Tonality

[Craig]

One thing that tonality is not is a reference to a range of tones. Instead, it is a reference to how the tones progress through that range.

There's an Oxymoron in that statement Matt, because for tones to progress through a range, that is a range of tones. Perhaps put a better way what I think you mean would be, similar to what I meant when saying: "essentially how many discernible shades of grey we can see between white and black".

Tonality is a reference to the range of tones, and more specifically the discernible incremental steps and visible changes as the tones progress through that range, which we refer to as Gradation.

I don't see any oxymoron. Tonality isn't about having the full spectrum from white to black ( the size of the range if you like) but rather the progression through the tones that are present - recognizing that there may be a very small range if we measured it with a densitometer.

Perhaps put another way, if there are 256 shades from black to white and of the shades the image encompasses, they progress one shade at a time. So if the shades are #36 to 122, the discernible gray shades are #36, 37, 38 etc on an image with good tonality. On an image with poor tonality, some of the shades will not be present, so it might go 36, 39, 44, etc.

Matt: you have previously posted elsewhere an image you took of a fern(?) leaf, that is a image I would hold up an having excellent tonality.

 

[Helge]

Aviphot 80 when exposed well on the right subject has very good mid tonality.
Badly exposed and even slightly overdeveloped it’s almost litho.

 

[MattKing]

Matt: you have previously posted elsewhere an image you took of a fern(?) leaf, that is a image I would hold up an having excellent tonality.

Yep - and thanks - be sure to click on the thumbnail.


I would suggest though that, although this works both as a print and when displayed digitally, what you are seeing here is tonality that works when displayed on a screen.

 

[wiltw]

This post is derived from what Craig describes in his Post #55.

I know this started as an 'analog' forum , but I think the concept of tonality can be best discussed in the context of digital values.
Imaging first...

1. 1024 locations that can have tonal intensity values between 0 and 1023
2. 512 locations that can have tonal intensity values between 0 and 1023, losing intermediate tonal values
3. 256 locations that can have tonal intensity values between 0 and 1023, losing more intermediate tonal values
4. 128 locations that can have tonal intensity values between 0 and 1023, losing even more intermediate tonal values
5. 64 locations that can have tonal intensity values between 0 and 1023, losing a large number of intermediate tonal values

So...

A. 4x5 format is like #1....the larger area of film to capture the same subject area permits the transitions between the 1024 locations to be fully captured in the large area of the film the transition between 0 density value and 1023 density value.
B. 135 format is like #3...a reduced area (1/4 in each direction) to capture and portray to same subject area, so there are only 256 locations to portray the transition between 0 density value and 1023 density value.
C. half frame format is like #5...a greatly reduced area (1/8 in each direction) to capture and portray the same subject area, so there are only 64 locations to portray the transition between 0 density value and 1023 density value.

So the tonality transitions in #1 are better than #3 and even better than #5 because there is less space to represent all the intermediate values that exist in the subject, between Tonal 0 and Tonal 1023. ALL capture the full range of 0 to 1023. The larger ones are better at capturing the transitions in between those extremes.
(I chose 0 t0 1023 deliberately, because most digital cameras can only portray 0 to 256...so this discuss CANNOT inherently be 'digita!'

 

[L Gebhardt]

All the examples in this thread are small and come from different formats. The sense of tonality seems independent of the original capture size and medium.

 

[gone]

Like nearly all things visible to the eye, words aren't going to explain it very well. There are a lot of different ways to look at it, and I'm tempted to say that one knows it when they see it. Or, when they don't see it, it's even more obvious.

Of course, being online doesn't help, because what may be beautiful tonality online is often just the appearance of something that is back lit on your monitor. Lighting comes into play too, often to a large degree. Some lighting is warm, some is cold, some is soft and some hard, you can make anything look vastly different w/ lighting. There is no native appearance to anything, it just depends on the lighting.

Which is at it should be, as the word "photograph" is based on the Italian language, meaning "writing with light". Or close to that anyway, depending on the sentence it's used in. Unless things have changed, all art and music terms originate in Italian.

 

[alanrockwood]

What an interesting topic.

I had always interpreted "tonality" in a black and white print or scan to be a mapping - a function if you will, mapping the colours and luminosity in the scene seen, which is always in colour, to a set of greys.

In my view, the choice of this mapping is entirely personal, artistic, and (mostly) controllable: as the world is in colour, there is no universally 'correct' greyscale mapping of it. There are however, mappings that are possibly more pleasant than others for a large majority of the population (I wonder if there is perceptual research backing this) and so perhaps the expression 'good tonality!' means, for some:

'Hey! I intuitively like how you chose to map the colours you saw in the scene to this particular distribution of grey scale values = good tonality!'.

Importantly, in my (no doubt personal) interpretation, this mapping is not about the absolute "range" or 'completeness' of tones included. That is, 'good' tonality is not necessarily about how many shades of gray I can fit in. In fact, as suggested by others, smooth tonality ("many shades of grey", ie distribution of tones in the histogram that tends to uniform) might fit some images whereas 'high contrast' (very heavy tailed histogram, loads of density in peaks, heavy tails of near blacks and near whites) might fit another image.

In my understanding, tonality refers instead to the choice of exactly which particular grey level in the available range should the photographer pick to represent any chosen colour "items" in the scene.

Eg let's think for simplicity at a discretised grayscale palette. Let's say we have a scanner able to digitise at 14bits/pixel. This gives us 16,384 values to chose from as the destination grey, with 0 being absolute black and 16.383 being absolute white.

We take a picture containing a red apple and a banana. Our task is to map the red and the yellow to pleasant grey values in the [0, 16,383] range. How do we pick? We have a few variables at hand

1. lighting of the scene
2. any filters?
3. film
4. developer
5. exposure time
6. exposure methods
7. processing time
8. processing temperature
9. choice of scanner/enlarger head
10. choice of paper
11. ...

With these tools at hand we can then take a decision on how to map that red and that yellow to some grey between 0 and 16,383. Do we want

1. the red to be very dark, much closer to the black background than to the yellow? [eg apple= 200, banana= 6000]
2. the red to be a very similar shade of gray as the yellow, both far from the black background? [eg apple= 4560, banana= 6000]
3. the yellow to be very fair, close to white, as far as possible from the black? [ eg banana= 12000]
4. both objects to be very fair as far as possible from the black background? [eg apple = 10235, banana = 12000]
5. something else?

I believe the outcome of the decision leading to the mapping of those colours to certain grey shades will be relevant to the viewer, who will then express a judgement on a 'good/poor tonality'. I believe we carry expectations on what shade of grey should most objects be represented with to be vaguely 'correct'. I think the brain strives to look for correctness even when evaluating a BW image.

So perhaps 'poor tonality' in the example above would be an image in which the banana grey is very close to the apple grey, as our brain struggles to fit that against a colour representation of the scene (we know that a red apple is extremely different from a yellow banana in the real world).

A few examples from flickr

example 1

example 2

example 3

example 4

example 5


There are two images here that I would consider prime examples of 'poor tonality'. The remaining three I would pick as examples of good tonality. Would be interesting to do this properly and perform some kind of blind rating to see if we reach some sort of consensus.

I'm not sure if it relates to tonality (because of my uncertainty about what the definition of tonality is), but the only picture I didn't like was example 5. Example 2 was a borderline case. The other three were good, at least to my eye. I'm not referring to subject matter, but just how the way the black, gray, and white looked in the images.

 

[alanrockwood]

There's also this to consider, which is the relationship between film type and final print. Some folks refer to tonality in the final print. Other folks assign good or bad tonalities to different film types, as in "I just love the tonality of Tri-X, but not TMax-100, or whatever".

So aside from what the definition of tonality actually is, it may apply in different ways to film and prints, keeping in mind that the same negative can produce prints that are quite different from each other. And it may apply differently in some way to specific product (like a film type) compared to the end product e.g. a print, which is heavily influenced by what a person does in the darkroom... and then there is the type of developer to consider.

 

[Craig]

Yep - and thanks - be sure to click on the thumbnail.

I have always wanted to take a photo with that sort of tonality, but have never achieved it. Craig Richards and Allan King also have some very nice tonality prints.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have always wanted to take a photo with that sort of tonality, but have never achieved it. Craig Richards and Allan King also have some very nice tonality prints.

We can surely all agree about this one?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I think you'll need to strip off a bit more than that. Besides, you'd still have to define both of the other concepts if you choose this approach. Especially the latter may prove more fickle than it seems at first sight.

???? Too many pronouns here.

Talking about the 'tonality' of an image is not talking about the subject of the image.

So 'tonality' is the photograph minus its subject. It's sort of a Zen thing.

* * *​

Interesting Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range#Photography where 'tonal range' is equated with 'dynamic range.'

 

[snusmumriken]

Talking about the 'tonality' of an image is not talking about the subject of the image.

So 'tonality' is the photograph minus its subject. It's sort of a Zen thing.

Sorry, but that’s not logical.

A dog is not a cat. So dogs are all animals other than cats.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't see any oxymoron. Tonality isn't about having the full spectrum from white to black ( the size of the range if you like) but rather the progression through the tones that are present - recognizing that there may be a very small range if we measured it with a densitometer.

Perhaps put another way, if there are 256 shades from black to white and of the shades the image encompasses, they progress one shade at a time. So if the shades are #36 to 122, the discernible gray shades are #36, 37, 38 etc on an image with good tonality. On an image with poor tonality, some of the shades will not be present, so it might go 36, 39, 44, etc.

Matt: you have previously posted elsewhere an image you took of a fern(?) leaf, that is a image I would hold up an having excellent tonality.

I agree, although I'd evolved my own working methods before doing a workshop with John Blakemore that workshop just reinforced my approach, it's worth looking at his work as it's inspirational particularly the way he plays with tonality and tone placement.

Perhaps a word we miss is clarity, by that I mean detail in whatever part of the tonal range. Matt's example has this clarity of details in the shadows.

Ian

 

[koraks]

So 'tonality' is the photograph minus its subject. It's sort of a Zen thing.

That depends on how you delimit the concept of 'subject'. And also 'photograph'. The problem with your definition is that it works for your implicit views of how those concepts are defined. As such, your definition is an idiosyncratic one. It seems to work perfectly and be very elegant, until it's confronted with views other than your own, and then it turns out to be not so clear-cut at all.

I do think it's a valuable angle though, as it evokes thoughts about the boundaries between subject matter and graphic representation. I'm thinking of e.g. abstract images in a similar vein to Rothko's color fields (and many, many other conceptually similar examples), where aspects such as tonality arguably are an integral part of the subject matter. Well, it depends a bit on how you define 'tonality', but then we hit upon the problem I signaled: that your definition isn't bulletproof when it's extended beyond a certain style of very figurative/literal photography.

 

[Chuck_P]

IMHO...............tonality=tonal relationships=global contrast=gradation=any other similar adjectives/phrases that describes the relationship between the tones that have been captured in the photograph. Not just the tones of the gray scale that we have all come to know (i.e., Zones) but all the many grays that can exist between those familiar Zones of the gray scale, say, the gradation between a Zone III print value and a Zone IV print value, for example. Now, whether these are to be considered separate from the photograph's subject matter.................I'm still grapling with that one.

I appreciate having a place, such as this forum, to discuss these things............but the amount of hair splitting that occurs is interesting and maddening at the same time.

Edited to indicate: I include guilty of hair splitting myself at times.

 

[FotoD]

So is tonality an artistic concept to you, or a technical one?

So 'tonality' is the photograph minus its subject.

I thought that was mostly paper and gelatin.

 

[aparat]

@MattKing This photograph should be made a "sticky" post to show how one can control tonality with the right choice of film, exposure, and development. It reminds me of the photo on the cover of the 1980 paperback edition of Ansel Adams' "The Print," except I like it better.

Tonality, as a perceptual construct, is an illusion (some even call it a hallucination). It's an illusion that most of us share, but most of us share it differently, hence the lively debate in this thread. It has a physical manifestation, typically represented as tone reproduction analysis, and a psychometric one, typically represented as a stimulus - response curve. Both have been studied extensively, going back to the 1940s (see the images below). As part of photographic practice, that reality / illusion has been represented by the Zone System, the Beyond the Zone System, and all of their variants over the years. In fact, each photographer has their own unique way of seeing tonality and reproducing it, be it on paper or screen.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... your definition is an idiosyncratic one. It seems to work perfectly and be very elegant, until it's confronted with views other than your own, and then it turns out to be not so clear-cut at all.

See - I told you it was a 'Zen thing.'

But, to restate the thesis: Tonality is what is left of a a viewer's reaction to a photograph after you remove the viewer's reaction to the subject matter. In all the photographs posted to this thread nobody has commented on the composition or their emotional reaction to the subject.

And as to 'Zen' - this thesis is of no practical use, just a wry observation. Silence is the sound of one hand clapping - and so what.

Now to tie 'tonality' to motorcycle maintenance.

* * *​

All statements worth their words have something in them that the reader can't quite wrap their head around.

 

[Paul Howell]

You will notice that the film manufactures do not use the term tones, they describe what most folks refer to tone as contrast. In terms of a print, toning usually refers to changing the color of print, or the contrast with a dye of some sort. Seliumum (sp?) toning darkens or "deepens blacks" depending on strength and time in the toner use can also warm a print up. (?) Might miss recalled warming, I only use it for short times for permanentancy.

 

[faberryman]

Now to tie 'tonality' to motorcycle maintenance.

Assessing tonality requires great peace of mind?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm not sure if it relates to tonality (because of my uncertainty about what the definition of tonality is), but the only picture I didn't like was example 5. Example 2 was a borderline case. The other three were good, at least to my eye. I'm not referring to subject matter, but just how the way the black, gray, and white looked in the images.

I think a picture with good tones can stand on its own. It becomes the aesthetic subject. Certainly, it adds to good content even more.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@MattKing This photograph should be made a "sticky" post to show how one can control tonality with the right choice of film, exposure, and development. It reminds me of the photo on the cover of the 1980 paperback edition of Ansel Adams' "The Print," except I like it better.

Tonality, as a perceptual construct, is an illusion (some even call it a hallucination). It's an illusion that most of us share, but most of us share it differently, hence the lively debate in this thread. It has a physical manifestation, typically represented as tone reproduction analysis, and a psychometric one, typically represented as a stimulus - response curve. Both have been studied extensively, going back to the 1940s (see the images below). As part of photographic practice, that reality / illusion has been represented by the Zone System, the Beyond the Zone System, and all of their variants over the years. In fact, each photographer has their own unique way of seeing tonality and reproducing it, be it on paper or screen.

View attachment 323507 View attachment 323506

How would everyone translate this technical explanation to a simple process of getting great tonal pictures from shooting the subject stage to the final print or display stage?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

See - I told you it was a 'Zen thing.'

But, to restate the thesis: Tonality is what is left of a a viewer's reaction to a photograph after you remove the viewer's reaction to the subject matter. In all the photographs posted to this thread nobody has commented on the composition or their emotional reaction to the subject.

And as to 'Zen' - this thesis is of no practical use, just a wry observation. Silence is the sound of one hand clapping - and so what.

Now to tie 'tonality' to motorcycle maintenance.

* * *​

All statements worth their words have something in them that the reader can't quite wrap their head around.

Isn't that often true of color? When one looks at a beautiful sunset, something they've seen a million times, they say "wow". It's just the colors. Nothing new about the subject. Well, it's just the tones.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Isn't that often true of color? When one looks at a beautiful sunset, something they've seen a million times, they say "wow". It's just the colors. Nothing new about the subject. Well, it's just the tones.

You are right - tonality is a viewer's emotional reaction to the tones, be they shades of grey or shades of orange - https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.56350.html

Google 'abstract painting orange' - seems to be a large cottage industry producing the things.

 

[Ian Grant]

See - I told you it was a 'Zen thing.'

But, to restate the thesis: Tonality is what is left of a a viewer's reaction to a photograph after you remove the viewer's reaction to the subject matter. In all the photographs posted to this thread nobody has commented on the composition or their emotional reaction to the subject.

And as to 'Zen' - this thesis is of no practical use, just a wry observation. Silence is the sound of one hand clapping - and so what.

Now to tie 'tonality' to motorcycle maintenance.

As the late Peter Goldfield wrote, he was a disciple of Minor White and had worked with Paul Caponigro in New Mexico in 1978

You will notice that the film manufactures do not use the term tones, they describe what most folks refer to tone as contrast. In terms of a print, toning usually refers to changing the color of print, or the contrast with a dye of some sort. Seliumum (sp?) toning darkens or "deepens blacks" depending on strength and time in the toner use can also warm a print up. (?) Might miss recalled warming, I only use it for short times for permanentancy.

Ilford use the term Tone in some of their datasheets.

Mural size enlargements from PAN F Plus negatives show an outstanding range of tone and detail when the film is carefully exposed and processed.

But when they sat carefully exposed and processed that comes back to "Craft". Kodak also use the term Tone in some datasheets as well.

Agfa used the term as well this is from their last "The Black & White Manual"

All Agfapan Professional films are panchromatic BW negative films. Their quality characteristics have been geared to the requirements of professional use. Each single product possesses an excellent performance ratio between image quality (sharpness/fine grain) and speed. The straight, long drawn out gradation curves guarantee an abundant transmittal of the richness in the tonal quality of the print. A finely differentiated scale in grey tones, the clean tracing of both highlight and shadow lead to an authentic print transmittal.

They also talk about tone in terms of colour and also reducing the contrast range with Adaptol Soft.

Ian