Another post on digital editing, this one for (as it says,) dodging and burning, which is lightening or darkening selected portions of an image. This used to be a common darkroom technique, though it’s probably a bit less-so now, but it’s still handy to know how to accomplish. This is definitely one where practice and experimentation will improve the results. So herewith, a quick video tutorial on doing this in GIMP.
Chances are, the default settings from when you first open GIMP (or Photoshop) are a good starting point, but just for the record, my settings were at or near:
Opacity: 60
Spacing: 10
Hardness: 75 (not to be confused with brush hardness, a different factor)
Force: 35
Exposure: 15-30
Again, a lot of this depends not just on the conditions and elements within the image, but your own taste, so these are only to get you started, as well as being the factors you’re most likely to alter to achieve the results you want. And I repeat, once again for nearly all image editing: subtlety is key.
Also, never alter your original files – always save a copy. If nothing else, this is your insurance if you do mess it up or take things too far, and need to start over.
Some trivia about this process. Most of the terms found in editing programs trace their origins to either graphic designers or darkroom technicians, and dodging and burning are courtesy of the latter. The old ‘wet’ darkrooms required light to be shone through the negative and focused onto the photographic paper; the emulsions were an inversion process, meaning the more light that reached them, the darker they got. Thus, the first exposure, in the camera, produced a negative image on the film, which subsequently was inverted again onto the paper emulsion in the printing stage, producing a proper positive image again.
So, to lighten a portion, you have to block (‘dodge’) some of the light reaching the paper momentarily, which was typically done with a little piece of black cardboard with ragged edges mounted on a thin wire, to target a particular spot on the image; this was moved gently in a circular motion to further fuzz out the edges and the wire itself, and would only be for a second or three of the print exposure time, usually running seven to ten seconds overall. Larger areas were done with bigger pieces of cardboard, sometimes even cut to a specific shape to custom-fit the area of the print (though still with ragged edges.) If you really needed to work with a print, the exposure times could be adjusted longer to allow more leeway in timing.
‘Burning’ was of course the opposite, permitting more light to reach only specific portions to darken just those, and often required longer exposure times to work. The tool was just the opposite, too: a piece of paper or cardboard that would cover most or all of the print area, with only a ragged hole cut through it, and again, only used for a portion of the exposure time. Experienced techs would often eschew the cardboard bits altogether, and simply use their hands, but the wire-suspended circles and ovals tended to allow more precision.
Distance played a part too. The further the tools were from the paper (thus getting closer to the enlarger lens and the light emitted by it,) the more diffuse the shadows cast onto the paper were, so the edges could be harder or softer based only on how far away the tools were from the paper.
The biggest difference between the wet darkroom and the digital one? You can see what the hell’s happening in real time, rather than making the exposure, developing the print (which is when the exposure would actually begin to show results,) and then throwing the print out and trying again. There is a lot to be said for ‘Undo’ functions…