• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What is meant by tonality?

markbarendt said:
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?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have a real problem with the notion of there being a 'best' anything in photography.
 
keithwms said:
... 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!
Click to expand...

Sorry Keith, but I feel the same about people who prefer to leave terms nebulous. It never makes for a meaningful conversation. We can do better than that!
 
I looked in Ansel Adams books, the photo series, and didn't readily come across "tonality". Maybe it's like poetry, "She Was a Phantom of Delight" by William Wordsworth for example. When I see some smooth gradation from black and white that's pleasing to me maybe I should just say "it's a phantom of delight".
 
Thanks, Mark, for bringing the subject up and thanks to everyone else for shedding much light (!) on it. I have also wondered what people meant by "tonality" and, in particular, why one of the reasons given for the superiority of MF over 35 mm is the better tonality in MF.

I can understand why tonality would depend upon the shape of the characteristic curve and why, unless one were looking at a region with only a few grains, the gradations in density should always be smooth. For a given emulsion, I can't see why the format or lens (or the degree of magnification in the final print) should have any effect on tonality. The degree of magnification should only change the geometry of the image, not the range of intensities or the smoothness of the density variations. Am I missing anything?

Can someone explain why a MF camera using Velvia 100 would have a better tonality than a 35 mm camera using the same film?

Thanks.

Warren Nagourney
 
Loris Medici said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have looked at a variety of these.

Tonality: good, bad, or otherwise; isn't a word that I'd use to describe any of them.

Why?

Because the word "tonality", doesn't add anything to the conversation except hyperbole. The word, appears to me, to be mostly filler because it lacks definition.

Loris Medici said:
(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.
Click to expand...

So, let us think about your statement in regard to tonality.

If a given tonality is truly not quantifiable and definable in terms materials and processes, then it would stand to reason that a given tonality is not repeatable, ever.

I'll bet nearly everyone here at APUG can repeat a given printing result, once they know how.
 

Makes as much sense as using "tonality" to describe it.
 

You are welcome.

I can think of several reasons to say MF is better than 35mm.

For example; better definition of details, any and all details. Simply put with larger film formats there is more area available to define the shapes and the changes from one tone to the next.


The magnification and the size of the format makes a difference in the amount of detail available.

A contact print from an 8x10 film will show more detail than an enlarged 35mm film will show printed at 8x10.

warrennn said:
Can someone explain why a MF camera using Velvia 100 would have a better tonality than a 35 mm camera using the same film?

Thanks.

Warren Nagourney
Click to expand...

Only if you can very specifically define what you mean by tonality.
 
I am completely with you, Mark, when it comes to the greater detail of MF compared to 35 mm. This is why I went to the expense and trouble of buying a 501cm, which I am very fond of, despite its fragility and its higher support costs. I thought we were talking about tonality; shouldn't this be independent of resolution and accutance? Each square mm of the emulsion in both cameras should respond identically to the range of intensities incident on it, shouldn't it?

wn
 

You have to have a definition of tonality first. That's the problem.

Are the resolution and accutance in a given print defined by tonal changes?

It that part of tonality?

Is tonality an artistic term, a marketing term, or a scientific term?

warrennn said:
Each square mm of the emulsion in both cameras should respond identically to the range of intensities incident on it, shouldn't it?

wn
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's not how the film "sees" the scene.
 
I would hazard a guess that our sense of tonality is strongly influenced by accutance.

It's not so much that the image gets from dark to light, but rather how it appears to get there.

To use an analogy from sports - two hockey players may get from A to B in the same time, but one may very well skate more smoothly and elegantly as part of the process.
 
There were definitions of tonality given in the first few replies in this thread. The simplest is Ralph Lambrecht's:

The range of tones used in a picture.
 
Because "the simplest" does not mean "the only," or "the best."
 
2F/2F said:
Because "the simplest" does not mean "the only," or "the best."
Click to expand...

That may be. But your post lacks a better one.

I want to give an example. Often it is said that a good photograph should contain a deep black and a pure white. If you do only so your print may come out muddy. Often digital shots converted to b/w look in this way.

If we look closer and want to be better, things become more complicated. Not in understanding but in handling in the dark room. Richness in grey values is connected to local contrast. "Somewhere a deep black and somewhere a pure white" that is global contrast.
A detail in your picture may look much better if you increase the contrast by using harder paper. But then the bright and dark areas are affected. If you balance this by dodging and burning you get a print with "somewhere...pure white" but and much better tonality.
Some subjects need such manipulation not or in only slightly. But some improve dramatically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I don't think "Acutance" plays much part in perceptions of tonality, we need to be careful as acutance adds a very different issue that of perceived sharpness. Higher acutance may not go hand in hand with better tonality.

One problem is that many developers achieve higher acutance at the expense of Tonality which was a reason many of the commercial High Acutance developers never gained widespread support and disappeared, Paterson Acutol S, Ilford Hyfin, Kodak HDD. Johnsons Definol etc.

Ian
 
Tonality is not (just) a technical paremeter.
It's about the use of tones, the spatial distribution of tones too. About the subtility, or stark contrasts, or the lack of either. About how subtle differences in tone may contrast with bold blacks and whites in the same image. How tones in majority may hover near either end of the scale without it becoming just a two-tone image. Or are bunched near both, without having a middle (or are all heaped up in the middle of the range). Etcetera.

Achieved through technical parameters, yes (how else?).
But transcending those in importance in a Big Way.
 
Ian Grant said:
I don't think "Acutance" plays much part in perceptions of tonality, we need to be careful as acutance adds a very different issue that of perceived sharpness.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to say that you are using "tonality" here in an artistic sense?

Let me provide an example; I have seen photos where the subject looks so sharp that it looks like it has been inserted in a scene.

The problem is that contextually the subject has loses it's connection to the scene it's in.

Other shots, done with the same film and developer come out great.

It seems to me that DOF and composition can contribute to the issue.

Ian Grant said:
One problem is that many developers achieve higher acutance at the expense of Tonality...
Click to expand...

Is this a contrast issue for the rest of the print? A grain issue? _________ ?
 

And how would this be an issue concerning tonality?
 
Q.G. said:
Tonality is not (just) a technical paremeter.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think the most common usage of the word tonality is (just) as an artistic term.

Lacking a way to measure it, I don't see how I could call it anything else.
 
Q.G. said:
And how would this be an issue concerning tonality?
Click to expand...

Responding to what Ian said "One problem is that many developers achieve higher acutance at the expense of Tonality"
 

Tonality is an asthetic parameter, so yes it's often used in an artistic sense. A print doesn't need a full range of tones or densities for a print to have good tonality, so a high keyprint may have no densities deeper than a mid grey, and vice ver a low key print no tone brighterthan a mid grey yet both have superb tonality.

Grain tends to negate tonality, so the finer the grain the easier to get the best tonality, contrast isused to shift the tonality.

Tonality is the combination of the contrast, tonal trange and personal interpretation of a image usually at the printing stage, but then it's also inherent in the choice of a film and developer, exposure & development times, it's a balance of the parameters.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
... Tonality is the combination of the contrast, tonal trange and personal interpretation of a image usually at the printing stage...
Click to expand...

I would argue that this is tone reproduction of which tonality is only a part of.

In the 3rd edition of the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, L. Stroebel is offering the following definition:

Tonality is the overall appearance of the densities of the component areas of a photograph or other image with respect to the effectiveness of the values in representing the subject.

It's the best I was able to find. It simply compares overall subject and image densities. in my view this includes the tonal range but excludes gradation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
markbarendt said:
I'm beginning to think the most common usage of the word tonality is (just) as an artistic term.

Lacking a way to measure it, I don't see how I could call it anything else.
Click to expand...

It's not an "artistic term" (whatever that may be): it's a descriptive term.
And who says you can't measure it?

But first you will have to know what to look for, what it is.



You are already talking about how to use it, and are assigning qualifications like "good" and "superb".
As said above, i think it is a descriptive term. The aestheticism, the verdict comes later, is not it.
 
Q.G. said:
It's not an "artistic term" (whatever that may be): it's a descriptive term.
And who says you can't measure it?

But first you will have to know what to look for, what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it can be measured as long as we keep nebulous definition attempts out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register