What is meant by tonality?

[Allen Friday]

1. Many, many, many years ago, I was in a discussion on photography which stuck with me. The leader of the discussion asked the rest of us to define the word "photograph." This was a simple matter, the rest of us quickly gave the standard definitions, from the technical/scientific to how the term is used in casual conversation. The leader then asked us to imagine we met someone who had never seen a photograph. He asked us to describe a photograph to someone who had never seen one. (For example, you visited Paris in 1840, saw a photograph and then went back to America and had to explain what a photograph was to your friends). In trying to describe a photograph, it quickly became evident that the definitions of photograph were of very little help.

I think we are in a similar position in this discussion. We can define tone and tonality. The definitions run the gamut from highly technical to more general, common usage. But, the definitions fall short when trying to describe.

2. When referring to tone in a photograph and how it works or doesn't work, why it is effective in one work and not another, we are a bit like wine tasters. We have to go outside scientific or technical language to other descriptors, metaphor, simile... The language is less precise, sometimes absurd, but in general, it works to describe. When my wife tells me a cabernet is "bold, has an hint of oak and a quiet finish," I have a pretty good idea how the wine will taste. Similarly, if she tells me she doesn't like my platinum print because it lacks tone and is flat and lifeless, I understand. Hopefully I can fix it in the next print.

 

[MattKing]

...

We can define tone and tonality. The definitions run the gamut from highly technical to more general, common usage. But, the definitions fall short when trying to describe.

..

I agree.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Okay, let's play with the brick house analogy.

If the brick house is the finished print and if as you say "everything in an image is a result of a variation in tonality", then; the composition, lighting, exposure, film, paper, developers, enlargers, lenses, etcetera are "the bricks", and all the personal choices we each might make are "the skilled placement of those bricks".

Each of these things contributes to the tonality.

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.

What I'm suggesting by using the word artistic is that tonality is "subjective".

 

[Q.G.]

Okay, let's play with the brick house analogy.

If the brick house is the finished print and if as you say "everything in an image is a result of a variation in tonality", then; the composition, lighting, exposure, film, paper, developers, enlargers, lenses, etcetera are "the bricks", and all the personal choices we each might make are "the skilled placement of those bricks".

Each of these things contributes to the tonality.

"Contributes to", yes. In a way
"Is", no.

In a way, because all we see (simplifying - that's what you get using analogies ) in that house are bricks. All we see in an image are variations in tone (and colour, if it's a colour image). That's in all images: it's how light and visibility works.
How variations in tone come to be distributed in an image we capture is a result of all those things.
But though sharpness and resolution consist of a particular spatial distribution of those tones, neither are gradation, contrast, density range, nor tonality.

Composition is something else. It's an appreciation of what the things in an image are and where they are. A step beyond the mere physical being of the print itself.

What I'm suggesting by using the word artistic is that tonality is "subjective".

That's clear and understood. It was all along. But it's (still) wrong.
Tonality is part of the physical make up of an image. There's nothing subjective about it (unless you would say that every observational thing - i.e. absolutely everything - is subjective.)

The "art" begins when (and i repeat myself) we begin attaching likes and dislikes to something. And when we begin to use those things that make us like or dislike something as a means to an, our, end.

 

[markbarendt]

"Contributes to", yes. In a way "Is", no.

So a poor choice of word on my part. I can live with that edit.

In a way, because all we see (simplifying - that's what you get using analogies ) in that house are bricks. All we see in an image are variations in tone (and colour, if it's a colour image).

This is not conditional from the viewer's POV, in fact I would suggest that is absolute.

All that can be seen by the viewer of a print (or seen of the brick house) is the resulting densities (bricks) scattered about here and there.

Were they scattered well or not is a subjective question.

Tonality is part of the physical make up of an image. There's nothing subjective about it (unless you would say that every observational thing - i.e. absolutely everything - is subjective.).

If tonality is not subjective then it stands to reason that it is measurable.

So specifically; How can we measure it? What tools should we use? What numbers/curves/graphs do we need/are possible?

--------------

None of the definitions I've seen here are that specific.

--------------

With regard to composition's contribution, I am arguing now that the placement of elements within the scene has a huge effect on what the viewer perceives and their reaction. So does how bright or dark I might choose to print, where I choose to burn and dodge, etcetera...

Specifically, how is it possible to quantify these choices?

 

[Q.G.]

All that can be seen by the viewer of a print (or seen of the brick house) is the resulting densities (bricks) scattered about here and there.

Were they scattered well or not is a subjective question.

Absolutely.
Now the thing is that the fact that they are scattered, and how, is what this thing "tonality" is. An observational thing. A description. Not a judgement.

The way you like or dislike it, they way you want to direct the scattering in future scatterings to create things you like or dislike is art. And subjective.

If tonality is not subjective then it stands to reason that it is measurable.

So specifically; How can we measure it? What tools should we use? What numbers/curves/graphs do we need/are possible?

Ralph already mentioned histograms. You could expand on that theme and not just count tones but relate them to their position. Then you could go on and measure things like the largest and smallest transitions in tone. Let statistics run rampant with that too. Etc.
But nobody does that.

And ask yourself, is it something you would need/want to measure? To serve what purpose?

With regard to composition's contribution, I am arguing now that the placement of elements within the scene has a huge effect on what the viewer perceives and their reaction. So does how bright or dark I might choose to print, where I choose to burn and dodge, etcetera...

Specifically, how is it possible to quantify these choices?

Here you are still mixing the what-a-thing-is and how-we-like-a-thing.

In composition in particular (except of the abstract kind perhaps), another thing enters the equation: representation and interpretation. It matters what we think the things we see juxtaposed in an image are, and what relation between those thingies we think the composition conveys.

Now how would you quantify any other choice based on preferences and such?
It could be done. In fact it is done (marketing people do such things habitually).

But why? Why not do what artists do, who do use those likes and dislikes, and knowledge of how composition has an effect on what the viewer sees, feels, and thinks by the seat of their pants, guided by their gut feeling, basing it on how it works on themselves.
No metrics needed. As i said before (that is, i believe it was here) we do not need to quantify the world, reduce eveything to numbers to be able to make sense of it and do things.

But still an interesting question. How to quantify what we feel when we see something.

 

[markbarendt]

Absolutely.
Now the thing is that the fact that they are scattered, and how, is what this thing "tonality" is.

It is also a good description of what composition is.

An observational thing. A description. Not a judgement.

Yeah, it's subjective.

Ralph already mentioned histograms. You could expand on that theme and not just count tones but relate them to their position.

That relates to composition, it is subjective, created at the whim of the photographer.

Then you could go on and measure things like the largest and smallest transitions in tone. Let statistics run rampant with that too. Etc.
But nobody does that.

Unless we do that tonality will remain in the subjective/artistic realm.

And ask yourself, is it something you would need/want to measure? To serve what purpose?

Do we want to be able to teach somebody how to create good tonality?

 

[Q.G.]

It is also a good description of what composition is.

No. It is not.

Yeah, it's subjective.

Again: no, it is not.

Unless you want to suggest that everything is subjective. A valid point of view.
But not one that matches your point of view, i believe.

We keep going over this: an observational thing is something you see. Without judging it, without turning it into an subjective thing.

That relates to composition, it is subjective, created at the whim of the photographer.

No, no.
I can't think how you could even think that where tones appear in a print is a subjective thing.
"I think that the top crossbar of this capital letter 'T' is somewhat too short."
Now i could understand if you would disagree, and think it long enough. That's a subjective call.
But if you would say "What crossbar? I see a smooth, curved line?!", i think you will agree that something would be very wrong.

Tones, colours, happen to be in a certain spot in an image. No matter how we feel about it.

Composition is something more than that. As said before.

Unless we do that tonality will remain in the subjective/artistic realm.

Again: no.
Have you measured, 'quantified' how tall the cup or mug is out of which you drink your coffee? If not, does that make the height of that cup something artistic or subjective?
If you see that your coffeepot is much higher, is that observed difference in height subjective or artistic, because you do not know yet what it is expressed in numbers?
What magic would it be that you do believe numbers perform???

Do we want to be able to teach somebody how to create good tonality?

I don't know.

What i do know is that it would be very hard to do so when you still keep mixing up the thing itself with how you like it.

 

[markbarendt]

We obviously have different thoughts here Q.G. and that's okay.

Good night

 

[Curt]

Dead Link Removed

For landscapes in black and white photography shadows and light, along with contrast, create
tones, or tonality, and they all have huge effects on the mood of your photograph.

Of the critical black and white photography techniques, understanding the way colors translate into black and white tones is really important.

To make sure you are not disappointed with your black and white landscape photography, you need to get a good grasp of this concept called "tonality," and how to master it using shadows and light.

shadows and light, along with contrast, create
tones, or tonality

Shadows, light and contrast create tonality. Shadows + Light + Contrast = Tonality

Tonality can be measured in two ways, one with a reflective densitometer and the other with a subjective statement from an individual. It's both Art and Science.

What is Tonality?
Think about a white ball on a white background and a circular piece of paper on the same background. If there is no directional lighting, there will be no shadows or highlights, and so there will be no visible difference in either object. There is no range of tones.

Add some light, create some shadows and the difference in the resulting tones is really visible. There is a reflection on the ball, some highlights, and of course, a shadow.

You can clearly see that the ball is three dimensional, while the cut out is flat. The new tones add more information and more range to the photo.

The range of shades of grey – the tones – have increased, resulting in a more dynamic photograph.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Originally Posted by Q.G.
Ralph already mentioned histograms. You could expand on that theme and not just count tones but relate them to their position.

That relates to composition, it is subjective, created at the whim of the photographer.

As long as Q.G. meant 'position' within the histogram, it's what I meant with distribution of tones and not composition.

 

[Q.G.]

I didn't, Ralph.

A histogram only captures how often a tone appears in a print. The spatial distribution of tones in an image is part of tonality.
An image containing a smooth continuous transition from black to white has a completely different tonality compared to one containing alternating lines, one series of lines going from black to white separated by a series of lines going from white to black. Yet they will have exactly the same histogram.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

[markbarendt]

Shadows, light and contrast create tonality. Shadows + Light + Contrast = Tonality

Tonality can be measured in two ways, one with a reflective densitometer and the other with a subjective statement from an individual. It's both Art and Science.

The reflective densitometer can measure the contrast point by point in the print.

A scanner or DSLR could be used to measure most all of the points.

Still, in general practice, we only get two types of output from these tools.

1- A histogram that counts and plots the brightness of points in the image on a graph; that tells us a lot about where the exposure fell, it tells us nothing about tonality.

2- An image viewable in a different medium which just puts us back at square one with a bigger audience.

--------------

The other problem with the densitometer or histogram route is, as was discussed earlier, the difference in the maximum black and maximum white possible in silver vs. PT/PD or other media.

The darkest black and the brightest white aren't necessarily important to tonality.

--------------

The examples given in the article you linked do show the importance of the lighting. That deserves more thought.

This also implies that tonality is more than just material and process.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... 1- A histogram that counts and plots the brightness of points in the image on a graph; that tells us a lot about where the exposure fell, it tells us nothing about tonality. ...

It shows range and distribution.

 

[Q.G.]

Indeed.

And, Mark, how can you still say that the count and "brightness of points in an image", that "where the exposure fell" says "nothing about tonality"?
Were all those posts wasted, i wonder?

 

[markbarendt]

It shows range and distribution.

Okay but to what end?

With regard to range, isn't that driven by the context? For example comparing a high key studio portrait to a landscape shot. Both may have great "tonality" but the range may be tremendously different.

With regard to distribution, if the hump is left the picture is dark, if to the right it's light. To me that is a "zone" placement choice or a compositional choice.

For example, many of Karsh's portraits have significant and competing areas of "rich blacks" and "bright whites". They may actually have two humps in the histogram, one left, one right.

How does that matter to the "tonality"? How is this usable?

 

[markbarendt]

Indeed.

And, Mark, how can you still say that the count and "brightness of points in an image", that "where the exposure fell" says "nothing about tonality"?
Were all those posts wasted, i wonder?

From what I can see the histogram tells us nothing of how the tones interact; it doesn't tell us about sharpness, it does give us an overall measure of tonal transition/contrast but it makes no local distinctions.

The range indicated by every histogram is limited by the scene; compare a studio set vs. a back-lit sunset portrait. The studio may have a 4 f-stop range, the sunset shot may have 14.

Does that difference in range give one or the other an advantage?

 

[Q.G.]

Okay but to what end?

With regard to range, isn't that driven by the context? For example comparing a high key studio portrait to a landscape shot. Both may have great "tonality" but the range may be tremendously different.

Indeed. So is their tonality. That's what you are saying.
So what exactly are you asking?

You do keep in mind that "great" is a qualification you and i may attach to tonality, but that tonality itself is indifferent?

With regard to distribution, if the hump is left the picture is dark, if to the right it's light. To me that is a "zone" placement choice or a compositional choice.

It's tonality.

Zone placement is a term out of some obscure religion, and we should not bother ourselves with that.
But seriously: it doesn't help bringing in terms from the ZS. It's apparently difficult enough to explain without.

Composition is a choice we make regarding how to distribute subjects in a frame. That involves differences in tone, but goes beyond tonality.
I'm sure that has been said several times now.

For example, many of Karsh's portraits have significant and competing areas of "rich blacks" and "bright whites". They may actually have two humps in the histogram, one left, one right.

How does that matter to the "tonality"? How is this usable?

That is tonality.

Usable it can be if you take a note of it, how you like that, and how Karsh managed to achieve it, so you can aim for something similar.

 

[Q.G.]

From what I can see the histogram tells us nothing of how the tones interact; it doesn't tell us about sharpness, it does give us an overall measure of tonal transition/contrast but it makes no local distinctions.

Apart from the fact that histograms do not give an overall measurement of tonal transition and contrast (see the example if have given a few posts up, in reply to Ralph), all correct..
As a measure of tonality, all of tonality, it falls short.
But that does not change the fact that what histograms show is part of tonality.

The range indicated by every histogram is limited by the scene; compare a studio set vs. a back-lit sunset portrait. The studio may have a 4 f-stop range, the sunset shot may have 14.

See how histograms do convey tonality, albeit not all of it?

Does that difference in range give one or the other an advantage?

"Advantage"?

That difference in range is part of a difference in tonality.

 

[markbarendt]

Indeed. So is their tonality. That's what you are saying.
So what exactly are you asking?

So regardless of the range involved, acceptable tonality is possible.

Given that why is range even important to the discussion?

This is the concern PT/PD printers have raised.

That is tonality.

Usable it can be if you take a note of it, how you like that, and how Karsh managed to achieve it, so you can aim for something similar.

So, are you saying Karsh's placement of "rich blacks" and "bright whites" is tonality?

Sounds a lot like composition and lighting choices to me.

 

[Q.G.]

So regardless of the range involved, acceptable tonality is possible.

You keep dragging terms like "acceptable" into this.
So once more (and take note!): there is tonality, and there is how you like or dislike tonality. Two different things.

Given that why is range even important to the discussion?

This is the concern PT/PD printers have raised.

Because the question we have been trying to answer for too long now is "what is meant by tonality?", not "how do i like a given image's tonality".

And because, of course, the range is part of tonality.

So, are you saying Karsh's placement of "rich blacks" and "bright whites" is tonality?

Sounds a lot like composition and lighting choices to me.

That's because you still haven't managed to keep clear and distinct concepts apart.

 

[markbarendt]

See how histograms do convey tonality, albeit not all of it?

No.

They show a dumbed down version of the overall brightness/density, the print shows the full set of data.

Histograms are a step backwards because they say nothing about the interplay of dark and light within the photo.

 

[markbarendt]

That's because you still haven't managed to keep clear and distinct concepts apart.

So for you tonality is just a measure of contrast, gradation, and density?

 

[Q.G.]

No.

They show a dumbed down version of the overall brightness/density, the print shows the full set of data.

Histograms are a step backwards because they say nothing about the interplay of dark and light within the photo.

Histograms are limited in what they can show, yes.
But what they show is something that is part of what tonality is. Not the complete thing, but still an integral part of tonality.

So i agree that they are of limited use when exploring tonality. They do indeed not show the interplay of dark and light in the image as a whole.
But that does not mean they are of no use whatsoever.