| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2008 02:48:37 PM · #1 |
| I have CS3 extended, Lightroom, Neat Image and Photomatix. Would Lucas art add anything I cant already do? |
|
|
|
04/16/2008 02:54:00 PM · #2 |
you don't "need it" per se but I find it helpful in the majority of things I do.
I find it works best when used succinctly and not screaming for attention so it is obvious.
It's like all the other things you have- for some things it's great, for others it isnt. But to answer your question, yes it can do things you can't already do.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2008 03:18:49 PM · #3 |
Even with LucasArt, you still couldn't touch me on dm17 instagib.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2008 05:30:25 PM · #4 |
Thanks Tez, That what I thought, but I was hoping to get talked out of buying more software. :)
LMAO Slippy..... Back in the day, it was sooooo close a couple of times, but you stayed on my never defeated list. Good times! I havent played in a long time :-( |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 07:32:17 AM · #5 |
I downloaded the demo last night, and I'm following the tutorial on how to install it, and My photoshopCs3 folder has no plugin/filters folder.
Do I create one? |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 07:37:30 AM · #6 |
That's strange that you don't have one already. Mine is actually named "Plug-Ins".
Edit: If you have the Photomatix plugin it should already be in your Plug-Ins directory.
Message edited by author 2008-04-17 07:38:46. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 07:47:28 AM · #7 |
I havent been using photomatix in photoshop.
I got it before I had photoshop. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 08:07:01 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by SouthCoastOr3gon:
I downloaded the demo last night, and I'm following the tutorial on how to install it, and My photoshopCs3 folder has no plugin/filters folder.
Do I create one? |
You've GOT to have one. Without it, you would have none of the standard filters that come with CS3 in the "filters" menu. Here's the path:
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS3\Plug-Ins
R. |
|
|
|
04/17/2008 08:15:41 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 04:53:49 PM · #10 |
See here for more info about LucisArt, but especially the fact that it is being discontinued in 2 weeks and replaced by the much better (aimed at the high-end market) LucisArt Pro.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2008 06:00:00 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by plugsnpixels:
See here for more info about LucisArt, but especially the fact that it is being discontinued in 2 weeks and replaced by the much better (aimed at the high-end market) LucisArt Pro. |
The pro version has a pricetag of $595, which may be cost prohibitive for many. If the current version does what you want, I'd suggest getting it ASAP before the price goes up by $400+. |
|
|
|
04/21/2008 06:32:52 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by plugsnpixels:
See here for more info about LucisArt, but especially the fact that it is being discontinued in 2 weeks and replaced by the much better (aimed at the high-end market) LucisArt Pro. |
The pro version has a pricetag of $595, which may be cost prohibitive for many. If the current version does what you want, I'd suggest getting it ASAP before the price goes up by $400+. |
600 dollars what the heck??? It doesn't even look like it does that much more than the old version! |
|
|
|
04/23/2008 04:45:25 AM · #13 |
There are different ways to look at this. If you are a home user making pretty pictures for your own amusement, then the current "classic" version of LucisArt is fine, and will hold you for some time, with the following exceptions:
You will get no further technical support after the upcoming deadline, and if you are a Mac user, you will need to stick with pre-Intel hardware (or run Photoshop under Rosetta, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting an Intel Mac and CS3). Plus be limited to 8-bit processing, a small preview window, comical interface on the Windows version, etc.
On the other hand, LucisArt Pro offers 16-bit processing, a simple but highly flexible two-slider interface, access to separate RGB channels for individual processing, etc. I'm currently testing a pre-release version and find it incredibly easy to quickly slide from effects of one extreme to the other (ie, there is no single "Lucis" look, though the Dave Hill effect is the most familiar). Every image will generate different effects depending on its original color and contrast.
I've spoken to the developer personally about the new pricing scheme and she indicates the many working pros she's interviewed (portrait and wedding studios) are eager to get ahold of the new version because of its modern specs (the current version is over four years old). She's also related stories of studios buying LucisArt and immediately greatly increasing print sales, dwarfing their original investment in the software.
So it seems the new price will separate the men from the boys in terms of who can create and deliver these unique effects for clients and who can't.
I'm thinking of a fun challenge as the release date for LucisArt Pro gets closer: Post a few wildly divergent versions of an image treated with Lucis effects, and try to duplicate those effects using Photoshop and/or other third-party software, with special note of the time it takes to create each challenger effect and the complexity of the process involved. If the Lucis effects can't be duplicated, great. If they can but it's much harder and slower, that's telling as well.
Message edited by author 2008-04-23 05:09:27.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 10:17:00 PM EDT.
