question on lighting filter

[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".

[lepr]

.

[Cedge]

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

[lepr]

.

[Cedge]

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

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, Cedge said:

Walt
You've pretty much put things into context.

Then how do you put this into context:

3 hours ago, Cedge said:

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.

 

As @owenr & I have both gone to some lengths to explain, the lights of the filter are in fact completely independent & separately adjustable. 

[Cedge]

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.

[lepr]

.

[R C-R]

@Cedge, my concern is that your earlier statement is misleading & will not help @srg understand how to use the filter. The lights are in fact completely independent & separately adjustable. It is the shared properties of what they illuminate (the layer or group) that are not, which gives the false impression that adjusting one light somehow affects the adjustment of others.

[Cedge]

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

[srg]

Ok, I starterd this thread and I got nothing except that it seems obvious to me, given the various replies that something is not proper on the lighting live layer.

For sure the interface is confusing, at least.

Then i have a couple of screen shots that may make another pont:

First shot, light 4; I am putting a little of specular light on the mouth of the carafe with a point light.

Second shot , light 6, I am trying to modulate the light on the first apple on the left with a spot light and bingo, the specular light on the mouth disappears. Not what I wanted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[v_kyr]

Didn't checked that initial statement, but if it is always reproducible for you that one light setting always influences/changes another one, then you should fill in a bug report, or make a feature request for being able to set up multiple independently ones of these.

[Cedge]

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.

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, srg said:

First shot, light 4; I am putting a little of specular light on the mouth of the carafe with a point light.

There is no "specular light" as such. Like shininess & diffusion, specularity is a property of light reflected from a surface. Here, there are 6 lights but just one surface. The surface is the layer (or group) the filter is applied to. If you change the Diffuse, Specular, or Shininess sliders in the filter, it affects the entire layer, just as adding a texture or bump map would.

 

Think of it like shining lights on a photograph laying flat on a desk, viewed from directly above the photo. The type & number of lights used have no effect on how diffuse, specular, or shiny the reflections of those lights will be. That depends entirely on the reflectivity of the photo itself (like if it is printed on glossy or matte paper) & the angles, distances, & directionality of each of those lights relative to the photo.

[Cedge]

RCR
Show us your solution, if you please.

[R C-R]

6 minutes ago, Cedge said:

RCR
Show us your solution, if you please.

I have made it as clear as I know how that from the beginning my only interest in this discussion is helping to clear up any misconceptions about how the filter works that would confuse users & make it more difficult for them to create whatever effects they want to achieve if they choose to use that filter as a part of that process.

 

I cannot speak for anyone else but personally, I think understanding how things work is a necessary prerequisite for this, without which there can be no solution.

[Cedge]

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

[v_kyr]

Well I just looked shortly at these, but honestly wasn't that thrilled so far, since my tryouts with portrait shots and trying to resemble/fake some of our studio light settings here, showed too much light point interferences and banding issues when several fake light sources are used. Also when using several lightning live filters here (aka editable masks) then it's hard to get them adjusted and blended over (via blend modes) in a more natural light distributing way, things here when combined get often overall more darker then in sum naturally lighter as real lightsources would. Thus maybe one better adjusts and flattens layers step after step here. - I had hopes that it might work more uninfluenced for several combined light sources, so to say more in a manner as NIK control points overall do.

 

[Cedge]

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
 

[carl123]

On 10 February 2018 at 5:14 PM, srg said:

Hello,

When I am on a lighting live filter layer and I ad a  new  light, I found that changing the parameters of the last light added changes the parameters of the previous lights. Is that possible to have every added light modulated indipendently from the previous ones? Also I found that at times when I change the specular light in a  light oif the spot type, what actually changes is the  specular light of another light in point mode. Sorry if I cannot explain it better.

 

When using multiple Live Lighting Layers the Diffuse, Specular & Shininess of each lighting layer can be changed separately.  Giving you greater control over the effects you want.

File attached if you want to have a play with it.

PS I have "hacked" the attached screenshot to show both light positions at the same time.  You can't actually see them both at the same time, just one at a time by clicking on the respective Lighting layer.

 

apples2.afphoto

[Cedge]

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.

[R C-R]

I don't know if this will make anything any clearer but hope springs eternal & all that ... 

 

Anyway, if you are interested enough to download & check out this 3.5 MB Porche blink.afphoto file, note that for comparison purposes it has two live filter layers which can be enabled one at a time:

I have made the file as simple as possible -- there are no mask effects, textures, bump maps or anything special about it other than it is a reduced size & partially blurred copy of a photo I took for a "2½D" animation sequence I am making with other software to (hopefully) amuse my friends.

 

Both filters use 2 lights & specular reflection to simulate the glow of the amber parking lights of the car. The only difference is one filter uses amber colored lights & a white specular reflection, while the other uses white lights & an amber colored specular reflection. The effect is the same, so at this point you are probably thinking, "So what is your point, cowboy? " 

 

Please indulge me for a little bit longer & now, in each filter try adding another pair of point lights & move them over the headlamps of the car. For the amber lights version of the filter, you can change the color of these lights to white to get a white glow effect because the specular reflection is white. But that won't work with the specular amber version because in this filter the specular reflection is amber regardless of the color of the lights creating it.

 

The point of doing this exercise is to demonstrate that in both filter versions the properties of all 4 lights are in fact individually & independently adjustable. But the specular reflection is not a property of these individual lights. It is instead a property of the Background photo layer the filters are applied to. Because of this, varying it must of necessity affect the reflection of each light in exactly the same way. It is not a bug, it is just a consequence of a light & the reflection it creates being two different things.

[Cedge]

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]

@RC-R

In your example changing the Diffuse or Shininess affects the whole picture which would not be what you want when just adding lighting effects to the amber parking lights.

In the attached, reworked example, changing Diffuse or Shininess only affects the area you are trying to illuminate thus giving you greater control on the exact lighting effect you want to achieve for the parking lights.

(And by using separate lighting layers it also lets you control each parking light individually)

 

Porche blink2.afphoto