How Important is Tone with Color Photography?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! Thanks for the link about the Munsell Color model.
As I've thought about the responses, I think I mean luminance akin to L in the Lab color model (or value in Munsell's scheme). In a scene where L varies quite a bit, which would be the bread and butter of B&W, yet where hue and chroma are important, would one wait for flatter light to decrease the effect of contrast? Does the wide luminance values give too much information? Or does the added luminance effect improve the photo?
How about a scene that has a lot of luminance variation and color variation (hue and chroma)? How would that affect the shoot? How might a person decide what time of the day to photograph the scene in order to control the amount/intensity of the light? Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[Bruce Watson]

As I've thought about the responses, I think I mean luminance akin to L in the Lab color model (or value in Munsell's scheme). In a scene where L varies quite a bit, which would be the bread and butter of B&W, yet where hue and chroma are important, would one wait for flatter light to decrease the effect of contrast?

It depends on the scene and what you want out of it. It's a decision you'll have to make on your own. That said, many color photographers won't even take their cameras out of their bags when faced with sunny skies. They'll only work in overcast conditions or right at sunrise and/or sunset when subject brightness ranges (SBRs) are lower.

Does the wide luminance values give too much information? Or does the added luminance effect improve the photo?

Again, it depends on the scene and what you want out of it. Many sunrise and sunset shots benefit from strong side lighting for example.

How about a scene that has a lot of luminance variation and color variation (hue and chroma)? How would that affect the shoot? How might a person decide what time of the day to photograph the scene in order to control the amount/intensity of the light?

Reiterating what I said above, many photographers wait for overcast skies or stormy conditions. On partly cloudy days they'll setup in the sun but wait for a cloud to cover the sun before making an exposure.

Some of this behavior no doubt is due to the materials they choose to use. People shooting mainly tranny films don't have a lot of choice in the matter if they want good shadow detail and good highlight detail in the same shot. To accomplish that with tranny film they are forced to shoot scenes with reduced SBRs to avoid exceeding the capabilities of their film.

This behavior can become habit. I know photographers that won't even shoot B&W film in sunny conditions.

But for some (many? most?) it's an aesthetic choice. They like "soft" light better than direct light. They just don't like the unevenness direct lighting can bring, or they don't like the shadows that direct lighting can create. My personal speculation (and that's all it is, my personal speculation) is that they are unconsciously choosing to limit the range of luminosity in favor of working more with a comparatively larger range of hues. Because from an aesthetic standpoint this is what looks best to them whether they've thought about it consciously or not.

I personally think that judicious use of direct lighting can be a good thing. I like the sun. And I know I'm in the minority on this. Such is life.

In the end all you can do is experiment to find out what works best for your subjects and what you are trying to accomplish.

[Lucas M]

My unwanted opinion: I don't think tones are as important in colour as in b/w photography. What I like about colour is how I can catch all the subtle variations of hue (especially on cloudy days) in the textures of grasses and other textured items. (You can tell I especially love grass texture). In b/w, you'd see the texture of all the slight shadows interposed on each other which would be slight because of the coudiness.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello! Thanks for the link about the Munsell Color model.
As I've thought about the responses, I think I mean luminance akin to L in the Lab color model (or value in Munsell's scheme). In a scene where L varies quite a bit, which would be the bread and butter of B&W, yet where hue and chroma are important, would one wait for flatter light to decrease the effect of contrast? Does the wide luminance values give too much information? Or does the added luminance effect improve the photo?
How about a scene that has a lot of luminance variation and color variation (hue and chroma)? How would that affect the shoot? How might a person decide what time of the day to photograph the scene in order to control the amount/intensity of the light? Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

Hello Michael,

Many times I shoot under nearly noon sunlight, which tends to create high contrast. This is another approach. If you only look at the technically best way to get the widest range of tones, then I think some other potentials might be missed. You can increase contrast by push processing, or decrease contrast by pull processing, which are other choices. Film can also play a roll in this, an example being the high contrast and high saturation of Kodak E100VS.

I tend to go for an overall tone, rather than a wide range of tones. There is also complimentary contrast, though basically only two dominant tones. This is different than B/W imaging, which looks at many shades of grey as differing tones. In this, the term tone has a different meaning.

I shoot commercially, and the type of images I produce generally benefit from higher contrast and a reduced tonal range (light to dark). This is a purity of colour approach. I will not claim it is right or wrong, just that I prefer to do colour this way . . . and apparently my clients like that approach too. I think it is more about finding methods that work for you, after many experiments, than just following a technically proper (best?) method of working in colour.

I do think that light conditions are somewhat different in colour imaging. Quite often I will shoot very early morning, or while the sun is setting. The effects are quite different. Sometimes I will add some fill lighting, though other times I will go for maximum contrast . . . it all depends upon whether my interpretation dictates a subtle approach or something more punchy.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Keith S. Walklet]

It is the shades and tints of a color that render the form of the subject, and their importance is image dependent. With low contrast light, the relationship between the different shades and tints is not as great. That uniformity makes subtle differences more apparent, which helps when one is rendering detail. Midday light is much stronger, and the visual statement is more emphatic, often overshadowing subtleties. That is not to say it is wrong, just a different statement.

When I imagine an image constructed of different colors with the same value, I think of abstract painters who paint solid geometric shapes of color on a solid color background. These paintings present very even tones with the visual interest achieved in contrast in color and shape. Add some tints and shades to those colors and what had been flat shapes, can attain a 3-dimensional quality.

I used to put my camera away midday for the same reasons Bruce mentions, but have since learned where to look to find a tonal range that the transparency film can handle. That is sometimes in the shadows, often involves reflections, and even more so, backlit subjects, especially if there is some sort of natural fill light (ie. Yosemite Valley).

From merely a technical standpoint, the importance of tone in an image can be illustrated with the difference between a yellow flower placed at Zone VI and one at Zone IV. A poorly placed color (especially one that looks lousy when underexposed) that is important to the composition can make or break an image, and reveals both the visual aesthetic and skill of the artist.