• 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?

RalphLambrecht said:
I thought a bit more about it and got to this:

Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them.
Click to expand...

It's nice to see that even though you are an author and can speak authoritatively, you are not authoritarian.
And though you speak with authority about tonality, you are not tonalitarian.
 
Tone is what I hear when a cell phone rings while at a seminar.

But I'm tone deaf. Just kidding!

Oh, you may want visual tone?

Why type when I can point you to a link:

http://www.awdsgn.com/introvc/wk5/introvc-wk5.html

The world isn't just black or white, but those two ends of the spectrum and everything in-between.

Photography is about light & shadows.

Have a great week.
 
lxdude said:
It's nice to see that even though you are an author and can speak authoritatively, you are not authoritarian.
And though you speak with authority about tonality, you are not tonalitarian.
Click to expand...

 
RalphLambrecht said:
I thought a bit more about it and got to this:

Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

And if we now can get rid of the incorrect notion, that has been making an appearance in this thread now and again, that this is something "artistic", the thread is done, the question answered in full.
 
Q.G. said:
My thoughts exactly.

And if we now can get rid of the incorrect notion, that has been making an appearance in this thread now and again, that this is something "artistic", the thread is done, the question answered in full.
Click to expand...

Then we can get rid the emotional impact from the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them too.

Overall appearance is in the eye of the beholder.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
I thought a bit more about it and got to this:

Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them.
Click to expand...

Having thought about this definition some now and have come to the conclusion that it lacks "definition".

By that I mean that it leaves lots of room for artistic/subjective interpretation.

-----

Tonality is the appearance of an image with respect to the range of tones and the smoothness of gradation between them.
Click to expand...

This version is more definable, but I have a feeling some won't want to be pinned down that much.

I'm beginning to think that it may be that tonality is just the wrong word to use when trying to learn or teach materials and processes.
 
Mark

I felt that the inclusion if 'distribution' is necessary, because 'range' alone does not cover it. Just think of the tonal histogram (as seen in Photoshop). The distribution of tones can change the appearance of an image completely while keeping the range consistent.
 

So true. The tonal histogram reveals all manner of things, such as poor transitions and banding. And those things can happen even when the tones around the black and white extremes are fine and smooth. I know a lot of film users don't like to think in terms of histograms, but... they're an excellent diagrammatic teaching tool, if nothing else.
 

Which gradation, gradual but how gradual, and what condition or quality? How is a step or stage defined?

Good: Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones and the smoothness between them.

Better: Tonality is the overall appearance of an image with respect to the range and distribution of tones.

Best: Tonality is the overall appearance of an image.

If it's an artistic or subjective interpretation then Tonality is the overall appearance of an image.
 
Curt, that definition is way too broad, in my opinion.

In fact, I'm not sure I can think of anything broader than 'overall appearance' ... which to me includes everything from composition to final presentation. Tonality is way more specific than that, in my mind at least.

And b&w photography deserves it's own definition, frankly. We aren't beholden to the way the term is used in any other visual art. B&w photography emphasizes tonality perhaps more than any other visual art... except perhaps charcoal drawing. But that is another thread, probably
 

I'm bending the boundaries to see if there is an easier to digest definition.

Black and White photography does deserve its own use of the word tonality. It shouldn't be confused with other mediums and with music. What I see as the problem is a definition of tonality as it applies to a black and white photograph. The presentation can change how the tonality appears and physical factors in the environment can affect the viewed image.
 
Alright, I'll depart my prior quantitative reasoning and try another broad definition for the more abstract-minded among us

This definition will borrow somewhat from the concept of "fidelity".... which implies accurate representation. In photography, we accept the possibility that the photographic representation is not necessarily a literal depiction. The photograph is a representation of the thought process relating the subject to the photographer.

Uh oh, I just tried to define photography; that'll get me in trouble for sure Anyway, with all that in mind:

Photographers use tones to represent a subject. The choice of representative tones defines the tonality. So... the tonality is how the printed tones of the photograph represent the subject.
 

I'm not saying you are wrong.

The problem (from the materials and processes POV) with sticking "distribution" in is that it is dependent on the composition, exposure, and lighting; variables that are purely subjective.

Example, if we want to talk about the "tonality" of a material like Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe and how to adjust it or how different films may affect it, the "scene" doesn't matter, a step wedge would work.
 

I think that definition does include gradation. An image which has 'coarse' gradation isn't as effective at representing the values in the subject if it has smooth gradation.

While I think your original definition is very precise, and 'gradation' neatly describes the other half of the equation, most photographers seem to use the term tonality to mean both the range of tones and the gradation, as in your revised definition.

I often read people complaining about poor tonality in high speed films (TMZ and Delta 3200), which I suspect is a combination of their displeasure with large grain (and what that does to gradation) and the poor exposure these films often receive, which hacks away at the shadows. Often times, they go on to say things like, 'Tri-X at 250 has much better tonality,' which reinforces my interpretation of what they mean by tonality.

At least this is a term that you can have an intelligent discussion about. Terms like Leica glow, 3D, etc. are pointless to discuss with people in my opinion.
 
The length of the Big Toe Nail / the thickness of the Small Toe Nail x Planck's Constant X10 / the pencil hardness of the toe nail. Or an alien toe nail(Toe - Nail - E.T.)
Bill
Look, and ye shall see. Or close your eyes and guess.
 




Tonality is how the printed tones of a photograph represent the subject.
 

I think that's wrong.
Composition, for instance, is part of the overall appearance of an image So is sharpness-unsharpness and the use thereof. Colour too.
None of those are tonality.

So your "best" is your worst. Completely wrong.


Your "how it represents the subject" does not hit the mark either. What do you mean by "represent"? And how does that exclude things like the above mentioned composition etc.?
And why "printed" tones? As if only prints have tonality.
So also not right.


And why oh why does that "artistic" thing keep reappearing?
Tonality is an observational thing. Something you see.
How you like it, what it does emotionally, etc., and how you want to use it is a completely separate issue.
 
markbarendt said:
I'm not saying you are wrong.

The problem (from the materials and processes POV) with sticking "distribution" in is that it is dependent on the composition, exposure, and lighting; variables that are purely subjective.
Click to expand...

None of those are subjective. Why do you think that?
They are variables.

Distribution is integral part of tonality.

Composition goes beyond distribution. It is an interpretative term.
And as such composition depends on distribution, but distribution not on composition.

markbarendt said:
Example, if we want to talk about the "tonality" of a material like Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe and how to adjust it or how different films may affect it, the "scene" doesn't matter, a step wedge would work.
Click to expand...

And you would indeed not be talking about tonality, but about gradation and contrast.
 


Tonality is an observational thing. Something you see.
Click to expand...

If you can observe it though seeing then explain what you are seeing.
 
I don't know why I bother, but...

Q.G. said:
What do you mean by "represent"?
Click to expand...

All photographs are representations of some sort.

Q.G. said:
And how does that exclude things like the above mentioned composition etc.?
Click to expand...

Read the definition again. This is about how the tones effect the representation. (Sic... effect, not affect)

Q.G. said:
And why "printed" tones? As if only prints have tonality.
Click to expand...

This whole discussion is about print tonality, is it not? Now you want to turn it into something else? Make your own thread then!

Q.G. said:
So also not right.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Contribute something... a definition, an image, something....
 
Q.G. said:
None of those are subjective. Why do you think that?
They are variables.
Click to expand...

And overnight I came to a similar conclusion, that composition, exposure, and lighting are variables in tonality.

This thought though implies a larger context and firmly indicates to me that "tonality" is an artistic term.

I say this because composition, exposure, and lighting are personal choices we make in an effort to portray, for example, mood or personality.

Good tonality, portrays the intent of the photographer.

Q.G. said:
Distribution is integral part of tonality.

Composition goes beyond distribution. It is an interpretative term.
And as such composition depends on distribution, but distribution not on composition.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree.

Distribution is absolutely dependent on composition (and lighting). It is driven completely by what we point the camera at and how those elements in the scene are lit.

For example, many of Karsh's portraits have huge dark areas, like the portrait of Georgia O’Keeffe, but the balance between how much black or white is in a print is, IMO, irrelevant to it's "tonality".

Karsh's artistic choices move the distribution around and the physical placement of the dark and light elements in relation to each other.

This seems to be a distinct part of what "we" call tonality.

Q.G. said:
And you would indeed not be talking about tonality, but about gradation and contrast.
Click to expand...

And this is part of the confusion I see that surrounds "tonality's" common uses.

People try to describe HP5 or XP2 or Tri-X, outside the context of paper, composition, lighting, etcetera...; using the word tonality where they might be better off describing their thought with "gradation and contrast".

Example, I have heard some describe HP5 as looking "muddy", to me that suggests that maybe the exposure of the subject was simply placed to low on the curve or it was underdeveloped. Essentially they may be trying to print off the toe of the film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
keithwms said:
I don't know why I bother, but...
Click to expand...

Then don't.




keithwms said:
All photographs are representations of some sort.
Click to expand...

Sure. But what do you mean? A representation of a scene, as it "is"? A representation of your feelings about a subject? What?
A term more vague than "represent" is hardly possible.



keithwms said:
Read the definition again. This is about how the tones effect the representation. (Sic... effect, not affect)
Click to expand...

"Representation", you say?



keithwms said:
This whole discussion is about print tonality, is it not? Now you want to turn it into something else? Make your own thread then!
Click to expand...

You fail to understand that it 'still' is about tonality.
No surprise there.





keithwms said:
Whatever. Contribute something... a definition, an image, something....
Click to expand...

If anything, i would like my contribution to be that you shun threads i participate in.
 
markbarendt said:
And overnight I came to a similar conclusion, that composition, exposure, and lighting are variables in tonality.

This thought though implies a larger context and firmly indicates to me that "tonality" is an artistic term.
Click to expand...

That's stil not correct.

Yes, everything in an image is a result of a variation in tonality. That does not make everything tonality. Just like a brick house is a house, and not a variable in bricks.

And "artistic" is still about something else completely. About how you or i value something. How we use it to do soemthing.
Not about what that something is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register