMX and TMZ. With all else being equal, we know that TMZ has a lousy tonality if compared to TMX.

TMZ represents a fraction of TMX in grain count. Let’s say 15%.

Or even better, let’s say that one 5x7 sheet of TMZ is the equal to one 35mm frame on TMX.

Or even better, still: one 24x36mm frame on TMZ equals a 4x6mm frame on TMX.

This means that you would cut a 4x6mm piece out of your TMX film, enlarge it to match 24x36mm and you basically end up with a TMZ frame. And there it is: tonality in action.

 

[Helge]

Tonality can be better on LF work because you can develop the negative to a slightly higher density range without causing excessive grain because you enlarge to a lower magnification. and because each exposure can be developer to the extent that works best for its scene.

Granularity is really separate from tonality.
You can have beach grain size and all kinds of tonality still.
Of course the grain will take attention away from the carefully crafted tonality.
Even for 135 film though, TMAX and Delta will have very fine grain even with several stops of over/under development.

 

[NB23]

Granularity is really separate from tonality.
You can have beach grain size and all kinds of tonality still.
Of course the grain will take attention away from the carefully crafted tonality.
Even for 135 film though, TMAX and Delta will have very fine grain even with several stops of over/under development.

I really doubt that a single grain catches a whole gamut of grays. It’s more like a single grain can only give one single shade of gray.

With this in mind, the more the grains, the more the shades of gray.

 

[removedacct1]

This discussion has veered off into completely useless territory. You're not providing meaningful information for the OP.

 

[Helge]

I really doubt that a single grain catches a whole gamut of grays. It’s more like a single grain can only give one single shade of gray.

With this in mind, the more the grains, the more the shades of gray.

Probably over a microscopic area at nano scale, yes.
But for actual perceptual tonality you can have all the shades of the rainbow within very, very little space.
Worth remembering is also that grain overlaps and have vastly different shapes, sizes and orientation.
Thus the pixel analogy is very lacking and should really be avoided.

 

[Helge]

This discussion has veered off into completely useless territory. You're not providing meaningful information for the OP.

I really don't see that.
It is a tangent yes. But tangents can be necessary. And interesting, especially for posterity. This stuff will pop up with searches for decades. And it will not necessarily be the original question that was searched for.

Even if it was OT, we could ask the OP, if he is unhappy about the direction of the thread?
Well, are you unhappy distributed? Or do you think your question has been answered/is being answered?

 

[NB23]

So... this proves that more grain = more shades of gray, therefore that more is indeed more. Thus Large format offer more.

Probably over a microscopic area at nano scale, yes.
But for actual perceptual tonality you can have all the shades of the rainbow within very, very little space.
Worth remembering is also that grain overlaps and have vastly different shapes, sizes and orientation.
Thus the pixel analogy is very lacking and should really be avoided.

 

[NB23]

How can you be so sure?

One guy says that the OP’s examples must have been shot with LF and the other guy argues that it could have been shot with a subminiature format.

If you ask me, we are well within the subject.

This discussion has veered off into completely useless territory. You're not providing meaningful information for the OP.

 

[removed account4]

I didn't find your work. Is it on the part of the site that requires Flash?

yes I see that is the trouble, it is a flash thing now...
sorry about that. .. I didn't know the site changed

if you poke around my website >> https://www.nanianphoto.com/photos/architectural-photography/
you might see similar work, some is processed in caffenol, others well in print developer ( ansco 130 ) or sprint. film developer (like d76 but better). some of the images were done on 4x5. or 8x10. but others were done with 35mm, and some on 120 film...most all were from the print, not scans of a negative.