full tonal range?

I think that full tonal range is not necessary or important. If two tones fulfill the photographers wishes they are enough. (In color photography no one would ask if all colors are important in a picture.)
 
I think it's more important that the exposure, film/developer combination, together with the optics chosen, are ABLE to give a full tonal range if desired.
 
What term "full" means? Like we speak about acceptable focus (for given aperture), probably same applies for tonal range, too. Some genres are more demanding, though why peep at pixels and tones when picture is plain crap...or breathtaking piece. Somewhere between we have time to discuss tonal range?
 
Last edited:
Even if full tonal range is important, the term is very much open to interpretation. If you compare the work of Roy DeCarava to that of Ansel Adams you'll find that both exhibit what can be considered a full tonal range and yet even subject matter aside, that might be one of the few aspects that their prints have in common. Both are virtuosos, both often show a full range of dark to light tones in their work, and yet the expression of those tones feel categorically different. This points to me that the intention of the photographer is more important than applying arbitrary standards to one's work.

However, if one has never produced a print with full tonal range, then I do feel it is important to learn how. It is in a sense a technical stepping stone to full aesthetic expression. As Al pointed out, if one can create a negative that allows for a full tonal range, then within some constraints, they have a negative that can be interpreted however they wish.
 
Well, sometimes you want it, sometimes you don't, the problem is, that if it isn't there in the first place, you cannot create it, it is like with the highlights in digital... I find, that if I really want to be able to play with tones in 35mm, I tend to use the old Leica glass, Tri X @250 and develop in Prescysol EF (pyro type developer). This way I get a huge histogram to start with:
3683815942_b68fea9cec_b.jpg


When I do not want it, I use the modern glass, with a high contrast film, and shoot against the light with AE, here's one with the 50/2 Planar ZM on Agfa SCALA:
2050466857_036255289b_b.jpg


Which is better? - depends...
 
Last edited:
Non, black and white, and only black and white. You want your test strip/strips to show you the full tonal range, and as Al Kaplan wisely states it helps of course if this achievable before you decide what it is that you want from your print and where it is that you want it.

Well, I say this as if I am stating a great and profound fact. I'm not, of course, and I have no desire to, it's just what I perceive as being important. To me, personally.

Print for 18% if you want.
 
completely depends on your style.
ask J-S Bach to write something without half tones..

and then so many artists now do wonders with two or three notes alone.🙄

coming back to photography, I would say it is certainly more important to a A. Adams than to a Mario Giacomelli.

Why do we want sharpness and resolution, when so many wonderfull HCB where complete crap in this area....
depends...
on your style.
 
mfogiel said:
Well, sometimes you want it, sometimes you don't, the problem is, that if it isn't there in the first place, you cannot create it, it is like with the highlights in digital... I find, that if I really want to be able to play with tones in 35mm, I tend to use the old Leica glass, Tri X @250 and develop in Prescysol EF (pyro type developer). This way I get a huge histogram to start with:
3683815942_b68fea9cec_b.jpg


When I do not want it, I use the modern glass, with a high contrast film, and shoot against the light with AE, here's one with the 50/2 Planar ZM on Agfa SCALA:
2050466857_036255289b_b.jpg


Which is better? - depends...
Click to expand...
Outstanding VISUAL comparision
It nailed it on the Head for Me
and NOW I crave a 50 Planar since I have been Drunk too Long on old Leica Glass ( which is LOVELY)
But I now DESIRE a New Look Creatively ....The Modern Look...

THANX for your Great Question JOE & Mfogiel for making me see Differently

Cheers- Helen 😀
 
Last edited:
i asked the question because i hoped it would lead to this very discussion and discovery.

all too often i see comments here and in critiques of photos about full tonal range, and i believe that my style does not go in that direction.
i prefer modern lenses, zeiss in particular for the look they impart and i process my files for a darker look with a bit more contrast.

i'm glad to see that not everyone is looking for full tonal range in every image.
 
Learn to work with the glass you already own! Zero in your film/developer/exposure so that you're getting a full tonal range negative WHEN THAT SUITS YOUR VISION.

Then there's that old sayng going back at least to before WW-II: "The lousier the negatives you produce the better the printer you'll become." The next time you really screw up a roll, either exposure or development, consider it as an opportunity to work on your printing skills.
 
I would rather compare classical music to modern heavy, rock, rap, etc...

You choose the technique you think suits your vision (as said) or you try to get a lot of tones for the original negative and then print it the way you want the tones to be.

It is good to learn how to get full tones out of your metering+exposing+developing with a film, because then you probably learn how to use those materials the way you prefer.

The question about "full tones or not" is one of the very basic on any courses or such, but thinking that you should (or have to) have full tones in a single photo is naive... But this question is probably just raised so often, because the first thing to learn and the first tips are aiming to a full tone print. It doesn't mean you would ever need to use them in your work.
 
The terms "high-key" and "low-key" tell us that sometimes we *want* something other than a full tonal range. But the range of film and digital is already greater than paper. So as long as we get the tones we want on the negative or in the file, we can move them where we like under the enlarger or on the computer, within reason. The more we have to move them, the greater the possibility that we might lose good, smooth transitions between the tones. Then again, maybe that is what you want--high contrast pictures with a lot of pure black and white and very little in the middle can be very powerful.

A full range of tones in the print is often what we want. But not always. That said, if you take a picture on a dull day, you probably want to expand the range in your final image, or it's going to look flat and dull.
 
Full tonal range means that the lens has preserved the luminance in the scene that it is reproducing on the chosen recording material. If you want an accurate representation of the scene as it actually appeared, full tonal range without clipping is important.

Maybe it is more important when doing radiometric analysis. For a picture, it depends on the look that you are after. If you want high-contrast/ solarized images or colors that look like picture postcards, it's not important. If you want to see every small detail in the scene, it becomes more important. For high-contrast, I use a Nikkor. For full tonal range, it's the Summarit.
 
> Learn to work with the glass you already own!

That is going to take a LONG time! I'll make a plan and start with the 50mm lenses in LTM alone. That would be thirty. After that, it's onto the 50mm lenses in M-Mount. S-Mount is easier. Not as many different ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom