Light on text

[D8002uga]

I am Duga from IS. Text and typography are among the things that are of interest to me. I've found a way of doing this in CS2, and now preparing the tut of how.
Hope u like

[martyng]

I don't want to be rude, but I don't think anyone here will use that tutorial. The lighting doesn't work properly, the font and type treatment are horrible and I can't see any use for it.

I'm glad you are trying new things etc, but I'd leave the tutorials for now.

[cnic]

Yeah man... my first glimpse of this tells me it looks wrong.

But hey I think I speak for everyone here when i say, I did a million things wrong before I started getting it right.

Keep workin' man!

Good luck!

[D8002uga]

Maybe this one looks better?

[Maker]

no offense but to me that looks like three layers of the same text on top of a lense flare filter..

I like layered text as much as the next guy, but does anyone really need a tut to make three layers and offset them? maybe I am missing something and sound stupid for missing it.

[double A-ron]

no offense but to me that looks like three layers of the same text on top of a lense flare filter..

I like layered text as much as the next guy, but does anyone really need a tut to make three layers and offset them? maybe I am missing something and sound stupid for missing it.

You're not missing something as far as I can tell. These just look really simple and overly used Photoshop effects to me and nothing I'd ever use.

[Typically]

oooOooOoOooooo lens flair!

[budafist]

It looks like someone loves the filters and layers options in Photoshop. Not something I would ever use professionally.

[hewligan]

It looks like someone loves the filters and layers options in Photoshop. Not something I would ever use professionally.

Really? No filters or layer options ever? So you never need to blur or sharpen an image (just to name the obvious)? There's plenty of useful stuff in the filters and layer options, and if you're never using them, then you're really missing out on a lot of the power of photoshop.

Sure throwing lens flares around is - well, really what it is is unfashionable.

[budafist]

Really? No filters or layer options ever? So you never need to blur or sharpen an image (just to name the obvious)? There's plenty of useful stuff in the filters and layer options, and if you're never using them, then you're really missing out on a lot of the power of photoshop.

Sure throwing lens flares around is - well, really what it is is unfashionable.


;) I meant that the tutorial isn't something I'd use. For silly stuff and epic playtime pieces, maybe, but not for my clients.

[Navian]

Sometimes, it is always good to go back and review the basics.

http://revver.com/video/584565/drawing-simple-shadows/

I've said this before.

Lighting is a double edge sword. Used correctly it can make a what ever is being luminated stand out, however if used incorrectly, what ever is being luminated is doom to fail.

This works for 2D design, 3D design, even the lighting inside and outside of buildings.

Now, these two pieces..

Rule of thumb, never use the lense flare as a light source. because it is not a light source, it is generally a reflection off another surface, in 2D it tends to hurt the viewers eyes.. in 3D if used in a small scale to be placed on an object where the light reflects (again a small-really small scale). Might help it stand out, but it is best to not use it at all.

In both pieces you are using a 3d light reflection (lense flare) on 2d text, then having the text cast a shadow (both pieces are incorrect with the shadow), and don't work with each other.

The 1st piece,the lighting reflections and shadows of the text are off, based on the source location. the 2nd piece.

Here is an example of a miniture lighting studio (for product/industrial design):
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/1/product-photography-studio.jpg

^ was to show you what I mean by a source light. In that image there is not 2 sources of light, but at least 5 sources: 2 lamp lights, 1 over head light, 1 outside/sunlight (unless the windows are covered), 1 ambient reflective light. I didn't count the refractions, reflections, and fallouts (not sources, but other lighting aspects to consider.)

[D8002uga]

given that by default the distort filter only works from the center, none of u never mentioned this setback. I'm impressed..
Would anyone (not ever using filters or something likr that) try explaning how do the rays come from the right?
Tnx for comments

[DesignerScott]

^ Huh?

[martyng]

wtfwowpwn he made rays come from the right!?. Tutorial now plsthnxbbye!

[hewligan]

given that by default the distort filter only works from the center, none of u never mentioned this setback. I'm impressed..
Would anyone (not ever using filters or something likr that) try explaning how do the rays come from the right?
Tnx for comments

Why without using filters? It was done with filters - specifically, filter -> render -> lens flare.

The way to do it without using filters would be... draw it. With a soft edged brush. But I can't imagine why you'd want to do that when you could just use the filter if that's what you wanted...

[PrintDriver]

Having the light source appear in the same image is your downfall. If the light is behind, the face of the letters would be dark. If you want to include your light source and have the light hitting the face of the letters, you need to turn your letters to face it somewhat, which will require perspective to the letters kinda like the old Superman movie poster. http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/93/3293/poster3.php

[Maker]

I cant find the filter that makes a superman poster. maybe I have an old version of the adobe? lolololololol J/k

[Oldat29]

Is this a joke ?

[Broacher]

Homer Simpson: "Did you know that the internet is on computers now?"

[frankster]

I find myself wondering how MD is spending his short spell of time away from GDF.

[D8002uga]

I totally agree about the darkend letters. I apologise for not being clear. After reviewing the last image I think it's the better one. One must realize that this is WIP, not the ready image, which is why I enjoy this dicussion.
I'm after this style of handling light (made in Bryce by Peter Sharpe). I hope it's more clear now,
Tnx for comments

[D8002uga]

This image is the final version of the current light issue. As has been shown, I sought after the Bryce 3D light technique, and this is what I've managed to come up with. I wish to remind all tut isn't ready yet. The window may be too big but the idea should be clear. After I've darkened the text, it looks better, huh?
Tnx

[Navian]

Doesn't work for me. The light projection and the 2 point prospective of the window just look way off to me, and the light just doesn't project correctly as natural light does through a window.

And you are still using the flare. Matter of fact, I see the same image (same text, same flare) as previously posted, just with a black window and black shapes to the right and left of the window.

Nice try, but your piece (lighting, shadows, window, etc..), doesn't have the same feel as that one made in Bryce (that one is done correctly).


*Edit*

Forgot to ask, Why "Postoffice", and "Household"?

[martyng]

Give it up man, it looks terrible.

[sierng]

One word.

Perspective.

[Drazan]

Don't give up.

First thing most people do when opening up photoshop is find the effects. Effects can be wonderfully good when used properly and after tons of practicing and tweaking. Eventually you'll know when to use an effect and how that effect changes your overall design.

That said, you have the tools, now comes the practice. Comparing the bryce render to yours.

Bryce: the window has proper perspective that it seems like it is on a wall and has depth. You can see the shadow and lighting around the window sill, making the window have a realistic type of depth.

Yours, the window is flat black, rather harsh and not set anywhere. it is floating in space. The bottom of the window makes it look like the window is crooked. That is not in perspective to the person viewing the scene.

Bryce: the beams of light are truely filtered light beams. The beams come through the window highlighting the window sill, travel through the air and land on the floor. When the beams land on the floor, the angle of light changes. This gives the scene a depth perspective of being in a room. Also the light illuminates the background and the viewer sees walls and a corner.

Yours: your light has no landing point, it has very harsh rays of light. They overpower the background and there is no depth to lead the viewer into the illusion of more.

Yours: the text. Hard photoshop beveling is really obvious, and is out of date. Most beveling nowdays is "doming" where the soft rounded text is graduated from one color to a deeper tone of the same color. By default photoshop goes from color to black. The bevel is also one thing that if done wrong screams amateur because it's obvious that you used a filter. There was a post on one of the design blogs that said something like "Some designers use filters to make the design pop, but in reality it only makes a bad design worse. A design should be able to stand on it's own merit without special effects."

The light hitting the text is also wrong. You can't have upfront text that is backlit and expect it to be readable.

So what I would suggest is looking up tutorials on "how to draw in perspective" even if it is a pencil tutorial you can still apply it to the screen.

:)
Jade

[Drazan]

MOD VOICE: If you don't have something constructive to say, then don't say it.

Be nice people, even if you don't like it you can say it in a non-destructive way.

[TheBluePanda]

This thread is hilarious. Kinda reminds me of 1995 when I first discovered Photoshop and was crankin out stuff like this.

[D8002uga]

After many trials & attempts at the light effect I've arrived at the conclusion that Bryce 5 is a good tool.
Creating 3D text tutorial can be wached here:
http://www.petersharpe.com/Tutorial10.htm

Based on that tutorial I've managed to come up with this PS image:

The tutorial can be watched here:
ftp://ledzy.homeip.net/htmlDocs/bry_coorporate_light.html

The size was wrong, so it will be in my next reply

[D8002uga]

Here's the image

[Oldat29]

Can i ask why you are creating these images?

[Oldat29]

I dont mean to insult or anything here, but i see that your working on this king of stuff since 03, thats a long time to be working on graphics stuff and not show any improvment.

[Drazan]

learning new stuff?

most people when learning new stuff, create terrible images at first. I'm one of them. My first bryce or 3dmax images were terrible once I got past the defaults even worse. :)

I personally won't show those on the web. lol I don't think there is anything wrong with the goal he has in mind and the learning curve he's taken on. The images aren't that great yet, but show significant improvement over the first couple he posted.

When learning perspective and lighting, there's some that have the knack for it and others that take a little while to get used to working with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that the latest image is definitely in the right direction. Still not quite there. The lensflare is very very bright to the point of not being natural. Combined with the text it does feel forced. But the two major points that are working for you is that the backlighting is correct on the words and the shadow makes the perspective feel natural.

What does the image look like with out the lensflare?

[DesignerScott]

^ The only thing I have to add is that he probably shouldn't be concerned with making tutorials until he has a firm grasp of what he's doing ;)

[D8002uga]

The only comment I can post here is that this time there was absolutely no lense flare
Tnx for comments, glad to be on the right track