Mystical Lighting Plugin

[Andrew B.]

http://www.autofx.com/mystical_lighting/mystical_lighting.html

I was pretty impressed by the examples on the opening page. Then I realized that every example they show started with a good photo. And I'm not saying this is bad, or that the filter is bad. Just make sure to check the before and after carefully before deciding what it can do.

[DJ Dubovsky]

That is impressive. Did you try the demo yet? Curious to see if it works as well as it seems in the examples. And how easy it is to use.
DJ

[Andrew B.]

Sorry to say, I haven't downloaded the demo. So I can't give any impressions. But it does appear to have more light effects than any other light plugin I've seen. I'm just not sure how well they would work on other pictures. The ones they display are well-suited to use these effects.

[DJ Dubovsky]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure if it was the pictures they used that were so attractive or if the lighting effects would create the same impression to any photo we used. It might be neat to find out. I'm not sure if I will get a chance in the near future to really try it but if I do I'll let you know.
DJ

[Andrew B.]

If it's like other Auto F/X demos, there is no way to test with any of your pictures. All the one's I've tried limit users to a few pictures that are part of the demo. But if you find out something, please let us know.

[Trimoon]

All the lighting effects can be done in PhotoShop or PSP without this plugin.

[Andrew B.]

All the lighting effects can be done in PhotoShop or PSP without this plugin

I didn't check the demo, but I would assume so. I've seen tutorials on the web for most of what I've seen in the Mystical Lighting gallery of examples.

So the question becomes "What is the advantage, if any?" I know one woman who is seriously looking at the demo even though she routinely does light effects with native tools. Her interest is to see if it could make some things easier. But for other people it could be a waste of money.

[Andrew B.]

Just a follow-up note. Someone just pointed out to me that there is a way to place one of your own images into the demo to test with. What you do it load it on top of one of their demo image.

To do this, look for the Add New Layer icon on the bottom of the Mystical Lighting Layers Palette. Select the choice "Photo Layer." A Photo Layer menu will appear on the left of the screen. Click Select Photo, and a file window will pop up. Navigate to your picture and select it. You can then apply effects to your picture.

[poliwog]

Hi!

Um, err. ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS! Double that and you can buy Photoshop! (On one of the super, but legal, deals that pop up from time to time.)

[singularity]

Does anyone know where i can find some good photoshop lighting tutorials? maybe some ones that have similar effects as this plug-in? its definitely not in my budget right now, and i always feel like i have more control working directly in Photoshop anyways. Thanks in advance.
-Michelle

[Andrew B.]

Here's one about rays of light.

http://www.apple.com/creative/resources/rays/

[Mike Needham]

Great link Andrew

There are some free light plugins available, I believe that there was a discussion in the software forum about said plugins.

[Andrew B.]

That was the Luce plugin (hosted at thepluginsite). It does radiating and parallel light rays. Not much control, but it is free.

[rws]

Initial Work with ML

I have just purchased Mystical Lighting and have about 8 hours and 3 pics thru it. Here are my thoughts so far:

1. The program is a huge memory hog and has errored my out 500Mb system twice while working or saving pics.

2. I was shocked by the lo res look at the pic I loaded, but I guess they don't load a hi res version. Once I managed to work and save a pic I was impressed by the result. So don't pay attention to the loaded pic.

3. I found that opening a blank image from the menu and then loading the pic I am working as a photo layer works best. When I open a pic directly, all of the effects went behind the loaded image. This is confusing and I'll look at it more. Could be my fault.

4. The output in a png file.... why??? If I load a psd, I'd like a psd back. I have not been able to slect the plug in and work a pic as yet. (see #3)

5. I like the initial work I was able to finish and will be fine tuning it while learning more.

6. The interface is a bit confusing, i.e. do an effect and save, then pick another effect..... watch the line up at the top of the screen, nothing happens until the file is saved. Again, looks like a memory issue. (Do I need 2 Gb of RAM????)

7. Haven't found layer support for psd files as yet. If it's not there, that's very bad.

I will continue to post more as I fumble thru things and post an update next week.

Hope this helps,

RWSpangler
Digital Photography

[Andrew B.]

Hi RWS

Thanks for posting your impressions. I spoke with someone who is test-driving this, and she said the low-res is because Mystical Lighting is working with a proxy of the original to speed things up. That's why when you save you get the full quality back.

If I hear of anything else, I will let you know.