Part 2 of the “Dave Hill Look Revisited”
OK, today in Part 2 we’re looking at the Post Processing I did to yesterday’s image, and for that I used the new Lucis Art Pro plug-in (which I’m going to mini-review in this same post).
DISCLAIMER: If you hate the Dave Hill look, or you’re tired of it, or whatever…do me a favor—just skip this post. The reason I did the post in the first place is that this is the #1 most-requested technique I get from readers, and I thought I’d give it a whirl. Obviously, this was a huge mistake on my part, because apparently it just mostly made people mad at me (I don’t know why it always has to come to this—it’s just a Photoshop technique for goodness sakes). But since I did part one and promised to show the post-processing, I feel like I should finish it, so I’m going to. However, it’s mean comments like the ones I received yesterday that make me think I should stick to safer topics, like the Nikon D3x pricing and more Lightroom conspiracies.
Step One: Before you run the Lucis Pro 6.0 plug-in, you’ll need to do something to soften your subject’s skin, because the hyper-sharpening the plug-in adds will greatly magnify every blemish, spot, or skin irregularity and it looks pretty bad. So, I started by using the Healing Brush. I Option-clicked [PC: Alt-clicked] in a nearby area that didn’t have a blemish (to sample that skin texture), then I chose a brush size just slightly bigger than the blemishes I wanted to remove, then I moved over the blemish and just clicked once to remove it. So, I went through the image and did that first.
Step Two: Next, you’ll need to do an overall softening of the skin. What I did for this picture is apply the same type of skin softening I might to a portrait of a woman, but I used a higher amount of blurring than I would normally use. I started by duplicating the background layer. Then I applied a 25 pixel Gaussian Blur, then I lowered the opacity of this layer to 50%, as shown here (so it’s half as blurry). Then I held the Option key [PC: Alt-key] and clicked on the Layer Mask icon at the bottom of the Layer panel. This hides the blurry layer behind a black mask (as seen here). Then I changed the foreground color to white, and I took the Brush tool and painted over just his skin. I avoided the edges of his skin or any areas that were supposed to have detail (like his eyes, eyebrows, lips, etc.). This left the rest of the image sharp, but his skin very soft.
Step Three: Now I applied the Lucis Pro 6.0 plug-in (shown above). All I did in this plug-in was to drag the Enhance Detail slider over to 65, and then I clicked OK. Simple enough.
Step Four: Now, the key part of this is Dodging and Burning the heck out of the image, in other words, over exaggerate the highlights and shadows, so the photo almost looks cartoonish (basically, you’re going to make the darkest parts darker, and the brightest parts brighter). If you have Photoshop CS4, you can use the Dodge and Burn tools, because they’ve been greatly enhanced. We’ll start with Burning; after you choose the Burn tool, go up to the Options Bar, set the Range to Shadows (so it just effects the shadows), and lower the Exposure amount to 20%. Now paint over the shadow areas in your photo (like in the folds of his shirt, his pants, on his hat, etc.). You have to really exaggerate the shadows, so you’ll have to paint over the shadow areas a few times, and let it build up a bit.
Step Five: Now switch to the Dodge tool. Up in the Options bar, switch the Range to Highlights, and paint over the highlight areas in his shirt, pants, and along both side edges of him, where the brighter light is hitting. Again, you’ll probably have to paint over these highlight areas a few times to really exaggerate the look.
Step Six: Lastly, you’ll finish off by darkening the edges (kind of an edge vignette effect). I did mine by duplicating the background layer and switching the Layer Blend mode to Multiply. Then I made a rectangular selection that’s about 1 inch in from the image borders all the way around (as shown above). Then I added a 250-pixel Feather, and then hit the Delete key, which knocked a hole out of the darker layer, which gave the darkened edge vignette look. That’s how I did the final image you saw yesterday (and the final shown below).
Lucis Pro 6 Plug-in Review
I had reviewed the previous version of this plug-in, called LucisArt2, last year, and while I liked the plug-in, there was a problem (one problem for Mac users, one for Windows users). On the Mac, to use the old plug-in you had to launch Photoshop in Mac OS X’s “Rosetta” mode, which is a much slower (but more compatible) mode. This slowed Photoshop down quite a bit, but I’d only run in Rosetta when running this plug-in (unless, of course, I forgot to quit Photoshop, turn off Rosetta mode, and relaunch Photoshop, which I did all the time).
Well, luckily, in the new Batch of LucisArt plug-ins, they all run in regular Mac OS X. On Windows, they completely rebuilt the interface, and now it’s dramatically better. Besides fixing OS stuff, there are a lot of improvements, including a new algorithm that gives better, cleaner results, a better more streamlined interface, much more control over how the affect is applied, and in Lucis Pro 6, you can run the plug-in on 16-bit images (the other, less expensive, and less featured LucisArt3 plug-ins can only run on 8-bit images). So, overall—lots of improvements to the effect and functionality.
That being said, in my opinion there are two really huge problems with this plug-in.
- It’s crazy expensive at nearly $600 ($595 US). That’s twice what Lightroom costs and nearly as much as Photoshop CS4 itself (you can buy the full version of CS4 from Amazon.com for $639), for a plug-in that is essentially a “one trick pony.” There are less expensive versions of the plug-in (like LucisArt3), but of course, they have less features and can’t run on 16-bit images, but you can get one of those for around $300 (about the same price as Lightroom). Now, the case can be made that if your clients are willing to pay for this look, then it may be worth the investment, but outside of that, I would have a hard time justifying the high price.
- I think Lucis Pro 6 has a bigger problem than the price. It requires a USB hardware dongle. To me, this is the deal breaker. I absolutely would not buy the plug-in because of this requirement (Note: the cheaper LucisArt3 does not require this dongle). I know they’re doing this to cut down on software piracy, but this isn’t penalizing the pirates—it’s penalizing their highest-paying customers. Plus, if I need to use the plug-in on a laptop and my home machine, now I have to carry the dongle in my case. If I leave it at home, and need it at work; I’m out of luck. If I need to use more than one USB port on my laptop, now I can’t use the plug-in. Ridiculous! I don’t know of a single software product in our industry that has become a success while using a hardware dongle (just ask Quark, who added a hardware dongle to QuarkXPress for a very short time), and I hope the people at LucisArt will rethink this going forward
The Bottomline
While the plug-in does a very good job at what it does, I would have a hard time recommending the product for the two reasons I just listed above. While Lucis Pro 6.0 is a big improvement over its predecessor, LucisArt 2, in just about every way, I think the 400% price increase is way off the mark, especially with the limited looks this plug-in can provide (Though the market will ultimately decide if the price is too high). As for the hardware dongle; for me–it’s the deal killer.
Here’s a link to their site for more details, complete pricing for all three plug-ins with a list of each product’s features, and a comparison of how LucisArt 3 compares with LucisArt 2.

























I find it amazing that people can even begin to complain about you posting FREE TUTORIALS–no matter the technique! C’mon people, do you yell at your mom for being born on an even day instead of an odd, too? Sheesh.
I enjoy every one of your articles, keep it up. if people don’t like what’s done, there is always the back button.
I have to agree with you that the dongle is truly a deal-breaker for any software. If there are any software vendors reading these comments, please take this message to heart. Punishing your paying customers with dongles and other obtrusive methods of copyright protection shows me that you lack respect for your customers.
If I like your product, I will pay for it so I can have good customer service and support. Otherwise, I won’t use it at all. See? There’s no need for a dongle! Those who would steal your software likely wouldn’t pay you for it in the first place.
Good customer service, good products, updates, support: those things are better for generating sales than using a dongle.
Good Morning Scott!!!
Simply amazing stuff the last two posts…the people even turned on Katrin. It was awesome seeing her jump in and stir the waters in a whole different direction. I have attended classes from both you and Katrin and have learned so very much from your classes, books, videos, blogs etc… I realize that you have critics in everything you do, but the stuff you and the Kelby Training group do for all of us is nothing short of remarkable. I have learned so much since I became a NAPP member 3 years ago (fixing to renew again) that I have gone up 2 hat sizes.
You have given me the knowledge to be great at my job (Graphic Artist for a Tribal Casino) and you have shown me ways to improve my most passionate hobby (photography) and I appreciate every word spoken, written and typed that you and your crew have provided for me and the rest of the world. You guys (& girls) make a huuuge difference to people all over this big blue marble.
Maybe for your next touchy subject you should have Dave Cross post it…I’ve noticed he gets very little flack over there, or maybe Joe McNally’s, I guarantee there will be at least the same amount or possibly more cussing on there than that T.I. song you heard.
Thanks for all that you do Scott, God Bless!
Dewayne
To quote a Movie. ” Scrape em’ off Scott ” the line is from Scrooged. This is your blog. I get alot of good info here & when you talk about something i’m not really into of don’t care for i just skip it for the day & let the people that are interested in that topic post.
Besides i’m having too much fun playing with my New Made just for me by Nikon 12-500VRII…Oh yeah Scott you know what im talking about. Keep up the great work Scott.
Can’t wait for the Chris Orwig post Tomm.
Awesome couple of posts Scott. And ignore the mean posts, if peopledon’t want to learn then let them go read the news paper. Personally I will take any information you’re willing to give us and if it’s not something i like or I’m not interestedin then I will just pass over that day’s blog.
as for the plug-in. WOW! $600? Dongle or not, there’s just no way I’d be willing to purchase that unless I was doing hundreds of photos. In act, if you can give any ideas on how to achieve this effect (or even remotely close to it) by hand in CS4 or LR2 that would be great. I’ve got a couple photos I’d like to play around with when I get home from work tonight. =)
What a great idea have Dave Cross do a Top 10 reasons why Bridge is better that Lightroom
That should really get the nay sayers temps up.
Because you know i stay up late at night worrying about Dave not using Lightroom.
LOL. Napp rocks. You guys have taught me soooooo much.
You better watch out for that Matt guy Scott i think he wants to take over.
“EUREKA! The Dave Hill look!”
Scott – terrific posts! I love your description of the shoot, especially how you salvaged the lighting with Nikon off camera flash, something I’m much more likely to use than strobes.
You said you’re working on the Photoshop techniques to get the Dave Hill look. I found this post at Flickr I thought you’d be interested in, titled “EUREKA! The Dave Hill Look!”
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/page2/
The first thing he says is that you need strong, contrasty light, just as you said in your Part 1 post. I haven’t yet tried it (too busy) but it looks interesting. I definitely would like to figure out a method using Photoshop, because I’m damned if I’ll spend an outrageous price for a plugin, Lucis, which as you point out is a one-trick pony.
And a dongle! I though that died in the late 80’s. No way.
So I wish you good speed on coming up with a Dave Hill tutorial for the show, or for your blog. Best wishes.
Scott,
Great post. I’m really interested on learning your technique. You of all people should know you can’t please everyone, this is YOUR blog! Don’t let the negative posts effect your decisions, especially when they’re not the majority of your readership. Keep it up Scott!
Juan
Lucis Pro: expensive, yes; is the dongle a pain, yes; one-trick pony, no way. I love Lucis Pro & find it to be the most incredible plug-in I’ve ever seen or used. Is it for everyone? Of course not but that’s why they make chocolate & vanilla.
Those looking to compare LucisArt/Pro with Topaz Adjust (a plug-in mentioned a number of times in these comments) can see some examples here:
http://www.plugsandpixels.com/lucisadjust.html
Adjust and additional Topaz plug-ins are featured in issue #13 of the free ezine here:
http://www.plugsandpixels.com/ezine.html
Here is a site I found that can give you an approximation of the look using Lightroom:
http://limeliteimages.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/dave-hill-tutorial/
Scott – it’s your blog. You’re doing great work!
I check in regularly because I almost always learn something. How great is that?
If a topic doesn’t interest me, I don’t read it. The folks who are posting the “meanies” and “whinies” don’t have enough to do. Ignore them and keep on keeping on.
There is too much fun stuff to learn about and to try — and it’s a new day in America.
Dianne
Hey Scott,
Just keep on doin’ what you’re doin’, there will always be those who criticize,
but they will seldom further the creative knowledge base.
Thanks,
Tom Kostes
Nice review, Scott. I can spend $600 on one plug-in or I can use the $600 to upgrade my CS3 suite to CS4. Hmmmm….not much of a decision. Even if it was 1/3 the price, I agree the dongle is a deal breaker. I have two software applications that require a dongle and I absolutely hate them. I will never upgrade those two applications and will rather look for other apps that provide the same functionality. Hopefully the manufacturer will listen.
Nice review, Scott! Love the final result.
Scott,
you seem to keep getting bad comments but heres the deal. Whether this is a technique you will use or never use it is always good to learn new things. Thats how you become better, and knowledge is power, which in turn makes us all better photographers and editors. Don’t let the “nay sayers” take you down. They clearly don’t have any desire to learn new techinques or even step out of the box for a couple of minutes to read your blog and that’s not the kind of people who help this industry grow. You are doing great, your blog is on my daily reading list and I know I can always find something interesting on here to learn. Great job!
-Luke
Scott, I love the tutorials. Not so much because I like the technique but because you show us how to do it. We are free to choose to use it or not. Your gift is to teach. You taught and informed. End of story.
Thank you!
Hi Scott,
Did u delete comment on part one of this tutorial?
I read through the comments and only found one the I thought was rude.
So, im just wondering if u feel the need to filter the comment section or are u alright with people leaving their manners at home!?
-jr
Scott -
Thanks for following up with part 2 here, I was really intrigued with the shot and technique you were using – again, perfect for the subject.
I was also looking forward to the review of LA 6.0 as I like the gritty look for, well, the same “type” of shot you utilized it for – ideal. However the free LR / ACR technique that Matt highlighted and then you featured here (awhile back) will do me just fine. I’m going to pass on the donglized plug-in and buy a SB-900 – which is $200.00 less than the software.
I am sorry and puzzled that many people become so nasty, please don’t change the way you approach your blog – it’s one of my most enjoyed reads of the day! Usually a laugh, inspiration and a lesson – all a gift from your personal blog. Sadly, it appears that a few don’t appreciate that you are, among so much else, a teacher which implies that not all lessons will be applicable to their work or tastes – I like learning it all and playing with various techniques on …anything. ‘ya never know.
Take care!
Doug
Great posting Scott! I am really glad to see both your shooting technique as well as your post processing workflow. It really helps beginners like myself to see the whole procedure from start to finish.
I found a great alternative to Lucis (mostly due to the price!) and it runs in a photoshop action. It’s called the PhotographyBB Urban Art Action (you can google it) and I’ve been able to get pretty decent results.
Thank you again for all of your hard work with the blog. I’m sure it takes a lot of time and effort to come up with these posts as well as preparing the images for us too. Great stuff Scott!
Tim C.
Thanks for the post. As a newbie to photography you have great insight. I enjoy your post and your show. I enjoy them so much I joined NAPP just so I could learn more!
Momma said ” Some folks would bitch if they were hung with a new rope”
You can allways tell the haters Piss up a rope. Thanks for all the info
you provide it has made me a better photographer. I remember the days
when you couldnt beat a technique like this out of another photographer.
Thanks
David
Scott:
RE: Dave Hill Technique
Sharing your recipe for making this popular look, is a GOOD thing, Scott! A lot of us enjoy your explorations into the popular effects used in fashion and motion picture master advertising. I think you personally, know how to skip the Lucis Art plugin, just using your
remarkable Photoshop skill – that would be really interesting to see, for advanced users. I’d even go one step further and do a “Jill Greenberg” version of the super sharp style, which is frankly more acceptable to clients. (And the D3x is good solution for those of us that have make large images, to fit large lightbox displays.)
Anyway, I hope to join one of your seminars sometime and meet you in person. I especially like yours and Joe McNally’s videos, on your Kelby Training website.
Just keep going Scott!
Warm regards,
Ron
Hong Kong
Scott- as someone who has disagreed with you in the past (in, I hope, a respectful manner), let me echo some of the other commentors in saying I definitely appreciate all that you do for us, both for free and for a price (like your books, which I own most of). I am still here everyday, seeing if I can learn some tidbit or increase my knowledge of either photography and Photoshop (& yes, even Lightroom).
I may never have a call to create a photo like you did (& certainly won’t be spending $600 for the plugin), but I still learned something about lighting set-ups that might come in handy. My opinion is just that, my opinion and therefore means nothing.
Keep up the good work.
This is great, thank you for sharing this technique. But the price of the plug-in is a bummer!
I also found your lighting setup the most to gain from this post, as it’s all about the lighting isn’t it?!?!
Scott! Please keep working on this method, and share a Lucis-Artless way to do this look. I love this look when wanted (not too often) and would really like a good method from within photoshop. It’s a great tool to have in your bag!
Thanks Scott for sharing all that you do! I enjoy the variety of your posts & the ‘how to ones’, like this one, are real gems. Hopefully you can let the negative posts ride off your back as there as so many of us, myself included, that deeply appreciate your willingness to so openly share your expertise. Much much thanks and deep appreciation!
Kai
St. Lucia
West Indies
Thanks Scott for sharing all that you do! I enjoy the variety of your posts & the ‘how to ones’, like this one, are real gems. Hopefully you can let the negative posts ride off your back as there are so many of us, myself included, that deeply appreciate your willingness to so openly share your expertise. Much much thanks and deep appreciation!
Kai
St. Lucia
West Indies
Stop Apologizing!!
Scott, you should never, ever, have to feel like you did something inappropriate when YOU create something, be it a technique, a book, a blog, a TV Show, a widget, a whatever… Why? Because it is YOURS. It belongs to you. I can choose to ‘consume’ it or well, I can choose to ‘consume’ something else. Same rationale applies to those haters who banged on Nikon for the price of the D3X. While we live in an age of entitlement, we’re better off learning that this so called entitlement is a myth. We’re not entitled to jack, and certainly not entitled to hijack someone else’s post. Unreal. To those of you who think you have the right to tell someone else what they should do with THEIR service, blog, product, book, widget, whatever, especially when you’ve invested absolutely ZERO in said service, blog, product, book, widget, or whatever, I have a simple 3 word dictum you would do well to live by. In fact, your quality of life, your mood, and your outlook on life will improve immensely. Likely overnight. Those 3 words?? GET… OVER… IT… And get off this man’s back. No one gives more to the Photoshop community. Don’t like his post? Go somewhere else. And, And, And… well, GET OVER IT.
–Rich
Scott, I always appreciate your info and insight. I love the behind the scenes stuff on your shoots, there is always something I can take away. I think I’ll skip the $600 plug-in for myself, but if I was getting lots of requests for that type of look it would pay for itself and I appreciate knowing it’s out there. Just keep doing what you do best and don’t worry about the crazy critics. You’re awesome!
Hello;
Very nice work on your photos. Very interesting post. Thanks for the reading.
On the subject of a $600 dongle, let me just quote something the late, great George Carlin said in one of his stand-up routines many years ago… “If you nail two things together that have never been nailed together before, some schmuck will buy it!” Well put, I’d say.
You (and by that I mean all you Photoshop Guys) have simply become victims of your own success. The more visitors, readers, and watchers of your web and podcasts you attract the more naysayers you’ll generate. Let’em eat cake. Keep truckin’! Keep postin’. Yeah, some of these techniques may be overplayed. But to many they’re new and exciting.
The main thing is, You guys rock!
Hey Scott!
Like the rest, I love the knowledge you give to us! I’ve been a member for about 2 years and love all the good information you give. Can you us the lighting ratios and such for a set up like this?
Also, since you seem to come to the San Franciso Bay Area alot for Adobe maybe you can schedule a lightroom class over of this side of Calofornia. You know if it wasnt for me seening your book “The Digital Photography Book” I would have never found you, your books, NAPP, Kelby Training, Photoshop userTV, Layers Magazine, Layers TV, Dave Cross, Matt Kloskosky (alphabet), RC, Laddie, and all the rest of your crew and resources.
When I first started to get in photography, being very ignorant to it all, I bought a canon 30d and ran around taking pictures. After looking at the pictures I had taken, I thought to myself “I really suck at photography” and “why to my pictures look so plain and so “point and shoot-ish” compaired to people I know with the same camera. So I bought your book and finally found the resources I was is desperate need of!! Before being jump started from your book to NAPP and all the other resources I was totally lost. I have found that there are a lot of photographers out there with books and such but have all kinds or diffrent opinions and philosophys of photography. Trying to follow all the diffrent opinions and philosophys of photography got me more confused than when I started.
Thats why I love your organization! You guys stick to the same script and basic photography and photoshop philosophy. Im so glad I found you! THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP.
g
Hi Scott,
Thanks for all you do, and thanks for all your great posts. I echo so many when I say carry on doing your own thing – if people don’t like it they don’t have to read it. I’ve learnt so much from you – in these posts, Photoshop User TV and your books (another one on order from Amazon right now) – and you’re sense of humour matches mine.
Carry on the great work – and THANKS!
All your tips are valuable. Just delete the jerks and keep the tips coming.
Great post!!
Great Post!
I also played a little with LucisArt (3) few days ago and got some interesting result (images are also HDR):
http://dremer.org/?p=926
http://dremer.org/?p=944
love all the content on the site and many thanks for the big effort to provide awesome quality tutorials, great guest speakers, and etc…. only blog I read each weekday. ,any thanks again
Hey Scott – not sure if you’ve run across the work of joel grimes:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29210138@N04/
http://www.joelgrimes.com/
Hi Scott,
Don’t listen to the complainers, you are doing excellent work to provide this valuable information to the people. I personally love the look, and I use a subtle version that I apply in Camera Raw as preset. When I show people images of cars or busy, colourful scenes they absolutely love it and want more!
The price for Lucis Art is too much and with that dongle, that sounds like a pain. I’d spend the money on CS4 instead.
Keep up the good work and G’day from Australia.
Marcel
Again, thank you for posting a great blog topic. I just discovered this site and in a few blogs, I have learned something. So, it is not in vain. I find that when one tries to find out how someone does something, it expands one. then to go and share that, expands everyone. I can find lots of differant applications in portions of the process that makes this valuable. Thanks again, and I look forward to your photo shop only version. Dennis.
I found this very interesting. Thanks.
Scott,
I thought that I would share with you an email that I sent to LucisArt back on July 15th. This was in response to a newsletter sent to the 5500 registered fusers outlining Barbara’s outrage about her product being on the torrent sites for download. The newsletter outlined the upcoming “changes” in both product and process that were being put in place to assuage her outrage. Evidently, the piracy was “discovered” in the first part of May, 08 and the planning for the punishment of the customer base started then and there.
…..
Barbara,
As one of the 5500 (albeit recently) I thought that I would weigh in on your proposed security plan for the upcoming release. Hated it….. It smacks of the RIAA/Microsoft approach to customer service. While I more than understand your need to receive fair value for what you have produced (which is why I only run legitware on my system) I do not understand the “full urban lockdown” method that you have chosen to protect your art. I do not believe that anyone of the boneheads that got and/or use a cracked copy of your software would have bought it from you in the first place. Therefore, you (and your company) did not suffer a loss of revenue in any real sense because… let me say it again… none of these idiots would have purchased it in the first place .
So in response to a perceived loss of revenue, you’ve chosen to implement a plan that has and will continue to cost you in real revenue. As you outlined in you newsletter, you have:
1. Redesigned your site (a case could be made that it badly needed to be done anyway… but not to the level/cost that I expect it has been)
2. Created much more than you would have in the way of content for that site (because you don’t have a demo version)
3. Added a hardware component
4. Incurred design costs in package development
5. Added significantly to your cost of delivering your product (nothing is cheaper or faster than downloads and cd/dvd production ain’t cheap)
6. Wether you realize it or not, you’ve dramatically increased your need, and therefore costs, for an expanded customer service framework (Trust me sir, the dongle can’t cause your network to go down … No ms, the dongle cannot cause all of your photographs to be erased…. I can’t find my dongle and my project is due tomorrow… you think I’m kidding… just wait for it)
7. Delayed your product launch while you took the time to combat your perceived revenue loss
Oh yea and….
1. Neglected to ask if anyone has a spare USB port that can be used for the privilege of running Lucis Pro 6.0 (In my case I don’t which means I would need to add hardware to accommodate your hardware or take the shot at playing “find the dongle” it when I want to use your product… see # 6 above) BTW, what is your policy about a lost/broken dongle? Would I need to buy another copy of the software?
In short, you have drastically increased the cost and complexity of your entire operation without adding one single bit of value to me… your real customer. Looking at it from my standpoint… you’ve accomplished nothing but a decrease in your profits and an increase in my costs for using your product… All because you got pissed off on May 7th. Not only that, but I’m willing to bet you a dollar right now that within 6 months of your delayed release I can find a dongle-less version of 6.0 on the net… ’cause you just handed the net kiddees a challenge…. and they just love those to death.
Let me close (if your still reading) by saying that I do like your product, I do wish you the very best, and I will continue to pay attention to your efforts during and thru the upcoming launch cycle… but as it stands right now your at 5499 and you will have figure out a way to win me back.
…………………………….
Since you brought this back to my attention with your (most excellent) review… I had someone check the net and found (as predicted) cracked copies of LucisPro 6 are out there for the taking…. and no you don’t need a dongle. The bad news is that since I never received a reply from anyone at LucisArt…. I guess I don’t get the dollar!
As to the Dave Hill thing…. Just keep doin’ what you do and ignore the cheap seats.
Alan
Well written, Alan. And very accurate in my experience. I’ve worked in the computer field since 1990. Nothing with a dongle has survived for long. And everything gets copied, cracked, shared, etc in the end.
I think you made a very keen observation that escapes many people and most companies. Most of the people that download expensive, specialty software illegally were never going to be part of the customer base. The need to protect your own intellectual property is understandable. It’s unfortunate that its the legitimate customers that feel the most pain in that attempt.
Scott,
Enjoyed the tutorial! Keep em coming!
This is one of the most commonly requested techniques. I don’t use the plug-in mainly because you don’t have complete control over what it does – like you do when doing your own layer blends. (smile)
As for dongles. Hackers figured out how to get past these years ago. Requiring one is just a nuisance for the person who did purchase the product legally. And I too pass over products that require them. And, I figure most people who grab programs illegally don’t have the patience to use them for long. And when you consider that you can easily find an older version from someone who’s upgraded (or changed programs), or buy student editions to learn from, etc. there’s no reason anyone should be downloading illegal programs.
Hi Scott,
Just wondering when you might be posting your Photoshop-only technique for this? I’m not sure how much of a fan I will continue being of the Dave Hill style (for the time being though I remain a big fan), but the technique used can undoubtedly be used as a variation to achieve other kinds of results.
Thanks,
Jess
Even when I’m not “into” the topic, I still read it, because there is always something to be learned and applied! I don’t own/use Lightroom, but there are many techniques that you (NAPP peeps) have done that have motivated me to find other ways to accomplish the same end. There is always another way to get to the finish line.
The fact that you are willing to teach and share your workflows with us is phenomenal in its own right, and these unappreciative people need to find something more creative to do with their time than complain about the gift of knowledge! If they don’t like what they are reading, they can turn the page!
Keep up the awesome posts!
I wouldn’t pay $600 for a plug-in, especially one with a dongle… so annoying!
Newly registered NAPP member for life.
Hey Scott…
Love the blog. Thanks for all the great tutorials! I was just wondering if you were still going to do post a photoshop only technique to achieve the Dave Hill look? Can’t afford the Lucis plugin but would like to be able to play with getting this look in some of my shots.
Thanks,
Jeff
Thanks for sharing =)