• 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:
In a sense that's what I've done here.
Click to expand...

Except that nobody here is talking about any particular image, so the conversation is inevitably very general. While it is interesting to hear a dozen different definitions of tonality, it still doesn't shed much light on what some other person X means when they say to you tomorrow that a particular image has "wonderful tonality". For that, you need to ask that person to explain their use of the term in relation to that image.

Ian
 

Ian,

Don't underestimate these generalities, they really have helped me.

I now have better questions to ask.

I have a better idea of what others mean when they say tonality.

I have even refined my thoughts on printing some.

I have more tools to tell the difference between an artistic answer, a technical answer, and a non-answer.
 
markbarendt said:
If we are talking about a print:

The entire possible tonal range is from paper white to maximum black.

Is this what you are calling the tonality? Is there more to it than that?
Click to expand...
Yes. I tried to explain it in my last post. May be my English is not fluid enough.
 
Tonality, just like composition, is a quality of an image as a whole.
It's not a bit of it, like tonal range.
 
Q.G. said:
Tonality, just like composition, is a quality of an image as a whole.
It's not a bit of it, like tonal range.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of an artistic stand on the definition.

That is your intent right Q.G.?
 
This morning I printed a few fun shots, a statue portrait with a church exterior with bright white crosses on top as the background, they are drying right now.

Printed grade 2 first, actually quite nice there, but I decided I wanted to have stronger whites so went to grade 3 to keep some more detail out of the bright white crosses, put the shadows at the same point on both. Grade 3 was just right by my estimation. (When my wife took a look she liked the grade 2 print better.)

How would you describe this change in the print?
 
markbarendt said:
So...

If we are talking about a print:

The entire possible tonal range is from paper white to maximum black.
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with that and here it is: Pt/Pd prints do not have the DMax, and the prints tend to be made on papers that don't have the brightest paper white either. So, according to the range definition, that means that Pt/Pd prints necessarily have inferior tonality to silver. I don't accept that.

This is really an RC silver (and dare I say digital) prejudice, that bigger DMax-DMin = superior tonality.
 

Why?

Personally, I think your use of "inferior" here is simply an example of choosing the wrong type of word to describe "tonality".

The gradation may actually be more to your liking and if I'm not mistaken more of the film's curve can be printed more easily.

If the final print is what you planned and expected why should it be considered "inferior".

It's like the prints I made this morning, my wife liked the softer print, I liked the harder one, so what? Neither is inferior.
 
markbarendt said:
How would you describe this change in the print?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

"You upped the contrast" is exactly the way I would say it in day-to-day casual conversation.
 
Mark, if tonality is "range of tones" and if that is defined by DMax-DMin, then great tonality means great range of tones means largest DMax-DMin, no? I am merely exploring the consequences of this definition, which I still think is too simple. I am saying, all along, that what happens between the extreme tones, between DMax and DMin, that is where the magic is.

I have seen many Pt/Pd prints made by very competent printmakers, and the typical things you hear from people when they see those prints are: great tonality, I love the tonality, can I get that tonality with silver, etc. I am not kidding, the term is very widely used in describing Pt/Pd and albumen. The implication is that there is something special about the tonality.

On the flip side, we have all been witness to arguments that higher DMax and lower DMin implies a better print, period. Transitions/curve be damned! I can get deeper blacks on a glossy inkjet print than any silver paper, ta da! Baryta papers have such a spectacularly white paper white that they practically glow in the dark, whoopee!

Is that greater tonality? This is what I wish for you to consider.

Now if you broaden the range definition to include transitions / gradations, then my issue is resolved: the transitions between tones are as important (if not even more important) than DMax-DMin.

I am well aware that "range of tones" can be interpreted in two very different ways and that may be source of the gentle banter in this thread. Range of tones can be the literal range, which I am calling DMax-DMin; or it can be the number of tones between DMax and DMin. But in either case you are still counting tones rather than addressing transitions.

My central concern is that "range of tones" has already acquired the meaning of DMax-DMin. It really has. That's probably because DMax-DMin is something you can easily measure and you can attach a single number to, i.e. you might measure that for a particular silver RC it is 2.6, which implies 2.6 / log 2 or about 8 stops of range in the print, assuming that paper white is fairly close to DMin=0. Hence all the hooplah in recent years about inkjet prints having deeper DMax. Grrrr! Those of us who went through all the various inksets etc. can testify that DMax isn't the whole story at all... it is how many intermediate tones you can get, the transitions, how many intermediate greys... and how smooth the transitions are between them. It's the knee and the toe and what you do with the fast part of the curve. And guess what, we've seen a very steady progression in inksets from just black and white to black and white a lots of greys.

I bring all this inkjetty stuff up not to start an A vs. D argument (please, no!) but to demonstrate the consequences of saying that range= DMax-DMin.

If you say range of tones is more than DMax-DMin, well then we might be making some progress toward a useful and more robust definition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2F/2F said:
Are you serious?

"You upped the contrast" is exactly the way I would say it in day-to-day casual conversation.
Click to expand...

Sure.

There are other ways to describe this.

The black and white points of the paper did not change so overall print contrast did not change, but the gradation did.

I shortened the the papers curve so that I could print a shorter part of the negative's curve. So I used less of the negative's total contrast/density, in this case I gave up highlight detail to emphasize certain elements.

What I'm trying to find here are better ways to understand and teach myself and others how to get a desired result.
 

That is precisely my point, that even with only two constituent tones (call them black and white), you can get buttery smooth transitions... if the density of specks/pixels is very high. This is important because it is precisely why format size and enlargement factor matter so much.

If you take the 'range of tones' definition and apply it to the (extreme!) case of only black and white constituent tones, then you have to say that it is a 1 bit image... therefore crappy tonality. But it's not necessarily true! It's how you spatially arrange those two tones that matters.

The hairs that I am splitting do matter a lot in the modern context. Your HD TV set employs dithering for this very reason. It is to avoid banding (or what I usually call posterization) and that pixelated jagged-edge appearance.

There is a rather nice overview at this wikipedia link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither#Digital_photography_and_image_processing

Now, at fast tone boundaries (edges) where we normally speak of acutance, that is where these issues really matter a lot. At fast boundaries, you can easily get halo effects and such, if the number of intermediate tones is not high. That's why acutance is part of the discussion... high acutance implies fast transitions, and if you don't have enough intermediate tones at a high acutance image, well you get that pixelated look.

Bottom line: for me this discussion is mostly about intermediate tones and what you do with them, not simply the two extreme tones (maximum black and paper white). That's what troubles me about your definition, which to me implies simply that (DMax-DMin)/log 2 = range of tones = tonality. If you are saying there is more to it than that, then we are converging in opinion!
 
keithwms said:
Mark, if tonality is "range of tones" and if that is defined by DMax-DMin, then great tonality means great range of tones means largest DMax-DMin, no?
Click to expand...

No. Why should it? In my head each process has a specific look that appeals to certain people and not others.


I have no doubt that the word is common. People love to abbreviate. Tonality used in the context you describe seems to me to be an abbreviated answer, maybe short for "I love the way the tones transition so smoothly in this photo and they still hold such incredible detail, wow!

keithwms said:
f you say range of tones is more than DMax-DMin, well then we might be making some progress toward a useful and more robust definition.
Click to expand...

There's room for that.

Part of what can be measured is the length of the negative's curve. How much of the scene we shot are we actually printing?

I don't know that we can meaningfully condense that thought and d-Min/Max into one word.

Part of the problem I have is with forcing the definition of tonality to cross compare processes; silver, PT/PD, Salt, carbon, or whatever...

I have a feeling that this cross comparison need is driven more by the competitive zealots among our peers, than by the audience for our work.
 
markbarendt said:
No. Why should it? In my head each process has a specific look that appeals to certain people and not others.
Click to expand...

A-ha! So you accept a qualitative definition. And yet I am the one who is being vague

Seriously, will you or Ralph please tell me whether you consider 'range of tones' to be (DMax-DMin)/log 2? Or do you have another definition of range of tones? If you say that it is (DMax-DMin) / log 2 per spatial length scale in the print, then we are on the same page. That is not vague.
 

Yea!

All I care about is not being vague.

As to the qualitative definition, I fully accept the differences between different processes and materials.

As long as we are comparing silver to silver, PT/PD to PT/PD, ... , there's no reason I can see to be vague.
 
markbarendt said:
As long as we are comparing silver to silver, PT/PD to PT/PD, ... , there's no reason I can see to be vague.
Click to expand...

See, that is my issue with the 'range of tones' definition. 'Range of tones' is a quantifiable thing, no question about it. We can all agree how to count the tones, one way or another. Yet the way we use the word 'tonality' implies some other aspects that are harder to quantify, does it not? That's where my problem is, with the 'range of tones' definition. I am saying that there is more to it than just tone counting. Tone counting is simple... too simple. And frankly it is far too biased towards the glossy silver or inkjet print- the idea that you must have a bottomless black and gleaming white to have optimal tonality.

Anyway... Ralph's new book has a nice related section around page 297 concerning what tones we can actually discriminate. Everybody should buy the book and then we can discuss that further
 
markbarendt said:
This is a good example of an artistic stand on the definition.

That is your intent right Q.G.?
Click to expand...

Not quite.

It is not artistic.
It is a quality of a print. Something that is visible, and - should you care to develop units and tools - something you can measure. Quantifiable (some people seem to only like things when they are expressed as numbers. Methinks they should really try to pluck up some courage and face the world as it is). The way things are.

When you start thinking about how to 'rate' it, what to do with it, how to use it as a means to and end, then you are beginning that 'artistic' thing.
 
Q.G. said:
Tonality, just like composition, is a quality of an image as a whole.
It's not a bit of it, like tonal range.
Click to expand...

That's one possible definition, but I don't think it's universally understood that way. To me tonal range and tonality are the same thing, and that's how I interpret Stroebel's definition. However, if most people understand it as outlined above, I'm happy to change my view of it. After all, I like the idea of universal definitions, because I don't want to second-guess of having to ask what people meant when they use a word.

Let me propose another definition:

Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to its range of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Great. Now we have to define "black points" and "white points." But seriously; what are they?

I would hazard to guess that if you "gave up highlight detail to emphasize certain elements," then whatever "points" are, they changed...as did overall print contrast.
 
2F/2F said:
Great. Now we have to define "black points" and "white points." But seriously; what are they?
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have said Maximum Black and paper white.

2F/2F said:
I would hazard to guess that if you "gave up highlight detail to emphasize certain elements," then whatever "points" are, they changed...as did overall print contrast.
Click to expand...

The characteristic curve for the Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe shows all the VC curves topping at the same density.

That means maximum black is the same regardless of what grade it's printed at, so I can't change that, right?

The color of the paper is fixed too, might be possible to change but I didn't.

This means the paper's overall contrast range is fixed, regardless of the grade it is being printed at.

The gradation will change, how quickly we get from white to black, but global/overall paper contrast doesn't change.

The points that got modified IMO were on the film not the paper. I used less of the negative to print with.
 
markbarendt said:
The points that got modified IMO were on the film not the paper. I used less of the negative to print with.
Click to expand...

I thought about this a bit more and I think I was wrong.

What changed was the amount of exposure needed by the paper to make Maximum Black. It took less exposure to get black at grade 3 than at grade 2. Reduced exposure also means more paper white.

I did still print less of the negative.
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-tone-shade.svg/800px-Tint-tone-shade.svg.png

Dead Link Removed

http://rip94550.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/color-hsb-and-tint-tone-shade/

http://www.tigercolor.com/color-lab/color-theory/color-theory-intro.htm



Tints, Shades, and Tones
These terms are often used incorrectly, although they describe fairly simple color concepts. If a color is made lighter by adding white, the result is called a tint. If black is added, the darker version is called a shade. And if gray is added, the result is a different tone.


http://painting.about.com/od/colourtheory/a/Fresia_Tonality.htm


Tonality is not the same as value or tone although it helps to explain value or tonal relationships. While value refers to the relative lightness or darkness of things independent of color (as in a black and white photograph), tonality has to do with the way colors unify.

When Monet said it is the "surrounding atmosphere which gives subjects their true value" he was referring to tonality or quality of light (atmosphere) in which a subject exists. Tonality is the quality of light that bathes everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register