Cedge

deleted due to misinterpretation of problem

RCR.... It seems that I create ripples of discord in your too tidy world. Truth being told, I simply do not care if all of this is discomfiting to your personal sense of propriety. Vaya Con Dios, Cowboy.

And it's still a distinction without a difference, when its used as I use it. For me it's simply one more way to use a tool on canvas. Get over it.

OK.... I'm leaving the thread at this point. I learned another couple of tricks to use to work around the filter limits and I'm now aware of what question to ask first, when things don't quite jibe. I'll drop in and make a bug report, just so the back office guys can have a look. Let the Affinity team figure it out from here. I'm off to prepare my ride for a group drive into the wickedly twisted back roads of western NC.

Bingo... one of the versions isn't working properly. I strongly suspect its a win version problem. There are images where I might want to enhance a very distant light source and work with one much closer. Their characteristics need to be very different, in specular, shininess or diffusion, in order to create an illusion of distance induced fall off and atmospherics. If the two point lights are not independent, then I have to use the multiple application / layer trick to get there. So you do you currently have the ability to make independent adjustments to both in a single application. That would be ideal. As an aside...being able to engage and disengage same layer point lights, so that both characteristics are selectively available could be very useful. Consider that none of this is particularly applicable to the average user who simply wants to use a single spotlight for mood enhancement.

RCR Yes, if you combine spots and points, the spotlights are indeed ignored when the point lights are adjusted and vice versa. That was never the issue. Multiple point lights within a single adjustment layer, at least on AP win versions are, for whatever reason, coupled in some manner that makes all instances in unison when any single point light is adjusted. The working solution is multiple applications, with the one light one layer being the most versatile method.If this isn't the case on a mac, then the windows version is not working in the same manner. I'd like mine to allow the independence, just as you describe, but it simply isn't happening, not even with the files you shared.. It seems that both realities indeed exist within different environments. A test... Take one light filter layer in your porsche file and adjust one point lights so that one is "dimmed" and the other isn't. if you can do it on a single adjustment layer, you've essentially proven the difference between versions. Oddly enough our goals are rather similar, Neither of us want the user to encounter unwarranted confusion. I appreciate your penchant for proper technical terms and yes... I know a layer is a theoretical flat reflective surface. So is an artist's canvas. The end results on canvas depend on the artist's ability use all available tools to create the visual illusion he wishes the viewer to experience. It's great to know the the proper nomenclature for all of the tools, but its not required to make art. Any kid, with crayon in hand can create, even before knowing the names of his colors.

I'd say OP is somewhat prone to understatement. I'd die happy if I could show half as much talent, forget technique.

It would appear I've earned a place on RCR's ignore list, earned being the operative word. I looked at his light filter panels and it does appear he's using AP on a Mac, so it seems we were seeing different actions on screen, making both versions factual. Someone might let him know that it appears there is indeed a bug in AP- Win versions. His version is obviously true on AP- Mac. I suppose it wasn't a complete fiasco...I now know THE first question to ask when such a situation arises in the future. I will file a bug report, thus ending what is regretted encounter on my part. Who knows... I might even come to miss the crusty old sod.

RCR... Go back read further. I admit the comment was premature and I offer you my sincere apology. When I'm off base, I'm not afraid to own it. After the first cup of coffee set in, I dug deeper into the file you sent. You're far too adamant that the adjustment is independent for it to be untrue and my eyes certainly aren't lying to me here. I think we've possibly cornered a bug. We can continue the difference without a distinction conversation at a later date.

RCR... Nicely done image. I'm sitting here making adjustments to your lighting layer number one. Both turn signals are reacting when I adjust the secular, shininess or distance sliders. Any one of the three single sliders dims the effect or makes it brighter, on both turn signals. You seem to strongly indicate it doesn't happen on your end , yet several people have now experienced this interconnected relationship, so its not just me. Heck, I'm doing it right now, using your file, on a healthy win 7 pro machine. I'm now wondering if there might be a Mac vs Windows component involved here. Are you by chance on a mac?

Carl123 Good to see others are finding the multiple application method. The trick is in isolating each light or group of related lights during application, whether on one layer or on multiple layers. Your non-destructive suggestion offers a lot more dynamic control than the down and dirty, more destructive method I shared with SRG.

V_kyr It takes a few sessions to begin to anticipate the way the panel works. As you already noticed, the flatten/merge option is the one thing that works every time. I can work around the slight banding and the growing darkness, so the filter is usable. There are probably better ways to do things than the current model. I will remain remain patient. Especially since RCR should be coming to share his fix, any time now. YOOOOHOOOOooooo, RCR....... where'd ya go cowboy?? Steve

Awwwww....... you're doing just fine speaking for everyone else. Those who can't do things want to make sure no one else can either. Now show the "Render Meister" your stuff .... or kindly take a hike. SRG Direct message me if you need further assistance. I'll be more than happy to give you practical advice, instead of a meaningless verbal blizzard. My job here is done. ROFLMAO V_kyr I'll pop around to the reporting area and share the "Problem" / "Suggestion". As a practical matter it's probably not a top level bug, if its a bug at all. The work around is pretty effective. so far. Thanks for the suggestion and the nudge, amigo

RCR Show us your solution, if you please.

SRG My apologies for the direction things took. It was not my intent to hijack your thread. Try applying the point light as you want it. Then adjust the ambient to suit your taste and merge the effect. Go back into the Lighting filter and adjust the spot and ambient light again, to suit and once again, merge. I just tried it and it preserves both instances. You're basically working with the same effect that I used, but with far more subtle settings.

RCR Like I said... I don't give a damn. I've also made it clear it's a non conventional technique.

RCR I posted the images to show how I used filter and why it had to be used as I did, in order to produce the results I sought. I even went back and duplicated the behavior that I've described and I know perfectly well what my experience was. Beyond that, I no longer give a damn if either of you agree or disagree. I'm not discussing this with you any further. Done.

so.... no Christmas card from you this year?

Owen "Much is missed when context is ignored"... Cedge.

Another one just for the heck of it. This is an early version of the final "6 lamp" image. I later added a couple of wall sconces on either side of the archway, for the 6th "lamp".

Walt You've pretty much put things into context. It's simply another way to utilize a tool. 2d graphics basically consist of making the viewer's eye see what you want it to see. The end results are all i care about. I know the filter is not a projecting light source and that I'm playing footloose and fancy free with "reflections on surfaces" in an unconventional way to achieve an unconventional result. If swinging a cat around the room by its tail gets me to where I want to go, my poor tomcat isn't going to like it very much either. While i do a lot of typical photo post processing, I come from a long background of image creation, manipulation and composites along with other witchery that most people never try. In the end, I know how to accomplish the effects/results I'm after, Its just a different cat skinning experience. I kinda like doing things a bit differently. Here is an alternate reality, one I created using the filter in a way no one intended. This truck sits in a junk yard called Old Car City, in White, Georgia. (google it) I took this photo of a red truck around noon, well outside the golden hour. The truck hasn't been run in over 30 years. While initially exploring the powers of AP, this photo went through a number of looks. It's been wrung out in various monochrome styles, sketch macros and various blend mode combinations that number into the thousands. Oh... you noticed it's a green truck sitting in the dark, now? This version was created during some experimentation with the lighting filter, blend modes, a bit of masking and some successful brush creation. As stated above, it's unconventional, but right or wrong, it works almost perfectly for my needs. After all... reflected light is still light. No.... all those years of playing with 3D doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean I know a few tricks.... even if only through osmosis. Now... should I let owenR back out of his cell?

I think you are a very worthy new addition to my ignore list.

Owen We're obviously not communicating. I'm not mistaking anything. 25 years of creating "reality" in a Raytracing environment has been quite enough get a full and practical understanding of the subject. I'm quite aware of the relationships between light, surfaces and atmospherics. That is exactly what Raytracing is all about. My point in this thread is simply put... if I have applied two identical lights to a scene, both of which are identified separately, I expect them to be independent and separately adjustable... period.

OwenR Scenario: Automobile headlights Place a point light with default setting over one headlamp. two options exist for placing point light on second headlight... add or copy (since we're using default settings, either method is fair game) Now make adjustments, diffuse, specular or shininess, to either light and you will see both iterations react to the adjustments. The numeric listing on the menu basically allows selection for movement only. The lights remain related regardless of the number selected. To break that relationship, it requires applying the current lights and then reopening the filter to apply more lights. One image used point lights on 6 different street lamps in a somewhat similar manner. That was where I finally figured out how to make multiple applications to gain a bit more control.

Bump maps work fine with paths (curves). I've been using software that allows application of both bump maps and reflections for a number of years. With years of 3d ray tracing and using vectors under my belt, I'm not a novice on any level, except perhaps using AP UI. I certainly notice when things are not as they could/should be.