Well, I've been here quite a while but I still don't know why Lens Flare isn't well regarded.I don't use Lens Flare that much but there's gotta be a reason why people don't "like" it.
I think it's seen as a bit cliche. It is also used a lot elsewhere to hide bad photography.
It's actually on a hit list of items in the FAQ that may get an entry DQ'd. It's a lazy, overused effect that is an easy option for many. It can be handled with restraint, (and I am planning a tutorial on how to do so ;)), but most times when we see it we will point out in the entry comments to beware - overuse is flirting with disaster in the advanced section.
I personally like the lens flare..it usually depends on how you use it.
I also like it. I think some artists feel disdain because it's so obvious when it's used as compared to other effects. I usually use it when I don't care what someone's opinion of a chop might be or when used in an abstract or surrealistic way.Here's an example where I used it in a chop at Freakingnews. In this contest, they supply the photo (in this case the guy in the cap and the sack) and we chop it any way we want. I usually feel less intimidated at that site trying new and experimental things because the critiques aren't as sharp and stinging as they are here sometimes. Nothing personal guys, lol! I think this one picked up the silver medal.How about if we revive the effect and have a contest at Worth dedicated strictly to lens flare. Lets see who can come up with the best or cheesiest way of using it...wouldn't that be fun?
[Edited by User on 1/27/2012 3:34:25 PM]
BonnySaintAndrew said It can be handled with restraint
True!
casttak saidit usually depends on how you use it
So true!Here is a recent exemple that it can be used with no fear (if you do it right): PSHoudini`s Slaughter Hill
funkwood saidHow about if we revive the effect and have a contest at Worth dedicated strictly to lens flare. Lets see who can come up with the best or cheesiest way of using it...wouldn't that be fun?
What a great idea!
Over in the photo arena, lens flare also seems to be frowned upon quite a bit. I've seen some great shots get knocked because "the lens flare spoiled the shot" where I've felt that the lens flare in many instances has been totally justified and even made the shot in some cases.Perhaps it's picked up such a bad rep (maybe even migrating a bit from the fx dept) that the photographer will go out of his way to avoid it, where I feel many times that we should be embracing it.Be that as it may, at least with a photograph, wether the lens flare makes or breaks the shot or wether it was intentional or not, it will always look right. The position will always be correct, the intensity will always be right and the 'sparkles' or 'rings' or 'spear of light' whatever they might be called will always be in the correct positions.The photoshop version of lens flares, although very attractive (to me anyway), will always have a synthetic look about them, their position, angles, intensity and even presence will be questionable. Perhaps that is why they are such unloved entities.(I will see if I can track down some great photograpy to serve as examples)eta:Plenty of examples under the contest headings : Breaking the Rules :)[Edited by User on 1/27/2012 5:00:45 PM, Reason: added links]
funkwood saidHow about if we revive the effect and have a contest at Worth dedicated strictly to lens flare.
Thats a great idea..:star:
funkwood saidI also like it.
Going to have to agree to disagree with you on this :)That's a busy and strong image and the lens flare is subtle and does not intrude or overpower. But I'm not convinced that it would be a poorer image without the lens flare, that it has added anything significant.Yes, there are images where lens flare adds impact but I believe they are few and far between and that there are more images spoiled, than are ever improved, by it's use.Also, each time you use it a kitten dies :O
robodrigo saidHere is a recent exemple that it can be used with no fear (if you do it right): PSHoudini`s Slaughter Hill
Definitely agree with this one. When done well it can add to the image. But in my experience here, the majority fall under the "using excessive or gratuitous lensflare filters" catagory that's listed as DQ'able in the FAQ's.And then there's the kittens :(
boofhead saidAlso, each time you use it a kitten dies
I think this killed a lot of... :(I mean, it s a lot of flares, but none from photoshop filters. Excessive and gratuitous, but not filter.
And this NSFW is a bad use of lens flare.BTW, playboy magazine here in Brasil is using A LOT of lens flare to avoid showing certains parts of their pics. Here s an NSFW example.Should we DQ those?? :)
Delpht saidAnd then there's the kittens
What??!!
hey, i understand when u mean that Lens Flare is bad regarded when is used badly, like appeal, but when you like to give an cinematographic look to the image, if it get well used, have a good result... u don't think?
+ in reply to...
Agreed.Photoshop is a brute of a programme and half of the difficulty of using it is learning how to handle lots of the things it can do. However, many filters are very destructive, and beginners shy away from using the obvious ones, because they have a very obvious negative effect on an image. Lens flare Is slightly different, because it provides a very pleasing and visually interesting result, quickly and easily. But because it's so easy, it gets used far too often. Also, I loathe the circular flare marks it stamps all over an image - it just screams out 'I can't be bothered to think of a better way to handle this' to me.I use it myself from time to time, but you will never see one of my entries with a comment that points out the fact I have used it. Those poor kittens weigh heavily on my conscience.;)
I remember back in ... the late 90s? when video games bragged about having the coolest lens flair effect. That, it seems, has also gone by the wayside, too.
Delpht saidAnd this NSFW is a bad use of lens flare.BTW, playboy magazine here in Brasil is using A LOT of lens flare to avoid showing certains parts of their pics. Here s an NSFW example.Should we DQ those?? Reply Permalink No replies Repor
Woah, Nelly. Check the other shots in that directory. I'm moving to Brasil! Damn.
I strongly disagree. Check out how well it blends on a perfectly white background. No dead kittens here.
Wow that's white! How did you achieve such whiteness?
One of my last winning entries had a lens flare in the background source photo I found, I thought it looked ok but was so worried about "lens flare haters" that I cloned it out.
I would not assume that PSHoudini used a lens flare filter to create that in his image. I would bet that he made that by hand, painted it using basic brush tools one streak at a time and possibly running a blurring filter to soften it. That is how I have created mine.http://effects.worth1000.com/entries/642265/capraursidae-brought-to-life I agree that it does have it's place in some fx images when used diligently.
Phildo saidCheck out how well it blends on a perfectly white background.
Mind blown :O
I disqualified the last Star Trek movie.
In the David Kushner book,Masters of Doom, (Random House, 2003) p.295. Kushner is describing the programmer John Carmack:after so many years immersed in the science of graphics, he [John Carmack] had achieved an almost Zen-like understanding of his craft. In the shower, he would see a few bars of light on the wall and think, Hey, thats a diffuse specular reflection from the overhead lights reflected off the faucet. Rather than detaching him from the natural world, this viewpoint only made him appreciate it more deeply. These are things I find enchanting and miraculous, he said, I dont have to be at the Grand Canyon to appreciate the way the world works. I can see that in reflections of light in my bathroom.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carmack)
i suppose lens flare, as with cartoony/2d/painterly elements in a chop really depends on how it's used, gratuitous lens flare is different than simply using lens flare, for instance if there is a, really strong light source in an image (either explicit or implicit), and it is angled in such a way that would produce a lens flare if the scene was photographed with a real camera, then an appropriately applied lens flare would work, otherwise it probably won't.