awilder
Alan Wilder
Much has been made of tonality when describing lens performance and I was wondering if someone can explain it and better yet post some examples of outstanding verses merely good. I assume it got more to do with B&W negs, something I haven't dealt with in years. Any significance WRT slide film?
Finder
Veteran
Tonality is a subjective term. Since tonality does not exist independantly of the media (film or sensor) as well as the processing and possibly paper, I am not sure that the affects of the optics could ever be isolated. Naturally, the object and lighting are also going to impact the results.
Can an example be anything but this moment under these conditions? Rather than an illustration of a particular lens.
Personally, I have never seen a lens with good tonality. I have only seen pictures with that.
Can an example be anything but this moment under these conditions? Rather than an illustration of a particular lens.
Personally, I have never seen a lens with good tonality. I have only seen pictures with that.
x-ray
Veteran
Tonality is mainly a function of film, exposure and developemnt. Lens plays a smaller part than the above three. Think of tonality as the scale of tones from pure black to pure white and the number or reproducable levels within. Also playing into the equation is the ability of a film / developer combo to define those tones from black to white. Look at sensitometry and developemnt curves for different films. tonality is also related to color sensitivity even in B&W films. Films have areas of the spectrum they are more or less sensitive to. This is purely a function of the film and doesn't change with lenses or developer but does change with the addition of filters like K2, R, O or any other. Lenses can influence the smoothness that the tones are reproduced but also film and development will to a greater extent. IMO the lens is 10% and the other above factors are 90%. The one greatest influence in tonality of a lens is flare that can fill shadows and reduce tonality and detail.
Finder
Veteran
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Spanish man. He asked me about something a photographer friend had said. His friend was convinced that a shutter speed of 1/30 produce better pictures than higher speeds. I asked him if it was the shutter speed responsible for the result, or the lighting conditions that required that exposure.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
x-ray said:
But doesn't the fact that some lenses tend to push highlight tones to white more quickly than others mean that lenses can and do play a significant role (say greater than 10%) in realizing a certain tonality?
Finder
Veteran
J J Kapsberger said:
Only if they can have transmittances of greater than 100% and then they would be pushing all "tones."
I am not sure where you are getting this "fact." There is certainly no scientific basis to it.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Finder said:
I was referring to lenses that are described as harsh, say because of too much contrast. Doesn't that refer to the lenses' effect on tonality?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
J J Kapsberger said:
Some lenses have higher contrast than others. Thus the range of values from black to white is expanded. I don't know that I would say this necessarily pushes highlights to white (or perhaps towards white would be a better thing to say). I guess it could. But what I have observed, comparing a collapsible Summicron to the later 11817, and also to a 11819, is that the shadows are darker with the later, higher contrast lenses because they are no longer infused with stray light scattered inside the (lower contrast) lens. I haven't noticed any effect on the highlights, though I guess I wasn't looking for any.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Finder said:
But you can take the same picture with several lenses, under the same lighting conditions and using the same camera and film. That will reveal such differences as may exist among the lenses.
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Rob-F said:
That's what I was trying to get at. Each lens helps to render a unique tonality all other things being equal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the complete tonal range is a theoretical continuum of shades of gray from pure black to pure white. The tonality of an image is its arrangement of tones within the continuum. A contrasty image is one in which the mid-tones are suppressed and the lighter and darker tones are enhanced. A smooth image is one in which the differences in neighboring tones is quite small--i.e., the transition from dark to light is more gradual.
A contrasty lens can render a contrasty tonality.
I don't dispute X-ray's argument that film, developer and paper are preeminent in determining tonality; I'm questioning the extent to which the lens plays a part. Perhaps I misunderstand the concept of tonality.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
I think tonality also has a lot to do with grain density, which is affected most by film type, developer, and development. The denser/finer the grain, the greater the ability to render better tonality, which is like creaminess - the ability to render finer gradations of different tones.
Finder
Veteran
J J Kapsberger said:
The lens simply surpresses "tonality." The quality of the lens can yeild low contrast images. But if that is compensated by the processing, then so what. Naturally, a good lens can have the contrast surpressed by the processing and there again, the final image does not prove anything.
Your explination is really too simple. What the topic should be is tone reproduction, which is a systemic description of the photographic process. The lens does play a part, but it is not a defining part.
Finder
Veteran
Rob-F said:
I don't think that was going to be generated by the post. He simply asked for an image that showed a lens that had good "tonality." I put up a really nice image, but how can I claim it is the lens doing it?
Now, you can place a series of images as you suggest. But how do we evaluate them? I have often heard certain lenses are "blue" and other ones are "warm." But there is no measurement of the condition and so we don't know if the "blue" cast images are actually reproduced correctly and the "warm" image (which are usually perfered) are actually a distrotion from the optics. Same for "tonality" which would have to have some objective measurement of the conditions. Perhaps a good lens which would have the highest contrast would do the best in terms of reproduction could be last because the scene/processing/display favors a low-contrast lens. There again, we have no idea the lens is the cause, only that there is a difference.
Then there is taste. I have seen many folks who simply like the flat look of old uncoated lenses.
Ade-oh
Well-known
It's partly a function of film, partly a function of development, partly a function of printing and partly a function of the lens. What I mean by good 'tonality' is the ability to render detail across the range from highlights to shadows whilst maintaining attractive contrast, though others may disagree. Lenses which are sharp across the field certainly help with this.
x-ray
Veteran
If you don't believe film/exposure/processing play a major part in tonality then try a little experiment. Take a roll fo Efke/Adox KB25 and a roll of Acros 100 and shoot them in two bodies using the same lens but shoot exactly the same scene from a tripod and then over expose one two and three stops and then on the money and then under one two and three stops so you have seven negs. Expose each entire roll the same. Go into the darkroom and clip each roll in 1/3 segments and process the first at 1/3 less time, one neormal and one 1/3 over the time. Compare and print examples from each exposure and developement sequence. BIG BIG differences in each frame vs developemnt. Now take a roll of your choice of film and expose normal exposures through three different lenses of the same focal length (different brands) and process normally. Where do you dee the big difference? Exposure/developemnt/film are where it happens. It's likely you will see little to no difference between lenses but big differences on the other rolls with varying dev./exp/film.
Lenses do not push tones up to white. Contrast is different in older lenses with single or no coatings vs newer multi coated lenses. Mainly the differences are seen under high flare conditions adn with lenses of more complex formulas. Contrast is lower as a rule in non or single coated lenses due to flare from the len surfaces and internal structures. Flare is non image forming light that reduces the contrast especially in the shadows. Flare in high levels can effect the highlights but to a lesser extent. Flare reduces contrast but also can mask detail. Flare controll is one of the areas the Zeiss coatings are extremely effective and where Leica falls down on the job. My experience with leica glass has shown that Leica does not controll flare as well and even in the modern asph lenses.
Leica asph lenses seem to have a slightly more harsh transition in tones where as Zeiss seems to be slightly smoother in tonality. Both are sharp and both have good contrast under normal conditions with Zeiss pulling ahead under high flare conditions. The tonal differences are NOT EARTH SHATTERING between the two brands and even between CV and the other two.
Lenses do not push tones up to white. Contrast is different in older lenses with single or no coatings vs newer multi coated lenses. Mainly the differences are seen under high flare conditions adn with lenses of more complex formulas. Contrast is lower as a rule in non or single coated lenses due to flare from the len surfaces and internal structures. Flare is non image forming light that reduces the contrast especially in the shadows. Flare in high levels can effect the highlights but to a lesser extent. Flare reduces contrast but also can mask detail. Flare controll is one of the areas the Zeiss coatings are extremely effective and where Leica falls down on the job. My experience with leica glass has shown that Leica does not controll flare as well and even in the modern asph lenses.
Leica asph lenses seem to have a slightly more harsh transition in tones where as Zeiss seems to be slightly smoother in tonality. Both are sharp and both have good contrast under normal conditions with Zeiss pulling ahead under high flare conditions. The tonal differences are NOT EARTH SHATTERING between the two brands and even between CV and the other two.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Hmmm, lots of answers, but still no pictures... 
I agree with most that tonality is less of a lens factor than film, development, and post-processing.
Here's my simplistic definition, what I consider "good" tonality is an image whose highlights are not annoying to see, and the shadows are not murky, *and* as an overall, it's not boring grey.
... and an example that I think has a good tonality.
What do you guys think?
I agree with most that tonality is less of a lens factor than film, development, and post-processing.
Here's my simplistic definition, what I consider "good" tonality is an image whose highlights are not annoying to see, and the shadows are not murky, *and* as an overall, it's not boring grey.
... and an example that I think has a good tonality.
What do you guys think?
Finder
Veteran
shadowfox said:Hmmm, lots of answers, but still no pictures...
What is wrong with my Avatar??
Sparrow
Veteran
shadowfox said:Hmmm, lots of answers, but still no pictures...
I agree with most that tonality is less of a lens factor than film, development, and post-processing.
Here's my simplistic definition, what I consider "good" tonality is an image whose highlights are not annoying to see, and the shadows are not murky, *and* as an overall, it's not boring grey.
... and an example that I think has a good tonality.
What do you guys think?
tonality, as I understand to be is the transition from light to dark, so I suppose “good” tonality could be described as a linier response (where the tones are equally distributed across the bandwidth of the medium) and “bad” tonality as nonlinear where the response is varied across the bandwidth, the method of producing the response is a different question altogether
Weather either matter in any particular image is, naturally, the creative decision of the photographer
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
I would'nt say tonality is linear or not because I don't think it has to be. It's all dependent on subject. I'll post some images here that have beautiful tonality (must see original prints) and the tones are anything but evenly distributed. Note the large areas of deep tones from black to just above black but the range of tones are very broad. Good tonality is due to exposure/ filem selection/ processing/ printing or scanning properly. It's not an accident, it requires skill and it's not due to leica glass vs cv or Zeiss glass either. It's 90% the tallent of the photographer and 10% equipment.
The photo of the moonshiner is a good example of what I said about skill. This shot was under terrible and very contrasty lighting. I shot HP5 at 100 and pull processed 2 stops. This is nearly a straight print and has beautiful tones.
The photo of the moonshiner is a good example of what I said about skill. This shot was under terrible and very contrasty lighting. I shot HP5 at 100 and pull processed 2 stops. This is nearly a straight print and has beautiful tones.
x-ray
Veteran
Three more examples of very good tonality.