by Rachael » Mon Jun 10, 2024 2:07 pm
Subtractive lighting in general is bad. Lighting simply does not work that way, and I can understand it for a better "darkness" and "mystery" effect, it doesn't actually fade like light is supposed to. Here is an image to demonstrate the effect:
At full brightness this is an image (circa 1895, Photoglob Zürich, public domain) of the Roman Colosseum:
Here is the same image with a proper fade (multiplicative) applied to it:
Spoiler:
And here it is with a subtractive filter:
Spoiler:
Which of these look better? Notice with the multiplicative you don't lose the details, just the brilliance. The subtractive one, however, looks like the amateur fading algorithms that used to be present back in the DOS days before people actually discovered how to do them more accurately.
I can understand the reasoning behind the request and agree with that, but the methodology to achieve it is what I do not like.
Subtractive lighting in general is bad. Lighting simply does not work that way, and I can understand it for a better "darkness" and "mystery" effect, it doesn't actually fade like light is supposed to. Here is an image to demonstrate the effect:
At full brightness this is an image (circa 1895, Photoglob Zürich, public domain) of the Roman Colosseum:
[imgur]https://imgur.com/iwvC8Dj[/imgur]
Here is the same image with a proper fade (multiplicative) applied to it:
[spoiler][imgur]https://imgur.com/I24I4ka[/imgur][/spoiler]
And here it is with a subtractive filter:
[spoiler][imgur]https://imgur.com/p2IRXId[/imgur][/spoiler]
Which of these look better? Notice with the multiplicative you don't lose the details, just the brilliance. The subtractive one, however, looks like the amateur fading algorithms that used to be present back in the DOS days before people actually discovered how to do them more accurately.
I can understand the reasoning behind the request and agree with that, but the methodology to achieve it is what I do not like.