Tonality

[alanrockwood]

"Tonality" is a word that gets used a lot in these discussions. Can anyone give a clear definition of what is meant by the word "tonality" in relation to photography? Maybe we should keep it simple and just restrict the discussion to Black and White prints.

I realize that there has been some discussion on this topic in the past, but I'm still confused because... well I guess I just too simple-minded to understand how some people describe the concept.

I would like to see tonality defined in terms of some kind of measurable quantities. It could be signal/noise. It could be contrast. Maybe it's dynamic range, or maybe it is defined in terms of the linearity (or lack of linearity) in the characteristic curve. I just don't know, and I'm not sure that there is even an agreed-upon definition.

Can someone clarify this for me?

Thanks.

 

[Helge]

Ability to discern tones?

Most emulsions has that ability distributed unevenly over the total range of the film.
That is what the characteristics of a film is about.
Resolution (MTF), response curve and tonality is connected as concepts like the pages of a book are connected in the spine.
You can pick them up and handle them individually for ease of talking and thinking about them, but when you get down to the absolute basics, they are the same thing.

Great mid tone separation is usually what is meant and talked about, when people use the platitude “great tonality”.

 

[alanrockwood]

...Great mid tone separation is usually what is meant and talked about, when people use the platitude “great tonality”.

Thanks for the quick reply.

That sounds to me like the slope of the characteristic curve in the mid tone part of the curve.

 

[koraks]

I would like to see tonality defined in terms of some kind of measurable quantities.

The best I could offer is 'H/D curve shape'. That should cover it - and at the same time, it would be so unspecific that it's of limited value. For me, that's OK, because sometimes, I personally feel it's perfectly fine to leave some terms that capture the aesthetics of a print undefined in measurable terms. The reason for this is that if you look at photography, it's one of those interesting practices that spans both the 'real' scientific and the social sciences. As a result, there's a grey area of topics and terms that exists smack in the middle of those fields. Whereas the scientific asks for a concrete definition in measurable terms, the social part would be more interested in creating shared meaning as a result of human interaction - which may or may not involve 'hard' definitions. For this reason, I personally believe that trying to define tonality only in measurable terms would automatically strip away a major part of its inherent meaning, and hence erode the term's value and usefulness. After all, if I define tonality as I just did, as just the shape of the curve, it doesn't acknowledge the subjective aspect that's also embedded in the term - the appreciation of the particular ways in which an image portrays the light intensities and hue differences of the real world. Hence, I have to disagree with @Helge on this particular aspect:

when you get down to the absolute basics, they are the same thing.

 

[albada]

Here are some past threads in Photrio that tell me "tonality" is hopelessly ill-defined:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-tonality.115692/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-meant-by-tonality.68292/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tonality-i-cannot-describe.178268/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/help-understanding-terms-tonality-vs-contrast.184789/

 

[Helge]

Here are some past threads in Photrio that tell me "tonality" is hopelessly ill-defined:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-tonality.115692/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/what-is-meant-by-tonality.68292/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tonality-i-cannot-describe.178268/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/help-understanding-terms-tonality-vs-contrast.184789/

Not hopelessly.
It’s just a subject that is under the sorites paradox.
Some concepts and ideas exist and can be defined even if they have fuzzy edges.

We have been inundated with the idea that ideas and concepts has to be absolute, binary and simple through the last few decades.
That is almost never the case or even possible.

Many such mental tools and constructions are ambiguous and floating without being a free for all and ultimately worthless.

What’s is mildly shocking, and pleasing to many people about a good B&W photo with great midtone separation is exactly what they are not used to seeing. And what is not possible with most electronic sensors.
The tactility, lusciousness and sensuality of even a brick wall where you can see every gradation and surface detail. More than possibly the human eye is able to discern.

 

[FotoD]

I don't know what "chatGPT" is. But that just sounds like word salad, written by someone without real understanding of anything.

Even though "tonality" is a term borrowed from music, I find the term "timbre" a better musical analogy.

Like you, the Acoustical Society of America thought it was important to define the meaning of that word;

Wikipedia:
"The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Acoustical Terminology definition 12.09 of timbre describes it as "that attribute of auditory sensation which enables a listener to judge that two nonidentical sounds, similarly presented and having the same loudness and pitch, are dissimilar", adding, "Timbre depends primarily upon the frequency spectrum, although it also depends upon the sound pressure and the temporal characteristics of the sound""

I'm not sure how and why one would measure a complex phenomenon like tonality in photography, or timbre in music. What you can measure however are things like frequencies and densities/amplitudes of the print / sound.

 

[Helge]

I don't know what "chatGPT" is. But that just sounds like word salad, written by someone without real understanding of anything.

Even though "tonality" is a term borrowed from music, I find the term "timbre" a better musical analogy.

Like you, the Acoustical Society of America thought it was important to define the meaning of that word;

Wikipedia:
"The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Acoustical Terminology definition 12.09 of timbre describes it as "that attribute of auditory sensation which enables a listener to judge that two nonidentical sounds, similarly presented and having the same loudness and pitch, are dissimilar", adding, "Timbre depends primarily upon the frequency spectrum, although it also depends upon the sound pressure and the temporal characteristics of the sound""

I'm not sure how and why one would measure a complex phenomenon like tonality in photography, or timbre in music. What you can measure however are things like frequencies and densities/amplitudes of the print / sound.

You are very ready to flip into mysticism and relativism. Not what the OP was after.
And tonality in this sense is not borrowed from music. It’s from painting.

 

[koraks]

@Raghu Kuvempunagar
That's a very nice demonstration
I think it aptly shows how far AI has come. It also shows that even though the Turing test might be passed these days (depending on the observer), it still captures neatly the difficulty of applying AI to constructs that are intimately intertwined with the human experience.

 

[koraks]

And tonality in this sense is not borrowed from music.

There's a clear parallel though. Trying to abduct the concept from one field into another can work - but it requires some conceptual flexibility.

 

[FotoD]

Sorry Raghu, I didn't mean to criticize you. I just think that ChatGPT should reflect a bit more and blabber a bit less.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, I think "good tonality" has to do with more mid-tones and tones throughout the spectrum as opposed to more contrasty pictures where the blacks and whites are highlighted.

Here are two examples I selected. Tonal 1: I would consider good tonality and Tonal 2 has more contrast, less tonality. I inserted their histograms as I think that would show measurable quantities. It would be interesting to look at histograms for other pictures to see how the histograms might show tonal appreciation in a more scientific way instead of just stating what we feel in an intuitive way.

Also, note that my samples were selected based on my interpretations of what I think the terms mean. So others may feel different pictures better show these characteristics.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's another example - Tonal 3. I think this might be better than Tonal 1 as it has more highlights as well as good midtones and blacks.

 

[snusmumriken]

I suggest that it’s a subjective, aesthetic term, and that attempts to nail it down will be a wild goose chase. The characteristic curve captures it scientifically, but it is terribly difficult to envisage how that translates into image aesthetics.

Nevertheless, I think there would often be agreement if presented with identical images taken on 5 different films (and adjusted to the same brightness and contrast), as to which had the more appealing tonality. You can’t readily make this judgement when comparing different images, because brightness and contrast affect the aesthetic so much.

 

[NB23]

I suggest we change the word Tonality to Anality.

Sounds the same, and means the same.

 

[aparat]

I love how you're getting a range of different answers and perspectives. That's what it's all about.

May I offer another perspective. One way to think about tonality is as a qualitative concept whose quantitative twin is the characteristic curve. It's similar to the distinction between brightness and luminance, pitch and fundamental frequency, etc. Tonality is often talked about by means of various colorful qualitative terms, such as "long," "steep," "gentle," "beautiful," "extended," etc. All of these qualitative concepts have their quantitative analogs that are derived from the characteristic curve, spectral response curve, MTF, contrast index, average gradient, etc. It's two sides of the same coin.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I suggest that it’s a subjective, aesthetic term, and that attempts to nail it down will be a wild goose chase. The characteristic curve captures it scientifically, but it is terribly difficult to envisage how that translates into image aesthetics.

Nevertheless, I think there would often be agreement if presented with identical images taken on 5 different films (and adjusted to the same brightness and contrast), as to which had the more appealing tonality. You can’t readily make this judgement when comparing different images, because brightness and contrast affect the aesthetic so much.

So just to establish some understanding, would you say the three pictures I posted more or less reflect what good tonal range is and isn't? After all, we have to start somewhere. Instead of using words, show pictures of what you think if it's something different. Words can be misinterpreted or as they say "a picture is worth a thousand words".

 

[Ian Grant]

I suggest that it’s a subjective, aesthetic term, and that attempts to nail it down will be a wild goose chase. The characteristic curve captures it scientifically, but it is terribly difficult to envisage how that translates into image aesthetics.

Nevertheless, I think there would often be agreement if presented with identical images taken on 5 different films (and adjusted to the same brightness and contrast), as to which had the more appealing tonality. You can’t readily make this judgement when comparing different images, because brightness and contrast affect the aesthetic so much.

An example, I have 3 prints in an exhibition set made different days over a period of around 12 years. two 5x4 negatives one Tmax 100 the other HP5, and one 6x6 shot with a Rolleiflex on Delta 100, all developed in Pyrocat HD. Despite differing times of day and year, the tonal range and feel of the prints is a very close match.

The word tonality is just a term to describe the tonal range of a print (or scan) and is essentially how many discernible shades of grey we can see between white and black, it's also used to describe the potential tonal range of a negative. Many of us aim for negatives with a good tonal range, detail in the shadows without blocked up highlights, that makes for greater controls when printing or scanning. It's not obsessive, it's easy to achieve and just good craft.

Of course subject and lighting have an effect on tonal range, but the objective is to make negatives that allow you to interpret and express what you saw or envisaged at the time you made the image.

Ian

 

[Chuck_P]

This may have ready been touched on, imo, not all shadows require detail. Tonality to me is benefitted by having a full scale representaion from solid black to pure white. Naturally, those areas should occupy small percentages of the print, imo. It's how the global contrast and how the tones of the gray scale relate to each other that defines it for me.......taking advantage of the film's characteristics to do with as you desire.

 

[snusmumriken]

I suggest we change the word Tonality to Anality.

Sounds the same, and means the same.

But a little while ago on another thread you said that you hated XTOL because it spoiled the aesthetic of your prints!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

An example, I have 3 prints in an exhibition set made different days over a period of around 12 years. two 5x4 negatives one Tmax 100 the other HP5, and one 6x6 shot with a Rolleiflex on Delta 100, all developed in Pyrocat HD. Despite differing times of day and year, the tonal range and feel of the prints is a very close match.

The word tonality is just a term to describe the tonal range of a print (or scan) and is essentially how many discernible shades of grey we can see between white and black, it's also used to describe the potential tonal range of a negative. Many of us aim for negatives with a good tonal range, detail in the shadows without blocked up highlights, that makes for greater controls when printing or scanning. It's not obsessive, it's easy to achieve and just good craft.

Of course subject and lighting have an effect on tonal range, but the objective is to make negatives that allow you to interpret and express what you saw or envisaged at the time you made the image.

Ian

Of course, more contrasty, grittier pictures often go with street shots, while landscape photos often look better with a full range of tones. It depends on what you're shooting and what your shooting for.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The phrase "good tonality" has two poorly defined words.

Does "good" simply mean - pleasing to my eye / I like it - therefore is purely subjective? Or does "good" imply success in meeting some objective goal?

An extremely high contrast photo may have only 2 tones - black and white. Can we agree, if a photo has only black and white, it does not have good tonality?

So, does good tonality mean a photo exhibits the highest number of gradations of gray between black and white?

Of course, saying all the gray tones are represented may not mean they are equally represented. Example, chiaroscuro. Many shades of gray may be present but some only in minute slivers in the brief transition zone between deep shadows and bright highlights. Can such a photo be said to have good tonality, or is it about the same as soot and chalk?

Or maybe good tonality results when certain shades of gray are adjacent to certain other shades of gray in a way that visually resonates or harmonizes similar to the way pressing certain piano keys together forms a cord?

I don't have any answers but I am curious to see if any kind of consensus can be reached. Personally, I am inclined to accept the definition that good tonality means a photo includes a full range of tones between black and white. What is less clear is how important it is that those tones should be (more-or-less) equally represented, or if it matters how the tones are distributed in relationship with each other.

 

[snusmumriken]

So just to establish some understanding, would you say the three pictures I posted more or less reflect what good tonal range is and isn't?

Tonality to me is benefitted by having a full scale representaion from solid black to pure white.

I think this is why the subject is unavoidably subjective, and relative. The whole tonal balance shifts if there are no pure blacks of whites, or if they are big or small percentages of the image. Even printing the rebates black or adding a black frame changes it. And the size of the subject matters too: I more often notice pleasing tonality in a sizeable object with smooth curves, like a nude or a vase or a head-and-face portrait.

Of Alan’s 3 photos, 1 and 3 might be compared, although there are enough differences to make me feel a bit lost trying. The histograms illustrate the tonal distribution of these two images but don’t allow a comparison of tonality, because of the differences in composition and the presence of the large white cloud in Number 3.

[One sure indicator of poor tonality that I’ve noticed in histograms is when the photo has been upgraded (from 8-bit, for instance). The resulting spiky/gappy distribution of grey tones always gives disappointing tonality in the image.]

Number 2 is obviously a completely different kind of shot. Zooming in, the mid-tones of faces in the crowd look quite unattractive but that’s of minor importance given the overall crowded ‘noir’ aesthetic of this image. Would another film/developer/printing paper/printer have improved it? I don’t know. But I’m definitely not clever enough to answer that by studying characteristic curves.

 

[MattKing]

My working definition: "Tonality" is the result of trying to reduce to words that which isn't well suited to words.
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. On more than one occasion I've had side by side two prints evidencing similar ranges of tones, where one print achieves that range in a more visually satisfying way.
It is the transition between tones that seems to have the greatest affect. And sadly, it is difficult to show tonality differences in prints on a screen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The phrase "good tonality" has two poorly defined words.

Does "good" simply mean - pleasing to my eye / I like it - therefore is purely subjective? Or does "good" imply success in meeting some objective goal?

An extremely high contrast photo may have only 2 tones - black and white. Can we agree, if a photo has only black and white, it does not have good tonality?

So, does good tonality mean a photo exhibits the highest number of gradations of gray between black and white?

Of course, saying all the gray tones are represented may not mean they are equally represented. Example, chiaroscuro. Many shades of gray may be present but some only in minute slivers in the brief transition zone between deep shadows and bright highlights. Can such a photo be said to have good tonality, or is it about the same as soot and chalk?

Or maybe good tonality results when certain shades of gray are adjacent to certain other shades of gray in a way that visually resonates or harmonizes similar to the way pressing certain piano keys together forms a cord?

I don't have any answers but I am curious to see if any kind of consensus can be reached. Personally, I am inclined to accept the definition that good tonality means a photo includes a full range of tones between black and white. What is less clear is how important it is that those tones should be (more-or-less) equally represented, or if it matters how the tones are distributed in relationship with each other.

I think all three of your descriptions apply.