I was wondering the same thing. I tried the demo, but you couldn’t use it on your own photos. I think it only worked with some images they provided, and I couldn’t really tell whether or not I would like it.
I remember some looked really bad to me, it seemed like there were big ugly stars or something. I think it was called Fairydust or something like that, and it didn’t look much like fairy dust to me. I think that was the one that had the rainbow, too, and I never managed to get that to look good either, although I didn’t play with it for very long.
I’m still interested to hear what someone who has the full version thinks though, because AutoFX is a good company, and I’d love another filter with nice lighting effects.
I would be satified if I could figure out some creative effects using the PS lighting filter, but I have spent hours tinkering and really never come up with much.
I wish somebody would write a book on that filter, lighing effects can really make the picture like no other filter.
I’d like to see a tutorial on that, too.
I did get a nice effect with it when I played with it for a while on a really grey picture I took during a snowstorm.
I managed to make the photo look like the sun was trying to come out above the clouds by warming it up with the white balance setting, and having light come down from the upper right corner of the picture. (That’s where the sun would have been if it had been real). It was basically hit or miss, though.
I tried the exact same settings on a few more photos I took the same day, and it wasn’t too bad. I think I should have saved it as an action.
(I used my waterproof housing, so I didn’t get snow in the camera).
If you think the built-in PS Lighting filter is awkward to use, then you’ll love (as in hate) the AutoFX rendition.
I had the opportunity to try out a full-function demo.
* Slooow to render even on modestly sized files (1.4ghz P4, 1 GB RAM) * Unintuitive controls
* I thought many of the effects were of questionable value? (Fairy Dust?)
In all fairness there were a couple pretty cool effects, but not the kind I would put to use frequently enough to justify the $$ outlay.
If I’d have had to pay full retail for this turkey, I would have been p$$$$$ off (which BTW is better than ‘on’) in a major way.
Here’s an alternative that I have not tried, but it looks intesting, is considerably less expensive ($50) and may be worth consideration:
<
http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/html/light_.html>
Danny,
There’s another that’s won awards, called "Shadow"…? It is also purported to be similar to the one you just pointed out. Would you know the company name of this one? I can’t seem to find it in a search?
I found it "Andromeda Shadow filter" has 4 lights and delivers shadows in 3D.
Thanks Mike, for asking the question, and Danny, for the link to the other filter.
Danny said what I thought I remembered from playing with the demo. Since AutoFX is a good company in general, I hope that they refine this plug-in and make it worth the money.
You have to love people that bitch and complain about render times with AutoFX plug-ins. No one seems to stop and think about the work the plug-in has to do to get the effects that it does. It takes time to render out these type of effects we are not talking about stupid bevels and lame drop shadows we are talking about lighting which if you spend any time with any program that does true to life rendering of lighting would know takes time. Most of the effects that are available with AutoFX are either impossible to do manually or by another plug-in or would take hours, days or weeks to do.
Also, make sure you have the latest updates. For me their plug-ins have done nothing bet get faster, more powerful and easier to use with each update.
As for their demos. Well, that is a problem and one a lot of people have complained about. I don’t know why they don’t make a time limited demo or one that only works a couple of times or something. It is indeed hard to tell if you like something of that price range without being able to try it on your own images.
Robert
I don’t see anything wrong with PS lighting filter. I use it fairly often and can always get the effects I seek. Possibly, some people only want to click a "creative" button.
If I remember correctly, you can test it on your own images by using a workaround. Create a new layer over the sample image’s layer. Open your image on the new layer. Apply the effect to your image.
Photo Q, that may be so, but the lack of creativity was not from a lack of effort.
I have spent hours experimenting and keep ending up with the same thing with the exception of adding some color to the filter.
I tried for about an hour to create a natural looking sun burst through the clouds using masks blurs, and gradients, and finally got something that looked OK, only to not be able to do it again.
Some of us just have a hard time creating what we see in our minds.
Thanks for the links all, the research begins yet again.
Mike,
I didnt mean to come across as a Wise Guy. Well, actually I did, but now I apologize. I have tried for days to get certain effects before I accomplished what I was trying to do. My point is that I believe that most (certainly not all) effects one wants to produce can be done in Photoshop without additional plug-ins. It just takes time and experience. On the other hand, there are certain plug-ins that I now rely on because they can save me a lot of time. I would not care to give them up.
Andrew wrote: " If I remember correctly, you can test it on your own images by using a workaround. Create a new layer over the sample image’s layer. Open your image on the new layer. Apply the effect to your image."
Thankyou Andrew, I will reinstall the demo and try that.
I mainly got frustrated because I wanted to try it on my own photos to see if I could get the kinds of effects I wanted with drab scenes.
That plugin isn’t cheap, and it would be a lot more helpful if their demos either worked for 15 days and then expired as do the Flaming Pear plugins, or if they were fully working versions without the ability to save.
Not being able to try them on your own photos doesn’t really show you whether or not they will be useful to you, and other companies who cover the image in the demos up with so much stuff that you can’t see your results are almost useless in deciding whether or not you want to buy their product.
Anyway, since I couldn’t try the effects on any photos similar to what I wanted to use it for, I couldn’t tell whether or not the plugin would be worth the money for me. Then I tried some of the other stuff and saw the tacky fairy dust thing, and the rainbow, and some other stuff, and it didn’t seem to be at all what I expected from a company as good as AutoFX, so I just deleted the demo in disappointment.
That is also why I was so glad that the question came up here. Because I figured that someone in this forum would be able to give good advice on the real version. From what I had seen from the demo, I decided to stick with the Photoshop effects because I couldn’t see where I would gain anything from the Mystical Lighting plugin. Now I am encouraged to try the demo again and add my own photo via layers.
Thankyou Andrew, I will reinstall the demo and try that.
Could you confirm this here, after you reinstall. I know for certain that I did this with Mystical Tint Tone and Color. I’m pretty sure I did it with Mystical Lighting. But I might have gotten them confused in my memory.
