Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: plugsnpixels on October 26, 2006, 01:49:54 am
-
I've got a nasty example of an extreme lighting situation: Lunchtime at the famous Farmer's Market in LA (where James Dean ate his last breakfast...). Shot with no fill flash on auto-exposure, the original (top) is either too dark or too light with little middle ground.
I knew Lucis Art could pop open the shadows (second image), which it did to a great degree.
Photoshop's native Shadow/Highlight also did a decent job on its own, but with less contrast/color and detail.
So! I applied Shadow/Highlight to the Lucis Art version, and got an excellent final result.
See a larger version of these examples here (http://www.plugsnpixels.com/forum/lucisshadow.jpg).
Download the original unretouched camera image here (http://www.plugsnpixels.com/forum/market.jpg).
See more Lucis Art corrected and creative-effect images here (http://www.plugsnpixels.com/lucisart.html).
-
It is nice to see the ability is there.
However, too much for my taste though
Regards
-
I've got a nasty example of an extreme lighting situation: Lunchtime at the famous Farmer's Market in LA (where James Dean ate his last breakfast...). Shot with no fill flash on auto-exposure, the original (top) is either too dark or too light with little middle ground.
I knew Lucis Art could pop open the shadows (second image), which it did to a great degree.
Photoshop's native Shadow/Highlight also did a decent job on its own, but with less contrast/color and detail.
Photoshop in this case gives BY FAR the best result, the others are just ugly. With just S/H (a little less) and 5 minutes spent with levels and curves you probably could get an even better result.
-
They look ripped apart to me....?
-
Please post your redos, thanks!
-
None of them look good, but the Lucis Art versions are particularly bad. Why would someone want to do this to a photograph?
-
Alright, never mind these–take a look at my other more artistic examples of LucisArt usage here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html).
-
None of them look good, but the Lucis Art versions are particularly bad. Why would someone want to do this to a photograph?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Lucas Art plugin is the latest trendy (and expensive $170 for reg. $500 for "pro") effect in the flickr and PPA/PPC circles. If someone has a sense of taste and restraint it can look decent enough in some circumstances. Unfortunately, most who use it don't.
That's my humble opinion at least.
-
Hmm...well you've got me to download the trial from the lucisart site and I've got to tell you I think the samples you've posted are the best uses of the program. I didn't like it enought to even keep the trial on my computer - I can mess up my own images just as easily, thank you.
I think you should have disclosed that you are selling the stuff.
-
Eric, thanks for taking the trouble to download the demo. BTW, I don't use any special superpowers to create my examples. It's a matter of finding images that work well with the various effects--and it wasn't too hard.
61Dynamic wrote:
"The Lucas [sic] Art plugin is the latest trendy (and expensive $170 for reg. $500 for "pro") effect in the flickr and PPA/PPC circles."
LucisArt has been around for several years if not more. I first bought it in 2003 or so. It is $143.65 after the 15% discount for the plug-in version, which I use (that's $26.35 less than $170, to be accurate).
I don't directly sell LucisArt or any other plug-ins on my site. I refer interested people to the developers' own sites. A number of developers offer discounts for customers who come through my site; you'll see this arrangement with similar sites elsewhere on the web.
BlueD, I'd still like to see your own before-and-afters on my original image to help prove your points. PS's S/H went a long way to help the image, yes. LucisArt took it to another place (reminds me of a carnival). Like I said, the effect could have been (maybe should have been!) more subtle.
Anyway, the last couple of posts make it sound like you can only create garbage with LucisArt. Of course you can, if you're unskilled in its use. Same is true of any plug-in. It also depends on your taste. LucisArt is best used sparingly, unless you're interested in approaching an illustrative quality.
Here is a quick example of how it pops details in an image (I had the blend between original and effect cranked nearly to 100% as well, so the effect can be even more subtle). It's not garbage, it's kind of cool. You can also apply different LucisArt effects (sharp and soft) via layer blending modes.
I have a tutorial in my (free!) ezine (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/ezine.html) (issue 7) showing how to use LucisArt along with other plug-ins. I don't think the result is garbage.
-
Is it just me or is the 'before' much better than the 'after'?
-
I never said Lucis Arts only produces garbage. I said at this point it's trendy and improperly used by most who use it. Like someone first discovering the soft focus filter and using it for everything and in greater strength than what's called for.
BlueD, I'd still like to see your own before-and-afters on my original image to help prove your points. PS's S/H went a long way to help the image, yes. LucisArt took it to another place (reminds me of a carnival). Like I said, the effect could have been (maybe should have been!) more subtle.
If the goal is to lighten shadows then the plugin failed as it turned the image into a shinny metallic turd in addition to lightening the shadows. It entirely changed the content of the image. If lightening shadows is the goal then you demonstrated that plugin is the worst tool for the job.
If however your goal was to create a metallic-like special effect then it did the trick. How well I guess depends on your tastes...
-
Daniel, yes, I moved on from S/H and into artistic. I should have specified, sorry. Now I'll try again with the original premise.
Here is a shot of a vintage car's dashboard. At left is the original. At center is PS CS3's Shadow/Highlight. At right, LucisArt Sculpture at 50% mix.
Yes, S/H works. But I think LucisArt adds a little something. Call it artsy attitude or whatever, on top of tonal adjustment.
61Dynamic, I didn't mention you specifically–I came up with the word "garbage" as a summary of the recent responses. I addressed you specifically in other areas. And you're right in your assessment of misuse.
-
All this hype about Lucis Art will fade away like Draganization did, except I found Dragan's technique to be somewhat appealing (and could have been useful if I could have figured it out). Lucis might be appealing to a teenager who just got their first point and shoot, but I'm tired of seeing it and hearing about it. If you can figure out Dragan's technique I would probably download your free trial of it. You couldn't give Lucis Art to me for free, much less sell it to me....especially after seeing your before and after marketing campaign in your OP.
Regards,
J
-
Actually, I understand it's the pros (studios) who are the main LucisArt customers. Teenagers can't afford it ;-).
Of course any technique, once repeated and seen often enough, gets old (edges/frames, soft focus, monochrome, color gradients, etc.).
-
I think you should have disclosed that you are selling the stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do I get the feeling I've been duped into participating it what's really nothing than a spam thread?
(BTW, plugsnpixels, sorry your sales pitch sucks; though I don't know that any treatment with this plugin could possibly help sell it. Then again this isn't likely your target market - try flickr.)