What is meant by tonality?

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, in common photo parlance, the term 'tonality' usually encompasses the range of tones and the continuity of transitions between them. ...

Tonality is the range of tones, gradation is the change between them.

 

[John Bond]

I am curious about the comparison with posterization in digital photography. Does a film photograph without "smooth" tone or gradation appear posterized?

 

[JBrunner]

I am curious about the comparison with posterization in digital photography. Does a film photograph without "smooth" tone or gradation appear posterized?

There really isn't much comparison, the mediums work and react in very different ways. The closest might be to call grain the equivalent, but you can have visible grain and still have "good" tonality.

There is an analog technique calles solarizing that gives what one might approximate as posterization. Perhaps I'm not understanding the term posterization as you mean it?

 

[John Bond]

Thats why I asked the question. As long as the combined curve of film and paper is continuous, I would not think it would appear posterized. So, if a lack of "smooth" tonality or gradation does not equal posterization, are there other ways to describe lack of tonality or poor tonality? Does it have to do with grain or edge effects or local contrast. Does it have as much to do with lighting and texture of the subject matter as it does with characteristics of film and paper?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am curious about the comparison with posterization in digital photography. Does a film photograph without "smooth" tone or gradation appear posterized?

Analog photography is a continuous-tone imaging technique. It is mostly regular 'smooth', but the change in tone may happen more rapid (high contrast) or less rapid (low contrast). Very-high contrast films may only show two tones, and that's probably the closest you get to posterization in analog photography. It may also happen irregular (Sabattier Effect), but that's still smooth.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... So, if a lack of "smooth" tonality or gradation does not equal posterization, are there other ways to describe lack of tonality or poor tonality? ...

Yes, rapid tonal changes measured as too high of a contrast.

 

[John Bond]

How about too low contrast causing the "tonality" to look muddy?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How about too low contrast causing the "tonality" to look muddy?

Again, tonality means range of tones. With low contrast, the tonal range will be limited. One example of this can be no real highlights and no real shadows but lots of midtones. Maybe that's what you mean with 'muddy'.

 

[2F/2F]

Doesn't "tonal range" mean the range of tones?

"Tonality" has a far less specific meaning than "the range of tones." Tonal range is one thing that has an impact on tonality, but it alone does not define tonality.

 

[keithwms]

Doesn't "tonal range" mean the range of tones?

"Tonality" has a far less specific meaning than "the range of tones." Tonal range is one thing that has an impact on tonality, but it alone does not define tonality.

I agree. Range of tones is range of tones... it's not all there is to tonality. Again, continuity of tone (= smoothness of tonal transitions) is a major issue, particularly in the modern digital context.

 

[Doug Webb]

I know what I mean by tonality in a black and white print and I think many people may be referring to tonality the way I do, not in a technical sense, but as an observation that the tones are subjectively pleasing in a print. This, to me, doesn't always mean that there are a lot of different tones in a print and it is not another way of talking about contrast. I refer to a film as giving great tonality when it is a film that I myself can get to do what I want in terms of producing the tones I want or that are pleasing to me. When I show a print to someone else that has tones in it that I like, they often say they like the photo as well because of qualities in the print beyond the subject matter. Sometimes they say I like the shades of gray. I can't get all films to give me the tonality I want although I have tried extensively with some of them. For example, I have no trouble getting FP4 to give me the tones I want, but TMAX is another story all together.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It seems that different folks use different definitions for the word 'tonality. This is what has turned it into such an unspecific term, and that probably sparked the original question. That's fine with me, but I prefer to use the dictionary definition, which limits it to the range of tones and nothing else. What Doug refers to is gradation. Why not use two different words for two different things?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I agree. Range of tones is range of tones... it's not all there is to tonality. Again, continuity of tone (= smoothness of tonal transitions) is a major issue, particularly in the modern digital context.

Keith

All films and all papers are of continuous tone.
Tonal transitions are also called gradation. Range of tones or tonal range are also called tonality. Tonality and gradation together make sure your properly exposed and developed negative can be turned into a pleasing print.
There is no need to turn the word tonality into a hard-to-define mystery. It's a measurable entity. Manufacturer's and some writers like to use statements such as 'beautiful tonality', which really means everything and nothing and just confuses the issue.

 

[markbarendt]

Tonality is the range of tones, gradation is the change between them.

That helps, better verbiage I think.

This still equates tonality with the total density/contrast range.

Breaking out gradation makes the concept easier.

 

[JBrunner]

Why I premise the word with what may be described with subjectivity, "good tonality", "poor tonality". There needn't be agreement on what they are, just that tonality by itself is exactly as Ralph describes. As hype the term is indeed everything and nothing, but as a simple appreciator of a print most of us know what one is communicating when we describe a pleasing tonality.

 

[markbarendt]

There is no need to turn the word tonality into a hard-to-define mystery. It's a measurable entity. Manufacturer's and some writers like to use statements such as 'beautiful tonality', which really means everything and nothing and just confuses the issue.

Thank you!

It is tough to wrap my head around nebulous concepts/definitions.

 

[2F/2F]

...I prefer to use the dictionary definition, which limits it to the range of tones and nothing else.

Since we are now doing the dictionary thing, this is what I have found from Miriam-Webster:

"1: tonal quality

2:

a: key
b: the organization of all the tones and harmonies of a piece of music in relation to a tonic

3: the arrangement or interrelation of the tones of a work of visual art"


...and the abridged Oxford:

"• n. (pl. -ties) 1. the character of a piece of music as determined by the key in which it is played or the relations between the notes of a scale or key. ∎ the harmonic effect of being in a particular key: the first bar would seem set to create a tonality of C major. ∎ the use of conventional keys and harmony as the basis of musical composition.

2. the color scheme or range of tones used in a picture."

As you can see, words can have more than one meaning. You use one dictionary definition, not The One dictionary definition, "which limits it to the range of tones and nothing else."

Personally, I think it is a pretty poor word for use in reference to visual art. Its first, and most prominent, use is in the field of music.

 

[markbarendt]

Personally, I think it is a pretty poor word for use in reference to visual art. Its first, and most prominent, use is in the field of music.

I agree.

The biggest complaint I have about the word tonality is it's the type of word politicians love because nobody knows what's really being said.

 

[keithwms]

For me 'tonality' definitely encompasses range and gradation (and yes I have considered this opinion carefully). When you realize how interrelated those two issues are in the effectiveness of a print, then you also realize that it's a great term for distinguishing a well executed Pt/Pd print from an inkjet.

Anyway, two Keiths agree, so we must be right. Ralph, if you won't let us use the term to encompass both, well then I guess we will have to call it Keithiness. Won't you put that in your next book?

P.S. Those of you who want more precise terms, be careful, very soon we'll be talking about gamut and bandwidth. Let's not go there!

 

[2F/2F]

Personally, I know for sure that I need to increase my band width by adding another hole to my belt. Gamut anyhow!

 

[markbarendt]

P.S. Those of you who want more precise terms, be careful, very soon we'll be talking about gamut and bandwidth. Let's not go there!

All I want is something easily "teachable" and "learnable".

I would prefer to stick to the terms/tools that most of us understand/can see, like film and paper curves, density.

i.e. How do I modify D400's curve to get the best tonality on MGIV RC?

How do I change my exposure and processing with MGIV RC to get the best out of TMax 400?

What paper gives the best tonality with XP2 and why?

Nebulous terms don't help.

 

[Loris Medici]

Mark, BIG HINT: Practice, coupled with correct testing workflow (for instance, not changing more than one parameter on each test, et. al.), good (clear & detailed) note keeping, and constructive criticism from people who knows the art/craft helps much...

 

[markbarendt]

Mark, BIG HINT: Practice, coupled with correct testing workflow (for instance, not changing more than one parameter on each test, et. al.), good (clear & detailed) note keeping, and constructive criticism from people who knows the art/craft helps much...

I am working on that Loris.

What I'm trying to get from this thread is a way to describe tonality in an understandable manner.

 

[Loris Medici]

I'm with Keith here; how about finding a gallery nearby (if possible) that has vintage or contemporary platinum/palladium contact prints made by a master, using LF or ULF in-camera negatives, and try to describe it to us later? (Don't get me wrong, all I'm trying to say in my last two posts is that you need to conceptualize your own definition in your mind - not everything can be objectively quantifiable...)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

F... Ralph, if you won't let us use the term to encompass both, well then I guess we will have to call it Keithiness. Won't you put that in your next book? ...

You can use the term for anything you like. As long as you know what it means to you, it's all fine and good.