Magic Filter - Photoshop Photorealism for Daz Studio
DigitalSteam
Posts: 299
I've never been more concerned about monitor calibration than I am viewing the example images on this product...
Is my monitor calibration that wacked? They _mostly_ look like they've been given an HSL filter with about 30-40% increase in "lightness" and a 20% decrease in saturation, and then maybe a 20% increase to contrast.
I have had some equipment and driver changes recently, so it could totally be my system - I just wanted to check and see what others are seeing before I bust out the xrite.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The "after" images look quite washed out to me. I don't think it is your monitor calibration. ...Or mine needs a serious update with the Spyder, too.
I would agree, although I do think they look "more real."
Somehow the images do look more 'real' after the product, but IMHO very much LESS appealing. I like Dreamlight stuff, but will pass on this. (I did have to look at the product page, like four times, though, to be sure I was going to pass on it.) :)
I was ;looking at this and I also thought the images look very washed out and they do look a bit more realistic.
I have a theory that one way to get more photorealistic results may be to use post processing to mess up the image so it looks like something from a low quality camera. If you can get the distorsions to match a typical cheap camera it may look more believable. Perhaps that is what is happening here?
It's not the sort of look I am after, but I don't use Photoshop so I can't use it anyway.
Yeah, they look more real-life snapshotty after the filter. I was thinking about getting them, but I use Affinity Photo which has its own macros and can't import Ps actions, as I've already learned. Anyway, it's nothing you can't accomplish with a couple of adjustments and filters, but it does save time, if that's a look you like. It looks like the "before" pictures had their blacks crushed hard, which makes the after pictures look even lighter.
OKay glad to hear it was not just me and my design friends losing our minds too!
I really like Dreamlight's stuff and he does amazing work. I own hundreds of his products but I am passing on this one. I hate post work anyway... although the 1 button push for lots of actions is an interesting idea.
And yes it looks like it was shot for a 1970's fashion magazine!
I haven't bought this yet, but wanted to try something out. Here's a result from Auto Toning/Auto Contrast/Auto Coloring in Photoshop using the Magic Filter result. I think it's still a pretty good improvement over the original render.
Yeah... I have Light Dome Pro Iray, lots of tutorials, and some light sets... I love the idea of the light-dome stuff... I'd like to be able to go further with the concept, and render each figure and area as separate passes, and get a _good_ z-depth pass (I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but the method using a canvas always has almost no grayscale range for me - like the nearest thing is 100% black and the farthest is maybe 98% black)
I may get just a wee tiny bit squicked when he starts talking about "female art" ...I mean, I get it... I'm just like "Dude... Could you maybe say 'human form' or 'life rendering' or something so it sounds a little less like a Ferengi talking about a new acquisition?" ;) But it's not going to stop me from buying his other great stuff. :)
Which is probably why I figured I really needed to check and see if my color profile was blown. Thank you for the feedback :)
btw - does anyone know, do I need the original Light Dome Pro for 3Delight? In theory, I'm ramping up for PA work here, and I wanna be able to support both 3Delight and Iray. Which reminds me... No, that should be another thread.
I would say that looks better than either example image, at least to my personal tastes. I spend most of my working life in Photoshop (and vector drawing programs, to be fair) so it would never really occur to me to not post-process an image, any more than I would not post-process a photo. Which, I know there are a lot of purists doing brilliant work, and I'm not saying my way is better, but once you get used to the freedom of "I can fix that in post." the long, steep hill of diminishing returns to get it more and more perfect in-camera or in render looks less and less appealing. :)
For me, it's more about trying to make sure I have enough data to do the corrections and enhancements in post that I want.
The bottom one is what a color film/chemical print looks like after it's been out in the light for a couple of years.
In my mind, "realism" matches what I see with my eyes, not what I see in a photograph.
If you want this to look like a realistic old photograph, then you need to add some bending cracks and some stains.
But for "realism, make me believe that my monitor is a window, and I'm looking through it at the scene.
So, another experiment, this time with 30% increase in lightness, 20% decrease in saturation, and 20% increase to contrast. Pretty close. Add some color balance and adjust levels, and you'd get even closer, but I haven't done that here. (Top image is the one with this experiment, from the original render; bottom is result from the script.)
I bought it. I was curious. It does nothing but bleach my images in odd ways. Its not particularly helpful or any improvement. I'll play with it a bit more but I think I will be returning it.
How does it work? Just running the Action? Not quiet happy with my blue-ish washed out results. I actually think, I am doing something entireley wrong, for it is asking me for selections to either stop or ignoring during the process. to earley totell now. Have to watch the video again...
It seems to work just fine for me, when I run the action. Its just that it makes it all faded. As far as actions go... I've seen better.
Make sure to make the inital layer 'new background from layer.'
Is there a video/tutorial for this?