I am in the process of painting a pic for a competition in CG Gallery where I was just told that most artists look down on the use of the lens flare effect, ( which I used in my pic!) and I was wondering if this is true and if so, why? I have never heard this before and I have painted digitally for around 2 Years. It is just another tool like, say, custom brushes or importing textures! If these tools are not over-used, what's the issue?

---

"Lens flares" are actually defects in optical systems ( the surfaces of lenses causing internal reflection ) I belive some artists don´t understand why these defects should be repeated in art...Personally I avoid them unless the purpose of the image is to look lika a photo.

The use of filters like "lens-flares" seems to be a bit looked "down" upon among artists, though they are tools just like brushes - the rule is not to over-use the filters, may make your art look as it been rapidly composed of elements already aviable in your program. It also creates a artificial look ( if badly used ! ) My dear brothers always consider digital painting as "pushing buttons" and the use of filters is exactly that.( thats why I use them all the time ! ) Somebody once said that a ill-used filter is like a bad wig...

It would be cool to se what you are working with to see the effect in that particular image.

---

raimo

i think it's purely cos it's a filter Scott, some look down on it, some use it to great advantage, it's personal, but if they are a bit like that on DA, you might want to replicate the lens flare manually, then you can just smile & say 'it's not a filter, i made it myself'

i used to love lens flare, i thought it was so pretty & effective, but now i daren't ever use it!

---

I think the usage of Lens flare/other filters greatly depends on the picture, and most of all - the painting style. In general I would say - If you want a lens flare effect, better paint it by hand.

I personally am against the Photoshop Lens Flare as it more often than not ends up looking rather cheap/artificial.As any computer-generated effect, Lens flare is just too technical for most styles. If the painting is cartoonish, or even realistic but with loose, visible brushstrokes, the filter might simply end up looking "pasted in" and thus cheap. It's kind of like painting a square - if you use a photoshop generated auto-form and compose it with other hand painted forms, it will look too "techncially perfect" to match.

Sure, lens flare among other auto filters can sometimes greatly enhance the final effect, but this has to be done with extra caution. I personally prefer to use the generated version as a reference to painting my own version imperfectly by hand... However, there are too many factors to give out a universal opinion.

Pretty much anything that make people says "wow that's from Photoshop, good job!" should be avoided at all cost. Take a look at all the top rated images in various CG websites, like Conceptart.org, CG society, and here, and see how many people use lens flare... none.

Well Zim...the reason I look down upon it's use is not so much because it's a filter that can be overlayed onto whatever painting you have created....but more because of what so many of the people who do use it think that they are replicating by using it....namely a bright highlight or reflection, often from a metallic surface. You will never observe a lens flare with the naked eye...and usually only occurs within a complex lens and/or prism set up....either a camera or similar device. Yet I have seen it consistantly used to show a high-intensity light source even though the viewer is not supposed to be looking through a camera.
 
Ultimately I would say that it falls back to a general lack of understanding of the basics....light and shadow....basic laws of physics and such. Truly, once you understand how a lens flare is created then you will understand why the filter should almost never be used. Yes I said almost never. There may indeed come a day when that effect would be appropriate...but again it goes back to understanding what creates the effect in the first place and where you would see such an effect.

---

Wizard's First Rule

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Here is the picture in question. It is not even nearly finished yet, so I am not looking for a crit on that, I just want to show you how I used the lens flare. 

Penabled: I guess I could suggest the pic was being viewed by a camera which might account for the effect. I might have to alter it though as I am serious about this competition and don't want my chances to suffer as a result of this effect! 

---

not being an expert i'm not sure Scott, but i don't think you'd have lens flare there.

---

I've used a lens flare before but only in something that was intended to look like it was shot through a camera lens, and even then I toned it down quite heavily and roughed it up a bit. One major problem with Photoshop's built in flares is they only ever look like a Photoshop lens flare, not a camera lens flare which is never as sharp and clean. If you are going to use one I would do some extra work on it to stop it looking like a digital flare.

Your flare in that pic appears to be happening behind the figures which doesn't make sense unless it is a projected screen or something they are watching, but that isn't made clear enough. If it's the view through a window the flare would be on top of everything else. I would still probably just paint it in and create a sun glare by hand with that pic though.

---

Hmm, looks like I will have to paint it out. The central white part with the rays is hand painted, I guess I could keep that and remove all the artificial rings and whatnot. 

---

Maybe this will help : http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm
 
But as Kaz suggested....it really shouldn't be there.

---

Wizard's First Rule

Thanks Penabled! I think it's safe to say that the lens flare will be removed from my pic. It should not be there I think!

---