Intuitive Localized Contrast Control: Part 1 — Burning and Dodging

Photographers coming from the darkroom are accustomed to the terms Burning and Dodging, to "make darker" and "make lighter". This is one of the foundations of gelatin silver printing, and one of the first things taught when the safelight comes on.

If you are coming to digital editing from the traditional darkroom, the concept of burning and dodging is obvious to you, but more and more people are coming directly to digital photography and never having a connection to making prints with light, paper, and chemicals. So for you digital people: Burning and Dodging is one of the carryover terms from the analog darkroom, where to make an area darker, you would "burn it in" by allowing more light to pass through the negative. I can't tell you how many different size pieces of cardboard with various sizes and shapes cut in them I have strewn about the darkroom. Dodging is simply blocking some of the light from passing through the negative during the initial exposure, either with cardboard shapes taped to pieces of bent coat hangers or shapes made with your hands and fingers—print-making with shadow puppets.

Back in my post, It Only Looks Steep When You're Standing at the Bottom, I talked about images being made of individual tones, and the difference between those tones is "contrast", which makes up the perception of detail. This is the same concept when printing in the darkroom, changing local contrast by burning and dodging, and by split-filter printing (burning/dodging with different contrast filters with MultiGrade papers). A similar effect can be achieved with graded papers since the increase or decrease in exposure affects tonalities differently depending on the density of the negative. While these techniques are mostly associated with changing the overall lightness and darkness, they are also very useful ways of changing local contrast.

Between 2002-2008, when I worked in the darkroom shaking trays and finishing prints—sometimes for 50-60 hours a week—it was drilled into me that tone and local contrast is as much of a structural element as the trees, rocks, or buildings in a picture, and that you can change the structure of a picture by burning or dodging a bit of road here, or some leaves there. I learned techniques to make some leaves or reflected water separate just a little more, changing the local contrast ever so slightly with a little wave of a hand under the light. These are often only slight changes from print to print, made on the fly after years of experience of knowing how different materials react, but you develop an eye for subtlety, and subtlety is what separates a good print from a great print.   

Original Color Capture 1 Export

Example Burn and Dodge Curves Layer Masks

Example Burn and Dodge Curves Layer Masks

Final Edited Black and White Conversion


So how can this be translated to working digitally? 
Just like first learning to burn and dodge in the darkroom, one of the first techniques I teach when using Photoshop is to work intuitively with curves adjustment layers and their associated layer masks. Instead of developing years of trial and error experience to know how printing materials react to different filters and increases or decreases in exposure, and creating multiple test prints, we can now respond immediately to the image on the display and how the feeling and structure of it changes when altering differences between tones.

Digital editing has taken those same basic ideas from the darkroom and given us a far greater degree of control, and the ability to fine tune the tonal values of the image in ways never possible in the darkroom. While this can lead to some garish and terrible aesthetic decisions, it can also enable enhancements that can bring life to an otherwise lackluster composition, or make an already good picture a great one. 

As I mentioned earlier, contrast is simply the degree of difference between one tonal value and the next. When burning and dodging we are simply either increasing or decreasing the contrast of one local area compared to other local areas. While we might be making things lighter or darker, not all tones along the scale are changing at the same rate. Sometimes more of the change happens in the midtones relative to the shadows, etc.  With the curves adjustment layer we can specify what range of tones is changing, and to what specific value. Then when used with a layer-mask we can control how much of that overall edit is able to affect local areas.

Don't Burn and Dodge with the Burn and Dodge Tools
Why not just use the dodge and burn tools in the toolbar? Those burn and dodge tools (keyboard shortcut - 'O' ) use preset formulas to control the effect of the adjustment, and only work on an image/pixel layer. To work non-destructively you will need to have a copy of the image layer for each of the burn/dodge layers you create. You might have different layers that either deal with separate parts of the tonal scale, or are separated into a "burn" layer and a "dodge" layer. If you have several of these 16-bit image layers, the file size can start to balloon pretty quickly. While there are a few additional controls that allow the burn/dodge adjustment to affect the shadows/midtones/highlights separately, there is no way to control the maximum adjustment, so it is possible to go way overboard without the ability to easily dial it back later in the editing process. This lack of ability to easily dial back or undo the burn/dodge effect is the biggest drawback of using these tools—it is possible, but not easy nor intuitive. It involves making a history snapshot before making the edits and then painting with the history/eraser brush, but it doesn't allow you to re-edit or change the contrast without doing even more burning and dodging.

Instead of simply referring to the curves adjustment layer and masking technique as "Burning and Dodging", which can be confused with the the Burn and Dodge tool in the Photoshop toolbar, I call this method Intuitive Localized Contrast Control, or ILCC for short. In the next post I will introduce the use of the curves adjustment layer and how it can be more useful than many of the other lightness and contrast adjustment layers.

Comparing Cone Piezography Shade 1 and MIS Ebony Shade 1

This post is just an initial demonstration about the differences of the matte black ink between two different third party ink manufacturers' dedicated black and white inksets. This will not explain the differences between the processes of how the inks are used, but only that they are not interchangeable and will require custom profiling depending on which inks are used. 

This came up recently on a Yahoo group discussion about the interchangeability of the two different shade 1 inks, and is an further explanation of my comment there. This will not be an explanation of the QuadTone Rip profiling/calibration process so some of what follows might not make sense to those who are not familiar with the QTR profiling and printing process. 

The Measurement Process

When I first begin to profile a new paper or inkset, I start by printing and measuring the densities of the separate ink channels. These are printed at 100% so I can see what the maximum ink load the paper is capable of handling, and to see how the paper responds to different inks. One paper might be better with one inkset over an other, and a different paper might respond completely opposite. This in't crucial, but interesting when determining what few papers you might decide to settle on.

I print the ink separation page at 100% of the ink limit, and then immediately measure the chart with an i1 Pro using MeasureTool (Measure Tool is foolproof when measuring charts compared to "smarter" programs like i1 Profiler or ColorPort—I am now making reference files that make this process compatible with currently supported software). When I was testing the drying times of different inks and papers for my upcoming book I would measure every these charts every three hours, but now I measure a chart at as soon as it comes out of the printer and then again about 12 hours later. I might measure again at 24 hours depending on my schedule, but in any case, I've found that after about 12 hours the prints are fully "dry" and the densities will stop shifting one way or another. I haven't yet tested how long it takes in front of a space heater or hair dryer...

The other benefit of making the measurements of the inks at 100% and then keeping the measurement file around is that if you ever have a problem with a paper or inkset you can reprint the target and compare the measurements against the ones used to make the original profile. I keep a separate folder for each paper with all the measurement files on my computer named by paper, inkset, and drying time. That might be overkill for the day to day user, but is helpful for me when writing posts like this too see how one printer does with one inkset of another. Again, I'm not recommending people do this—print the target, let it dry over night and then measure it and you'll be fine. It can be a lot of measuring, and i'm saving my pennies for an automated chart reader... 

The Tests

The following screen shots show the difference between shades 1 and 2 for each different ink on two different papers. After measuring the 100% ink limit targets I print the targets again with ink limits set to be evenly distributed between paper white and the D-max. Those are the limits I use to make the QTR profile. The Flat parts of the ink curve is something that I have only found with the Epson 1430 printer, and happens at about the same point for each ink and I suspect it is a function of the dithering algorithm. 

One large difference between the two inksets is that the Cone Shade 2 is a darker dilution than the Ebony Shade 2. The other is that the shade 1 in Ebony inkset tends to reach its D-max sooner and then levels off with only a slight decrease in density after the paper is fully saturated. The Cone shade 1 tends to drop off much faster and isn't as forgiving if the ink limit for shade 1 is set too high. A point about setting ink limits for shade 1: I actually don't recommend people set the ink limit for shade 1 at the absolute D-max since it can block up a sooner and give you problems when you go to linearize the gray curve. I set my ink limit to the point before it starts to level off and then use the "BOOST_K=" option set to a point 5-10 points above the K ink limit. 

The screen shots below are from my measurements of Canson Rag Photographique and Hahnemühle Photo Rag 188.  The graph is part of my spreadsheet template I developed for QTR profile creation, and which will be made available with my upcoming QTR book. 

Ray K. Metzker, Modern Master 1931–2014

Something I think about quite a lot are the photographers that have shaped how we think, talk, and go about making photographs.  I have been wanting to start a series that looks at certain "themes" and step back to look at the early influences of those ideas and themes and what they can teach us about the picture making experience, composition, printing. While they might not have agreed with being known as "masters of photography" their influence will last long into the future. 

I was in the middle of writing such a post tonight when I leaned that photography lost one of those modern masters today. Ray Metzker has passed away at the age of 83. His current show of unique gelatin-silver photographs, constructions, and works on paper—unique as in the only one in existence—is appropriately titled One and Only, and runs through October 25th at the Lawrence Miller Gallery in New York.

Ray K. Metzker, American (b. 1931). Feste di Foglie, Italy, 1985 © Ray K. Metzker, Courtesy of the Laurence Miller Gallery.

Metzker's work is an example of how a photographic vision can continue to grow throughout the life of the artist as ideas are explored and expanded upon over a full career of genuine creativity. The tonal, structural, and temporal constructions in his earlier photographs and experimentations influenced his later straight photographs with the same sense of complexity and structural ambiguity. His book, LANDSCAPES, is one of my personal favorites, and influences in the way that it deals with light and the liveliness of trees. 

He came into photography during the fervent time of the 1960s, when the medium was still struggling to be "accepted" as a legitimate art form, and coming away from the "West Coast/East Coast/European" influences that began in the 1930s. In a way, his early photographs could only have been made at that time between the 1960s and 1970s. The techniques and spontaneity and delayed feedback allowed the photographers to create pictures in a much more freely than it is now possible.

I doubt that the same kinds of photographs would be made with today—it is too easy to look at the back of the camera to see if you got it. It doesn't allow for as much discovery if you are always worried about "getting it". Additionally I doubt they would be recognized and valued in the same way if they were made today with todays digital technology and editing tools; the analogue techniques for creating those kinds of composites and multiple exposures were so much more difficult to do well, the digital equivalent might now just be seen as gimmicky and ineffective.


In any case, the thing that drives masters of any medium is that they all set out to create work that is interesting to them personally, which is really what we respond to as viewers and why they will be remembered as great artists. 

Workflows

Get good at one or two and ignore the rest. 

I was thinking a lot about the different Black and White workflows, and digital editing workflows as a whole after the Photoshop Elements post I made yesterday. I think there is a case that it is better to choose one or two methods and get really good with them and then ignore all the rest, no matter how much better or easier people claim the new thing might be. I have as hard a time as anyone with that—I am testing and writing a review of the new release of Capture1 Pro 8 (changing the name might be an improvement too). The point is the more time spent learning different software and workflows the less time/energy/bandwidth there is to focus on the work. It is up the the user to define what their intention for the work is and balance tools/software/workflows with image quality requirements and personal preferences.  

I find that making local tonal edits in Photoshop is easier, more intuitive, and more definable than using the control points and gradients in Lightroom or Capture 1 (and SEP too I imagine). In photoshop the curves/masks are easy to re-edit, use with blending modes, and then fine tune with layer and mask opacities. One thing I couldn't live without is the ability to turn the visibility of the adjustment layer on and off the and enable/disable the mask quickly see the before and after of each individual adjustment with/without the mask. 

With my Digital workflow, I tend to always be moving forward and rarely do I need to go back and re-edit the raw file, so I never use smart object or do all my edits in Lightroom or capture 1. In a way it is based a more analogue style workflow: Develop the film, make proofs, and then do my dodging and burning when making the print. Each step has a specific goal and method. 

My digital workflow is as follows:

  1. I do a quick RAW adjustement (usually of single files I've already decided on) in either Lightroom, Camera Raw, or Capture 1 (it is usually Capture 1 for my personal work). If the picture could benefit from large gradient adjustments or general local contrast adjustments I do that in one of two layers in Capture 1, or just export a lighter/darker virtual copies from Lightroom .
  2. Then I export those "developed" files as full size RGB 16-bit tiffs.
  3. I do my black and white conversion in either Silver Efex or Photoshop (with the black and white adjustment layer, or multiple B&W adjustment layers if it benefits from a blend of different color filtration settings)
  4. Once the conversion is made I convert to a 16-bit greyscale and then do my dodging and burning in photoshop with curves adjustment layers and masks.

Drum Scan, Invert and Correct in Photoshop, Optimize for Print or Web

Working from film scans it is much the same:

  1. Develop the film
  2. Do a quick batch scan on a flatbed to make proofs (similar to an import to Capture 1 or Lightroom).
  3. Select the few I want and drum scan only those negatives (similar to the develop mode in the digital workflow).
  4. Do the inverting and contrast adjustment, and then all the burning and dodging in Photoshop. 
  5. Then either output a digital negative to make platinum/palladium prints or make a direct inkjet print.

But like I said, so much of it is just experience and familiarity of the interface of the tools available to you. I try to get people to see past the immediate intimidation of Photoshop and start to work with a few powerful yet easy to use features. When some things are tried to be made "easier" like auto levels, or preset develop modes in Lighroom or Silver Efex it can often do more harm to the image than learning how to use the small number of tools that will give you the best results.