Toggle

Review: Lucis Art Photoshop Plug-in (and the “Dave Hill Look”)

By Scott on Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 at 6:02 am | updates.

lucis1sm.jpg

The original image is shown above—that’s Photoshop User Managing Editor Issac Stolzenbach, on his classic Honda Shadow Sabre (click for a larger view).

lucis3sm.jpg

The Lucis Art plug-in interface (Click for a larger view).

lucis2sm.jpg

The grittier, hyper-sharpened, high-contrast image after applying the Lucis Art plug-in (click for a larger view).

YOU’VE GOT THE LOOK
Photography, like fashion itself, seems to go though periods of time where there is a certain “look” that everybody wants to have, and right now the hot look for portraits is what you might call the “Dave Hill look” (I blogged about Dave’s photography last month—here’s the link). His trademark look is gritty, sharp, yet at the same time I’ve heard it described as almost “painterly” in nature. Whatever you want to call it; every big celebrity and rock band wants him to shoot them, and even big business magazines are calling on him to shoot their covers. He’s the “it” photographer.

Now, after researching the living daylights out of this topic, I can tell you this: I don’t believe Dave Hill’s look comes from a plug-in, or just a Photoshop technique, or just a special way of lighting. It’s a combination of all three:

  • Lighting. His lighting is a key ingredient and without the right lighting look; what you do after the fact in Photoshop won’t get you there. He uses a lighting set-up that creates lots of contrast (he uses anywhere from four to six lights on average). He often uses two bare bulb kicker flash units (with reflectors) behind his subjects to really rim out the sides of his subjects, which helps add that bright highlight contrasty look. He also usually uses a Main Light up front (sometimes a Ring Flash), and a Fill flash as well (You can see this in the “behind the scenes” video on Dave’s site—I’ve watched every single one).
  • Photoshop Techniques. He mentioned in a recent interview that he does a lot of dodging and burning (I believe he makes his highlights much brighter and his shadows much darker to create maximum contrast before he adds special effects), I think he does some Shadow/Highlight moves, along with some High Pass sharpening, or a series of Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpen applications. He said recently that he doesn’t use HDR for his images (and I agree), but I do believe he “double-processes” his raw images (exposing the same image twice in Camera Raw; once for the foreground, one for the background, and then he combines the two). He could also be doing a lot of this right within Camera Raw, but then again–I could be totally wrong. (Matt showed a Lightroom technique on Photoshop User TV for achieving this type of look in Lightroom’s Develop Module or Camera Raw).
  • Composition. It doesn’t matter how much Photoshop and lighting you throw at a scene, if it isn’t composed well and exposed properly; it’s not going to work. The fact is; Dave is a very, very good photographer, with great technique, and he’s very creative and clever in his compositions. You could nail his lighting, and his Photoshop techniques, and still not get a Dave Hill final image. There’s no substitute for talent and creativity.

A ONE-CLICK LOOK?
Dave has given some “hints” in forums and interviews about how he gets his look, but he’s somewhat guarded about his “Secret Sauce,” and I don’t blame him. Everybody wants the look he has created—it’s what makes him stand out and get all those high profile gigs, and if he shows us all exactly how he gets it, his trademark look (the one you can currently only get from him) will be franchised, and I totally understand and respect him for protecting it.

So, although I can’t show you how to get Dave’s exact look, there is a plug-in called “Lucis Art” (pron. “Lou-sis” Art) that gives you that dirty, grungy feel, and it’s gaining it’s own underground cult status because although it won’t turn you into a Dave Hill, the look it gives is in the ballpark enough that I’ve seen people arguing back and forth in forums that his whole look is either based on this plug-in (he says he doesn’t use it, and I believe him), and/or HDR (as I mentioned earlier; he says he doesn’t use HDR either; I believe that as well).

The existence of the Lucis Art plug-in is almost as shrouded in secrecy as David’s techniques, but once you’ve found it, you’ll be amazed at what it can do. It is somewhat of a one-trick pony; with three basic controls:

  1. Which type of effect you want to apply. It’s just got one pop-up menu, and the one I find myself using most often is the Whyeth effect.
  2. An “Amount” set of radio buttons, which controls the intensity of the Effect. It’s really the amount of noise, brightening and sharpening. A setting of “1″ is the basic setting, and every button you click higher just turns up the sharpening and noise effect. I stick to the “1″ setting myself.
  3. The Mix, which is really like an opacity setting which lets you choose how much of the original image stays in tact, and how much of the effect you see. I usually stay between 40 and 50%. I also usually apply the filter on a duplicate of the Background layer, so I can lower the layer opacity after the fact if I get carried away.

THE PROS
I like the gritty, dirty look, Lucis Art provides and if you’re looking to add this type of look to your bag of tricks; this is about the easiest way to get you there.

Another “Pro” is that you can download a free 30-day Demo version from their web site (here’s the link).

THE CONS
There are some issues on both the Mac and Windows platforms. The big Mac issue is that to run Lucis Art on an Intel-based Mac (and by the way; all Macs for past year or so are Intel-based), you have to run Photoshop in the slower “Rosetta” mode (you do this by simply turning on the “Open Using Rosetta” checkbox in the Get Info box, before you launch Photoshop). That’s not a big problem (other than the fact that Photoshop runs slower), but the big problem is (at least for me), I forget to turn Rosetta back off when I’m done.

The other Con is that the Mac and Windows interfaces are different. The Mac interface (shown up top) is much more simple and refined looking than the Windows interface, which is somewhat clunky–but at least you don’t have to run it in Rosetta mode.

THE BOTTOM LINE
If it weren’t for the whole Rosetta and PC Interface issue, this plug-in would have gotten my “Scott Thinks It’s Hot!” Award. I really like what it does, how easy it works, and the simplicity of it’s operation. The plug-in isn’t cheap at $169, but if you’re a working pro (and according to the developer, Image Content Technology; 90% of the people who buy the plug-in are pros) and your clients are clamoring for this look, you’ll get that $169 back on the first job. Also, the company that developed the plug-in said this summer they will be replacing Lucis Art with a “Pro Version” with many new features and a greatly enhanced interface, but also a greatly increased price; $595 (which may be why so many people are snatching up the $169 version before it’s too late). Here’s the link to their site for more info, examples, and to download a demo version. Oh, and NAPP members should check the members discounts because Lucis Art is listed there. One last thing:

THE DAVE HILL DEBATE
Dave’s “Look” has created incredibly long debates in a dozen or so different online forums, with people arguing back and forth endlessly about what they think he does/doesn’t use to get this look (or what Dave has or has not said in forums and interviews about how he gets his look). I’ve seen their comments often get pretty nasty, as things generally tend to do in forums. I really didn’t want to start yet another debate here on my blog, and the comments I made above about how he gets his look are simply just my own guesses–I haven’t talked with Dave or even been able to replicate his look myself. So, in short, I could be totally wrong about how I think he does it.

Also, I want to make it clear that I am absolutely NOT saying that the Lucis Art plug-in will give you Dave Hill’s look; what I am saying is that the plug-in gives you a gritty, dirty look that I personally like, and while it does somewhat remind me of Dave’s look; it’s just a plug-in and Dave’s work is MUCH more than that. Lastly, if you look through Dave’s portfolio, he doesn’t apply the same look to every photo. Some are very gritty; others are not nearly as gritty, and so on. For some things in life, there’s just not a one-click-fix.

Comments received from other Sites

Listed using this TrackBack URL

21 Visitor Comments

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. #1

    Interesting Plug-In, great review
    Great if a client wants that look and doesn’t want to hire Dave.

    Personally I’d rather work out my own look rather than copying something so high profile (or atleast rip someone unknown off)

    Adam B on March 4th, 2008 at 7:06 am
  2. #2

    Hi Scott,

    Here’s one I had picked up from Limelight images blog:-

    http://limeliteimages.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/dave-hill-tutorial/

    It’s a series of settings for Lightroom, which, with the right image, does give an “interesting” attempt at a Dave Hill effect.

    It’s certainly something that could be turned into a Lightroom “semi-automatic” preset.

    Using Lightroom:

    * take recovery to 100
    * take fill to 100
    * add a little black for some contrast
    * take contrast to 100
    * take clarity to 100
    * take vibrance to 100
    * bring down the saturation to where you almost lose all of your color. NOT BLACK AND WHITE
    * go back and play with your exposure and blacks to make the image acceptable
    * add a lens vignette to the photo and now it should resemble the Dave Hill look.

    Hutch on March 4th, 2008 at 7:08 am
  3. #3

    Another amazing entry Scott. I seriously love reading your blog. Very inspiring and gets my creative juices flowing. Now you need to hunt down Dave Hill and get him to break the silence on Kelby training :-)

    Crash on March 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
  4. #4

    Very interesting post Scott - I’ve seen those nasty debates myself, and stayed pretty much out of the. The ideas do get pretty innovative though, and several estimates of how he achieves the look have had me trying to replicate them myself in Photoshop with no success. It’d be kind of a neat “tip” or “trick” though if you could throw together a brief post on how to achieve a “David Hill” look.

    Happy shooting and keep up the good work from Jason over at Canon Blogger

    Jason on March 4th, 2008 at 8:03 am
  5. #5

    Thanks Scott, great analysis on a very popular style.

    Ron @ sharingmylight.com

    Ron on March 4th, 2008 at 8:19 am
  6. #6

    Scott has yet another great discovery…the blog is my first stop logging on With all due respect, I really think Hutch is on to something here. I checked out the download and the effect works OK, but it seems like the only really cool look is the so called “Dave Hill” pre-set. $170 bucks seems like a lot and the “professional” version at $500 plus is way out of the ball park. (Anyone in Groton, CT heard of “price-point”?) With the help of Hutch’s pre-sets (above), I was able to replicate the effect using maxed out RAW settings, a Hue/Sat layer mask, a touch of posterization and a smattering of surface blur. Yes, please, get Dave Hill on the case here as a Kelby Training Contributor…that is before Corey Barker figures it all out and save us a ton of money.

    Harry on March 4th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
  7. #7

    Hello Scott

    For your wife’s cookbook — I often visit this site which is done by/for a food stylist:
    http://stilllifewith.com/

    Kathy Klein on March 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
  8. #8

    I find it hard to believe that with all the great Photoshop minds at NAPP (Scott Kelby, Dave Cross, Matt K, Corey, RC, Felix Nelson, etc) And all the great Phototoshop minds that NAPP has access to (Bert Monroy, Ben Wilmore, Vincent Versace, etc) That the “Dave Hill” look has not been reversed engineered by now. I am starting to think that it is out of “professional courtesy” that none of the “Photoshop Experts” are willing to reveal these techniques.

    Roscoe on March 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
  9. #9

    Well, it’s clear to me from looking at his gallery that he’s a truly amazing photographer. I think Scott nailed it when he said that Dave’s look is a combination of techniques and skill. As for the plug-in, it really doesn’t interest me, as I am not a pro. I’d rather experiment with ACR and hone my craft. For me, it’s just too much money to spend on a plug-in that wouldn’t pay for itself.

    Steve on March 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
  10. #10

    Hey Scott! What’s up with this weeks episode of PS-User-TV ? It airs (podcasts in iTunes) on mondays, right ?

    Roman on March 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
  11. #11

    First off, Thanks Scott for posting the analysis of the “Dave Hill”
    Look. It’s great to see another person’s take on how to construct a
    picture. It’s sad to see that the conversation has to go down these
    familiar roads.

    1. The plug-in costs what it costs. If you can’t see yourself spending
    170 dollars on a plugin, then use the other ones and don’t complain that
    its expensive. I’m sure Dave Hill charges quite a bit more than 170
    dollars for a photo shoot. How about taking some good pictures, selling
    them for what they are -worth- and buying the tools you need to justify
    that. I feel like sometimes, people just want the best look for the
    cheapest amount of money. So.. everyone wants to be Dave Hill for
    $29.99. At the same time, this is a look you idolize. How much value
    are you -really- placing on the art.. guess under 30 bucks.

    2. The only guys that dont want to hire Dave for a look that Dave has
    are the ones that dont want to pay the price that Dave commands. Adam
    has hit the nail on the head. Everyone wants the secret so that they
    can take it to the masses and make good money on it.. however many
    people wont spend the time and cash to try.

    3. Re: Roscoe’s comment: Maybe it isn’t professional courtesy at all?
    Maybe they are just not interested in copying the look, or dont find it
    to be such an absolute necessity to do so. There are other things to do
    in photoshop and photography. Scott offered his inspirational take, on
    his own time, but until its free and explained to the letter, you wont
    buy. You cant get something for nothing. If you dont like what was
    presented.. spend YOUR time and money to make it better!

    4. This is Scott’s inspired guess - not gospel. He’s not
    deconstructing the technique, telling you the filters and the lights,
    and the camera settings needed for this. If you want to learn, you’re
    just going to have to go out and shoot.

    Matt on March 4th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
  12. #12

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for the post on Dave Hills’ technique. It’s certainly a ‘look’ that has generated alot of interest for some time now. I totally agree with you that the look comes not just from a plug in but by skillful use of lighting.

    The thing I like about all this is that Photoshop allows us to be creative. I’m sure over the coming years there will be yet more ‘looks’ that generate as much interest as Dave’s; exciting times ahead huh :o)

    Best wishes to you and yours,
    Glyn

    Glyn Dewis on March 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
  13. #13

    Great recommendation … this free blog just cost me $169!
    Well worth it, though … have been playing in Lucis all day!!
    -Jas.

    Jason Caine on March 4th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
  14. #14

    In my opinion when it comes to Lucis, HDR, tone mapping, etc., less is more. Too many people make the mistake of grabbing these plugins/filters and way overusing them. In reality they can quickly degrade an image with noise, halos, and other random artifacts. My advice is to be subtle. While these can be used for some cool effects, all images are based on the usual photographic principles and if you don’t have that foundation from the start no plugin will save them - even for $170!

    Quantz on March 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
  15. #15

    Hi Scott,

    See, this is yet another example of your talents…if you can make a “ruffian” like me look that good, image what you could do with a real biker model :D

    Thanks man, you made my week (:

    ~Issac

    Issac on March 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
  16. #16

    Hi Scott,

    I’ve been using LucisArt for a couple of years now. Like any other plug-in it can be abused like Qauntz states above. Check out my blog for a review I did a last week on LucisArt. I used the images from “My Dog in the Tub” Photoshoot. You’ll love the Dog and of course what LucisArt did to the images.

    See: http://www.michaelvandertol.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-favorite-post-processing-software.html

    Regards,

    MikeV

    Michael Van der Tol on March 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
  17. #17

    Hey Scott,

    Thanks so much for dedicating a blog entry to Dave Hill….

    After reading your analysis, I will stop bugging you and your NAPP staff for tutorials on how to create the effect…

    I have also watched every single video on Dave Hill’s site to try and obtain the hidden secret….but like you said, I truly believe it is his lighting that is key. He is a master of light…and as you also mentioned, an outstanding photographer.

    That being said, it sure would be cool for Dave Hill or Jill Greenberg (she also has mastered a unique effect) to join Kelby Training….we could learn a great deal from these two outstanding photographers!!

    Cheers,
    Scotty

    Scotty Graham on March 5th, 2008 at 8:07 am
  18. #18

    A 15% discount is available off LucisArt’s price. See http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisart.html

    Mike Bedford on March 12th, 2008 at 2:44 am
  19. #19

    thanks for posting, i downloaded the plugin and i love the look it gives. i think that the look works best on portraits. thanks for posting these great images.

    aloha brady

    brady oshiro on April 8th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
  20. #20

    The above LR “preset” that Hutch posted was on Matt’s Lightroomkillertips.com site last year. Nothing new.

    Tom on April 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
  21. #21

    Users of the LucisArt plug-in are welcome to join the LucisArt group at http://www.flickr.com/groups/lucisart/ where there are now over 5000 samples of what the filter can do. Check out the weekly icon threads in the discussion group to see some of the best samples. All applications to join the group will be accepted.

    John Charlton on April 13th, 2008 at 9:42 am

Drop me a note

You can use the small form below to leave a comment on this page.