An option instead of extreme burning

[DanK]

I experimented today with an alternative to severe burning that might be useful.

Sometimes, an area in a photograph is so light that the amount of burning necessary begins to turn the burned area gray. I had this experience again today with a candid of a toddler taken in available light, with light coming from the side. I was unable to darken the bright side of the face enough without introducing a gray tone. Unfortunately, I can't post the image that illustrates this because I never post publicly pictures of other kids.

The alternative uses photoshop's multiply blend mode. The way this works is that the pixel values on the two layers are multiplied to create the value in the blended image. So, it darkens, but using the colors that are in the layers.

My solution was this:

1. Duplicate the base layer, label the duplicate "multiply," and set the blend mode of the duplicate to multiply. The result will be to darken the image, but more in areas that are already dark than in areas that are initially light--the reverse of what's needed.

2. Add a black mask.

3. Paint white with 100% opacity but a very low flow, no more than 10%. Gradually build up the darkening effect where you need it. The low flow makes the results blend and also makes it easier to do more of this in the lightest areas, which will need the most correction given the way the blend mode works.

I had used a similar technique in the past, but to restore old faded photos, not for burning per se. For example, here is a faded photo of my great-grandparents, taken roughly in 1885. Note the lack of detail in my great-grandmother's face.



The following partially restored image entailed a lot of edits, but what I used for the faces and eyes was a multiply blend. Compare her face and eyes:

[Manfred M]

Excellent post Dan! I do use Multiply blending mode occasionally, but have not used it the way that you suggest. I will keep this approach in mind when I run into this type of issue.

I have tried two other techniques when doing heavy duty burning. I try to add a small amount of noise using the Filter drop down and select <Add Noise). I check off Gaussian and Monochrome and add just enough to break up the texture of the area I am working on. I play with the Amount slider (working at 100% image size) so that the noise is just barely perceptible, but enough to ensure that the area has some texture.

The other thing that works is to use the colour in the area that I am burning, but sampling the tones in adjacent areas and paint in the colour using a very flow flow (around 4%) and building it up slowly. I will often sample multiple areas to make sure that the "burned down" area is not all done in the same colour.

[Donald]

As Manfred says, an excellent post, Dan. I've been struggling with getting an effective vignette on files from scanned B & W megs. Your workflow give me something else to try.

ps: It works!

Just tried it with an image that's been causing me real problems because, as you say, there was a fairly strong light coming in from one side. Given my not-so-subtle hands, I turned the flow down to 3% and with as light a brush (with my Wacom tablet pen) as I could manage, gradually built up the vignette. And it looks great. Thanks, Dan.

[pschlute]

I shall give this a try too.

A question..... when to use a low opacity versus a low flow with the brush tool ?

My main use is to paint on the mask of a curves layer in PS. When would you choose to use opacity versus flow ?

[Donald]

A question..... when to use a low opacity versus a low flow with the brush tool ?

This video gives a good answer to your question, Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjwCW707Z0A

[pschlute]

Thanks Donald, I will watch that today.

[DanK]

I hadn't seen the video before. Donald, thanks for posting it. I found it clear, although if you use a mouse rather than a pen and tablet, it has some complications at the outset that aren't germane.

I have only one quibble with the video. He says that the opacity sets a maximum. That's incorrect. It sets a fixed level, and that's a key.

If you set opacity at 10% and paint black, as in his example, the brush produces exactly 10% gray, no matter how short or long the painting goes on. If you want to build it up by releasing the mouse and starting another 10%, the second 10% is a second, discrete level, although a feathered brush will mitigate that and make the border less clear.

In contrast, flow sets the rate at which color is laid down. You can build up gradually by continuing to paint, painting more where you want more of the color (or, in this case, darker gray).

If you are familiar with the terms in mathematics, painting with reduced opacity is a step function, while flow is continuous. He doesn't use these terms, but one of his conclusions fits this: reduced opacity is useful when you want a uniform application of the color (the flat part of the step function), while reduced flow is useful when you want a gradual transition.

Starting around 4:40 in the video, he has examples that show this.

I use reduced flow for painting for a number of different applications, and I've found that I generally have to keep the level at or below 10%.

[Manfred M]

This video gives a good answer to your question, Peter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjwCW707Z0A

What the author says is correct, but he uses a Wacom tablet. That is something along the lines that Donald and I (and others) use in our workflow. It's not quite the same as using a computer mouse or other pointing devices like a touch pad. Pen tablets (like the Wacom) and pen displays (I use one of these) emulate drawing with a pencil. Pressure, the angle that the device is held at change the shape of what is being drawn. A mouse does not do that.

The end results are still somewhat similar; if you reduce opacity and use a mouse, you have to release the mouse button and press down again to build density. When you reduce flow, every time you pass over the same area, the density will increase, without having to release and hold down the mouse button again.

Using variable flow is where the pen tablets and pen display really shine!

[DanK]

Using variable flow is where the pen tablets and pen display really shine!

I've been putting off getting one for a long time for fear that I will end up not learning to use it, as happened with a very small Wacom I bought years ago and that is not compatible with current operating systems. Does it help much with routine editing?

Wacom remains the standard, but from what I've seen, there is now at least one serious competitor, xencelabs and two cheaper ones, Huion and X-Pens.

Some of these have a duplicate display on the tablet, while others don't, so you can see the position of the pen only on your main screen. Does this matter?

[Manfred M]

I've been putting off getting one for a long time for fear that I will end up not learning to use it, as happened with a very small Wacom I bought years ago and that is not compatible with current operating systems. Does it help much with routine editing?

Wacom remains the standard, but from what I've seen, there is now at least one serious competitor, xencelabs and two cheaper ones, Huion and X-Pens.

Some of these have a duplicate display on the tablet, while others don't, so you can see the position of the pen only on your main screen. Does this matter?

I switched to a Huion Kamvas Pro 16 Plus about 18 months ago. The learning curve is far shorter than on a pen tablet as one is drawing on the actual workpiece, rather than looking on a screen while the hand motion is on a blank tablet on the desktop. I went for the higher end model with the 4K screen as this is compatible with my 4K laptop (the Huion screen is Adobe RGB compliant).

Wacom Cintiq was viewed at being much more expensive and not as good as the Huion product at the time I was researching, but that information is likely out of date. I find that the Huion software is not 100% stable on my system (which is badly in need of an update), but more than good enough for what I do.

The main downsides of the pen display is that one has to wear a "glove" that covers the palm of the hand and the ring finger and little finger to keep the oils off the screen (no issue once you get used to it). The other issue is that the hand and pen can cover up the work area; Adobe has built in rotate capabilities; press the 'r" button on the keyboard to turn it on and the escape to turn it off. This works very well.

I still have the old Wacom pen tablet that I travel with; it is lighter, more portable and less likely to break than a pen display.

For anyone starting up, I would recommend a pen display over a pen tablet.

[DanK]

Manfred,

Thanks. Very helpful.

The 16" diagonal is about twice the price of the 13" where I would buy mine. they also have multiple models: base, Pro, and pro 4.5K. will take a bit to sort out.

Dan

[pschlute]

OK so using a mouse click/click-hold only, does it make a difference between opacity or flow ?

[Manfred M]

OK so using a mouse click/click-hold only, does it make a difference between opacity or flow ?

Yes. When using Opacity, the density is only added when the mouse button is released and held down again. With Flow, the density is built up every time the mouse passes over an area.

I never use Opacity when I retouch; just Flow (with mouse or with tablet).

[DanK]

Peter,

To elaborate on Manfred's answer, go back to post 7. Leaving aside feathering, when you reduce opacity but not flow, the brush will immediately paint whatever level you have set for opacity, and it stays at that level as long as you have the mouse button depressed, no matter how long you paint. The only way to build up is to release the button, depress it, and start a new painting. That one too will be exactly the level you set, regardless of how long you go on. That's why the effect is discrete levels: wherever you have painted once (no matter how long), you get X%; wherever you have painted twice, you get 2X%, and so on. Feathering will reduce this discreteness but not eliminate it.

If you reduce flow, you are changing the rate at which the color is added. If you keep at it longer, more is deposited on the image. This is continuous.

Like Manfred, I never use opacity when I retouch.

A brush with a low flow, painting white on a black mask attached to a curves adjustment, is also my standard way of dodging and burning. I learned it from one of Manfred's posts on this site years ago, but if I recall, he no longer uses that method as much.

Dan

[pschlute]

Thank you Dan and Manfred

[Donald]

I'd endorse all that Manfred and Dan write.