Reading mode: Light Dark

Italy and my D3 with 24-70mm (warning, img's)

Go to last post
Keith McKane said:
I really like the look - YES - Different! Nothing wrong with that!

Some have a "pen in ink" or pencil-style outlining effect. Aside
from the skies and other level/saturation adjustments, what are you
doing that might add that look? (if anything)

Thanks for posting - keep it up!
Click to expand...
Thanks. Mainly played in photoshop a little and added some lucis art.
Keith McKane said:
Best regards,

Keith McKane
New Hampshire
http://www.keithmckane.com

D200
D70
17-55 2.8
70-200VR 2.8
Click to expand...
--
'Let some other sucker test a firmware update before you do'
 
NeilJones said:
Thanks. Mainly played in photoshop a little and added some lucis art.
Click to expand...
Aha! I thought so. Lucis evokes very strong reactions. Most people here on DPR seem to hate it passionately, and a few seem to love it.

I think your shots came out great. By Lucis standards, you showed a lot of restraint. That Lucis effect is so strong it's very easy to blow the shot straight into the next dimension of PP reality.

The original version of that effect was invented by Dave Hill, who still owns the terrain he staked out. One look at a Dave Hill photo and first off you'll never forget it, and secondly you'll instantly recognize it as a Dave Hill photo:

http://www.davehillphoto.com/

Lucis is an attempt to re-create what Hill does, for the average joe or pro. I'm sure it has its place, but it instantly jumps out and says, "This is done with Lucis," and "I'm trying to be like Dave Hill." EVERYONE here has seen Dave Hill photos, whether they knew who did them or not. He owns the look.

For those reasons I've avoided the effect. It's too strong, and draws too much attention to itself, detracting from the photographer. Unless that photographer is Dave Hill, in which case it's a signature look. I leave it to its master, Dave Hill, whose brilliant skills reach very far beyond the Lucis filter. For me personally, I like what I get from Nik's Color Efex Pro, which in my eye enhances my photos while preserving their original feel.

As I said, I really like your shots. They're well composed, sharp as anything, and luscious and lovely to look at. But as many others have noted, they do not look like snapshots of Venice, but rather a photographically manipulated artistic interpretation of the places. Framed and hung on the wall, they can be appreciated for what they are, pretty pictures that are removed from realism. As part of a photo album titled "Summer in Venice," they will jar people, as evidenced by the reactions here.

---------------
Tom B
 
Nice themes but for some reason they look artificial to me.
cheers, tom
 
Tom said,

"That Lucis effect is so strong... The original version of that effect was invented by Dave Hill, who still owns the terrain he staked out." "...Lucis is an attempt to re-create what Hill does, for the average joe or pro."

I'm not taking issue with Tom's opinions about the overuse of this effect (users of it must understand a little goes a long way), but with Tom's attempt to make Dave Hill the inventor of this particular effect and the implication that LucisArt was developed to copy his work.

The technology behind LucisArt has been around and in use by ICT (its developer) since 1996 ( http://www.lucisart.com/image-content-technologies.htm ). LucisArt was released as a plug-in in 2000.

Dave Hill was born in 1979 ( http://www.davehillphoto.com/ , see About link). Did he invent this technique as a teenager? When did we first hear about Dave – last year maybe? His blog starts in late 2007 ( http://photographyisrad.com/2007/10.aspx ).

Interestingly, in one of his comments on this page ( http://photographyisrad.com/2007/10/13/new-website-updates-and-new-blog.aspx#Comment ) Dave says he uses LucisArt. Whether he was serious or not I can't tell, but there it is FWIW.

At any rate, Dave has certainly popularized the Lucis/HDR effect, but he did not invent it and LucisArt was not created in an attempt to copy his style.
--
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
 
Very nice, brings back our memories too. We have a duplicate of the restaurant view we took in April 2007. We enjoyed a lovely meal there.
--
Bob Overlock, Lihue, Hawaii
See Profile for equipment
 
samjstern said:
hum has big mouth and small brain.
Click to expand...
being so agressive about someone who finds flaws in those images?

I personally agree with hum, most of the pictures (except maybe one - like the last - or two) look particulary artificial to me. In some the light looks litterally "wrong", the balance of shadows and lights is unnatural, the colours look boosted, but not too photogenic to my eyes...

All in all, it looks like lots and lots of processing but lotzs of things out of balance.

It should be possible to speak out a different opinion.

regards
Bernie
 
Neil,

Outstanding!

Regarding the processing. I like it. Not because it's what "it really looks like", but rather just because it appeals to me!

I understand those who want to record something exactly as it was. And sometimes that's useful. But, often (for me), I enjoy the artistic license that takes an image from the realm of forgettable, and transforms it it something special.

Best regards,
RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top