True enough. It’s also true that what’s “good tonality” for someone can be “ungood tonality” for someone else since it’s not a hard scientific term the way it is often used and tossed around. More often than not in discussions “good tonality” only means “I like the way it looks, it fits my style”.
Curves are a valuable tool, but are only a way of manipulating local and overall contrast. The tonal results obtained via the curves tool can be significant, but curves cannot create new information that wasn't captured by the sensor or the negative + developer to begin with. It’s not possible to make absolutely every photo appear exactly how you want it to appear using any sensor or film stock. Sensor tech matters. If the data isn't here to begin with, from film or sensor, there is no post processing method that can ever tease it out. The “tonality” available is going to depend, to a certain extent on the sensor used, and, not to forget, the microcontrast and macrocontrast of the lens used.
Even with all that considered, the “tonality” of the end result file or print will come down to the skill of the person doing the processing, film or digital.
With that in mind, it would be helpful, in threads like this, where terms like “good tonality” are tossed back and forth, if people could post examples of their own work, as it relates to the thread, so others will understand exactly what that person means when they are using the term.
