(1 to 100 of 967 replies)
O Casasola 9:33pm, 8 March 2007
Ok, I believe this is close to the technique that Dave Hill and Jill Greenberg use on their photos with PhotoShop. The tutorial takes a few minutes to complete. You must start with a photo that has wrap around lighting and obvious highlights.

Make sure the levels and color are fixed on the original before you start.

Duplicate the layer on the LAYER pallette
Go to FILTER - OTHER - HIGH PASS type 4.0 for RADIUS
on the LAYERS pallette choose vivid light for the blending mode
Now flatten the image.

Second Step
Duplicate the layer on the LAYER pallette
Go to FILTER - OTHER - HIGH PASS type 6.9 for RADIUS
on the LAYERS pallette choose color for the blending mode
Set opacity to 40%
Now flatten the image.

For this step you need to do the following
DUPLICATE LAYER on layer pallette
from the top menu select LAYER - ADD LAYER MASK - HIDE ALL
using the lasso tool select only the eyes and choose SELECT - FEATHER about 6pixels
now use the brush on the tool pallette and set the brush opacity to 30% - brush over the entire image
Now FLATTEN the image

the final step is to sharpen the image.


use the following settings:
RADIUS 30.0 pixels

Most of the look is due to the multiple lights used to create highlights. To get that Shiny skin apply lotion on the person before taking the picture.

edit: This tutorial is for High Resolution images. If you are working on a low res photo you'll have to decrease the suggested amount on most of the steps.

EDIT 2 : Hi everyone. Just wanted to mention that this tutorial was created with photoshop 7 in the year 2007. A lot has changed since then including Dave Hill's technique. Thanks!

Have Fun
1 3 4 5 6 7 ••• 9 10
(1 to 100 of 967 replies)
okenezak 11 years ago
Sounds like a photoshop action waiting to happen... :)
Steve.Korn 11 years ago
Thanks for sharing, that looks great!
O Casasola 11 years ago
Everyone. Post a reply with the image after you complete the tutorial.
Chad Simcox 11 years ago
Very cool, but I've seen this so much lately with people trying to emulate it, that I'm almost sick of the look now...
Steve.Korn 11 years ago
Either way, it is really cool of O Casasola to have shared this. It obviously took a lot of time and experimentation, and there are a lot of people interested. It would have been easy for him to just sit on it and not share, so I say "Thanks for sharing."
GomoX 11 years ago
Great, you nailed it. Poor Dave Hill will need a new trick now :D
tomKphoto 11 years ago
somehow yours looks better to me
reg gordon photo 11 years ago
Brilliant tutorial. You are a gentleman. Now to get the photography down:)
thanks again
www.DanQuan.com 11 years ago
Excellent, I can't wait to try it with the right image.

: )

I found it didn't work quite like the tutorial. I figured that the blur that was added to the top was to show through, so paint with black. Also, sometimes when the tutorial refers to opacity, it actually means blending mode. Overall - good tutorial. My images are not shot with that 3-point light thing (I like it, just isn't me) so I thought I would try it with one of mine. Although I started with a very low-res image, I do like how it turned out. Added a bit of saturation, some additional layer-blending and such, but mostly followed the tutorial.
Post Processing Style
Thanks O Casasola!
basswork 11 years ago
In theory the values you assign for high-passing, blurring etc. must be related to the number of pixels in the image. I don't see how one size can fit all.
O Casasola Posted 11 years ago. Edited by O Casasola (member) 11 years ago
@ basswork

You are right. size does matter. I am assuming that most photographers are shooting high res photos, otherwise why would you work hard on a photo you can't blow up later.

@ Wiz wow thanks for correcting me I'll change the wording from opacity to blending mode. I know this method works well because I tried it on two other photos from different shoots.
O Casasola 11 years ago
Ok, here is another sample.


Bottom photo is the before. I didn't even correct the color this time.

Dan Sumption 11 years ago
Damn, I thought this was a tutorial to help me get the hair-and-flares look of Slade guitarist Dave Hill. Guess I'll have to keep on searching...

Francesco Gallarotti Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Francesco Gallarotti (moderator) 11 years ago
Soul Be It

soul be it - reedited

Very interesting results for so little work... I guess with more careful editing with the tablet and smaller brushes a better job could be done... very interesting indeed... thanks!

Actually I think I must have made a mistake somewhere... still I like the look :-) hehehehe... is this what they mean by "creative errors"? :-)
Chris Townsend Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Chris Townsend (member) 11 years ago
Worked a treat for me. Man, thank you for posting that. I've been trying to figure that out for a while and you definitely nailed it. You are awesome!

Edit to reference the original shot too.
eddfmc PRO 11 years ago
reverse engineering not only work for lighting, in this case photoshop too.

Thanks for your sharing O Casasola
brief basketball [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by brief basketball (member) 11 years ago
Here's my go at it:


PP'd in PS:

I did a little something different in the Gaussian Blur step. Instead of using a layer mask, I set the layer opacity to 40%, erased through the layer to keep the eyes sharp, then flattened. Everything else was done as described in the original post.
Chris Townsend 11 years ago
One more for good measure. My son, in the picture, went nuts when he saw this.
NikonErik Posted 11 years ago. Edited by NikonErik (member) 11 years ago
Cool. I had to play with it a bit . . . it seems that the settings for the different filters are very image dependent. So this may not make a good Photoshop action . . . I'll bet Dave Hill has it down to the point of lighting each scene in a very specific way so that they all react to these filters in similar and predictable ways . . .

Thanks! I already like this version a lot more than the one I have been showing! -I'll have to prepare her skin a little more . . . she looks a little blotchy in skin tone, I think . . .

Posterized Bride

3032c012 (Medium)
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
looks great, a great technique...but guys...don't overuse it.

you'll notice dave hill uses it a lot, but a lot of his shots he's still blending it into the original, and not just applying it to the whole page....i think it's best to use it and paint it in where you need it most.
squilky 11 years ago
Very cool tutorial. Thanks for taking the time to share it with us!
tasteful chin [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by tasteful chin (member) 11 years ago
Thanks for posting this technique O Casasola - it's really cool. Thanks for the help. I followed your directions exactly. I would like to go back and maybe try something a little different. Not real happy with the skin tone, anyone have any suggestions? Thanks. Here is my contribution.

here is the original

O Casasola 11 years ago
@kurtj29 you may want to adjust the levels and bring out the highlights more. I am sure you'll like the results if you do this. ;-)
tasteful chin [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by tasteful chin (member) 11 years ago
I think my problem is that I have a really bright Sony monitor that really is wonderful but when I view pictures on most other monitors they look dark and muddy. OK, thanks. How about this....
Neil-Hanawalt Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Neil-Hanawalt (member) 11 years ago
Here is my first effort on a B&W with some dodging added at the end. OK, this is Cool, and let me say, being a part of the Strobist group is COOL!

With Trumpet B&W Modified

Practice time scowl
andyfangandy 11 years ago

I did it exactly how casasola said, what do you guys think?
Lighting was one sb-800 to camera left behind model(me), aimed at mirror at camera right. d50 on-camera flash for fill light plus to hit sb-800 optical slave.
stechico PRO 11 years ago
Definitely a great tutorial. Thanks Omar. Here's my try at it...

IMG 8386x

The original...

IMG 8386
MARTYr Photography 11 years ago
This effect does hideous things to the skin on the photos I've tried. Any blotches or spots leap out as a result of all this sharpening. Great starting point, though. Thanks for the hints.
GarethDix 11 years ago
you could always correct those blotches before using the technique... it all depends on how you treat the skin because it can look worse...
reg gordon photo 11 years ago
it doesnt work perfectly as an action but will give you an idea if a certain image is suitable. Run it as an action and have a look. no time wasted..
again well done
Lotto1 11 years ago
Thanks for the tutorial, my try...
The David Hill effect
hammondovi 11 years ago
Here is my sample of before and after.
This is an old image but had some lighting that I thought would work with this technique.
It doesn't look too bad at a small size, but the amount of sharpening is pretty extreme. I would think that the full size versions of Dave Hill's have a less damaging effect on the photo. But this is a good attempt.
Thank you for the tutorial.

you guys are making me all excited for this can it be made into an action?
all your tries are great guys but that kid with the canon... its just amazing!!
Can't you get the same result by simply running unsharp masks at 4, 7 and 30 radius and then desaturating a bit?
Kamal M 11 years ago
I don't remember Dave Hill's stuff having such halos around.
johnnydanger1979 11 years ago
Before Dave Hill style editing

After Dave Hill style editing
johnnydanger1979 11 years ago
From satin smooth to gritty. I like it!
NikonErik 11 years ago
I've been playing with this, and I don't like the added noise step for some images . . .
i tried it at work where i only have PSE 3 and I cant do the last thing, layers>ad mask blah blah blah... anyone have an alternate for that step??
armeen 11 years ago
basically this photoshop technique is trying to replucate the plugin by LucisArt. you can get th plugin and achieve the effect plus more. www.lucisart.com/
oafish friends [deleted] 11 years ago
John Paul Caponigro offers much of the same in his tutorials section (well-worth the read). His tutorial on high-pass high contrast is here:


He offers many other tutorials from the perspective of a very sought-after photographer. Just look at his portfolio--you'll see what I mean.
basswork 11 years ago
Another wrinkle is to duplicate your background layer before you make the first copy.

Keep its visibility turned off as you work, and choose "merge visible" as you go along instead of flatten. Then, when you are done, you get the Dave Hill version in a layer over your intact original.

You can then dial back the effect with the opacity slider, or with a layer mask, paint out certain sections -- in fact, you could skip the step of excluding the eyes and deal with it using a mask.
stechico PRO 11 years ago
Thanks for the URL to Caponigro. He has some great techniques that are free for the masses.
basswork 11 years ago
You might also want to get the Caponigro Adjustments PS action here.


It's quite useful.
O Casasola 11 years ago
Man, Caponigro sure is dedicated to sharing techniques with everyone. That guy is awesome. Thanks basswork.
basswork 11 years ago
I think the action was created by someone else after reading Caponigro's article explaining the technique in a magazine.

Anyway, my Dave Hill experiments:


Fully Dave Hilled:


And with Dave Hill painted in selectively -- I preferred a richer sky:
Darien Chin 11 years ago
Awesome info. Thanks so much Casasola.
cool limo shot... i like this, cant wait to get home to my cs2 and try it out.
screeminee 11 years ago
Yep, 30 pixel sharpening is what really 'makes' this look... a bit overdone in most cases if you ask me, it gives almost a painted feel. Don't get me wrong, Dave's a talented photographer.
NikonErik Posted 11 years ago. Edited by NikonErik (member) 11 years ago
Dude . . . it's all about the painted / airbrushed feel.
dlrm.co 11 years ago
sometimes it seems that some people just don´t get it. They just repeat some instructions without really checking their results but thinkin that they´ve done well. Most results posted here don´t evene get quite close to hill´s look... In my opinion best results are from the tutorial author, cause it seems that he´s one of the few here that understand "what" he does...but nice tutorial so far! thxalot
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
here's my opinion.

dave's work looks painted, a lot of the examples on here do not, the reason is because the technique also sharpens up skin detail and that doesn't work...

try this: clean the skin up before you do it,
make a new layer and dodge a burn to bring out highlights shadows etc. set your high pass to enough to bring out the edges without ghosting too much around them....
then blend back in, maybe even run a median blur on it all to take off some of the sharp edge...

looks much nice.
ordinary toothbrush [deleted] 11 years ago
lightnewb - to create a mask in Elements go to the Effects Browser, and in the Frames group, choose the Ripple, Spatter, or Strokes frame, then press and hold the Alt key as you click the Apply button. Keep holding down the Alt key until the effect has been completed.

But there is a mask action you could get aswell to help;

Layer Mask for Photoshop Elements 4 (or lower): graphicssoft.about.com/library/free/files/Layer_Mask.zip
sabfoto 11 years ago
This also isn't going to work with just "any 'ol lighting"....

To get the right look, you need distinct highlights on the skin. It has to be a harder light from smaller sources. You can't just put up an Octobank and blast away and expect results. When people attack Dave Hill's style and basically call him a hack and "anyone" can do what he does...well I just shake my head. He shoots a very specific way to attain a very specific look. He isn't just out there snapping some shots and running a PS action.

A note about this method...

There isn't any need to flatten between steps. Simply duplicating everything you've done previously (Option+Merge Visable), then hide the layers below. This allows you to add a layer mask to each change and paint them in where they need to be and at the proper level they need to be applied. This gives you (nearly) total control over how the effect is applied to specific parts of the image. And like others have said...this is a good GUIDELINE of where to start. Each image is different. For larger or smaller resolution images you will need to change the settings.

Cool find, awesome tutorial. I always like to learn and grow, even if it isn't a look I'm that interested in, you never know when you might use some of the knowledge to build on something else.
carlos.benjamin Posted 11 years ago. Edited by carlos.benjamin (moderator) 11 years ago
sabfoto - Bah! Anyone could have written your post........

Excellent point that even if this isn't your cup of tea you can glean something that might serve you well elsewhere.
RastaRicanStudio 11 years ago
Hey, wanna play with the high pass filter and math?
Wanna use the high pass filter for softening? WTF?
Duplicate image, go to gaussiann blur and blur till the imperfections are just about gone. Wait, don't press ok. Remember the setting. Lets say 6. Click cancel for the gaussion. Click on linear light in the blending modes in the layer pallete. Now go to the high pass and enter the 6 for raduis, click ok. Cmd/ctrl i to invert the image and now go to the gaussian blur and apply 1/3 or in this case 2 for a radius. Click ok. Reduce opacity to 50% add a layer mask and choose black to bring back the eyes, lips and hair. If you want to play with the hilled effect you can continue with softer image. Peace
thanks Graphics!!
Mapewibe 11 years ago
Does anyone here know Matt Hoyle's work? Do a google for him. The same technique???
reg gordon photo 11 years ago
I wonder how much you would have had to pay to learn this in pre internet days....

regicide: Plus, you'd have needed to do it in the darkroom back then...
8thcross 11 years ago
Thank you! excellent - works as promised...i did a few tweaks though...let me know if anyone is interested -

reg gordon photo 11 years ago
Does anyone know how , or if, this could have been done pre digital?
jjlphoto Posted 11 years ago. Edited by jjlphoto (member) 11 years ago
Sure- off of a scan (which goes back to the 1960's). Photoshop has been around since the late 1980's, and before that, there were other proprietary systems like Scitex, Paint Box, etc. But nowadays, Photohsop is so incredibly fast, it makes experimenting and developing neat techniques very time and cost effective. Heck- I remember a simple Photoshop blur on a 5meg file taking a half an hour in 1993. It would take one an eternity to figure out and create some of these complex effects back then. No one would have that kind of patience. (And all the nifty tools, layers, and multiple levels of un-do were not always available back then also.)
groovy judge [deleted] 11 years ago
Err, Am I missing something here?

The majority of the images on davehillphoto.com appear to be composites. i.e. people shot in the studio then dropped onto a different background.

saundstu, did you look at the behind the scenes stuff?
internal pie [deleted] 11 years ago

I noticed the same thing and showing mr hills work to a professional retoucher the first thing he said was "these are composites." The biggest clue was in the shot of the dude in front of the car that was obviously shot with a wide lens while the subject remained more compressed, indicating a longer lens. I hadn't told him (retoucher) anything about the site before showing him (I wanted as unbiased an opinion I could get) and his next comment involved painting highlights/shadows some sharpening but emphasized the manipulation of detail. That said, I've already made an action that I'll be tweaking as this discussion continues ;)
Don Giannatti (aka wizwow) Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Don Giannatti (aka wizwow) (member) 11 years ago
saundstu et al:
Folks, I have it on very knowledgeable sources. The images are not composites unless certain items are composited in (like a jumping rock star looking better from frame 3 and inserted. The images are painstakingly retouched, sometimes taking many hours over several days. That is part of his workflow/style.

The work on location is perfection for capture. There is little left to chance. This level of professionalism is not achieved with a Plugin or action or left to the hands of a retoucher. It is excruciatingly detailed and requires the highest level of technique and artistry.

I hope I am not sounding too off-putting, but after being in the advertising / design world for this many years and having worked on lots of shots like this, and with photographers at some high levels, it kinda makes me a bit crazy to see them chopped with flippant remarks about how 'easy' it is or how it was 'just' something.

I hope everyone realizes the effort, time, dedication, skill, artistry and perseverance it takes to get to a Dave Hill or David Hobby level. It isn't just putting your SB800 on a stand.
groovy judge [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by groovy judge (member) 11 years ago
So the image of the guy on the hang glider is not a composite? Interesting view.

As for the flippant remarks, I personally was not trying to chop anyone down. For what it is worth I think Dave Hills stuff is right up there.
The point I was making is (and referring to my previous post) "there is no black art or magic PS plugin, just good old fashioned graphic design."

Having been a professional photographer for the past 15 years or so, I personally consider this level of re-touching / post production within the remit of out and out graphic design. Thats not meant to be a put down in anyway what so ever. Just point of fact from my perspective. Also at no point did I refer to what he does as easy.

Sorry if it made your blood boil.

As for Sb's on a stand - I use Canon and my main lights are Elinchrom :)

As i stated, there are some bits that are, and finding one or two that you feel are composites are well and good. I will call my friend back and ask about that particular shot, but he assured me that most (most... not all) of the work is as shot.

As for you redefining what is photography or not. fine. You can have the last word on that. You can call it whatever you want. However, graphic design has a definition, a time-tested, well worn definition that I prefer and will live with just fine. As, I assume most others will as well.

This mans work is pure photography with Photoshop post-processing. i do not draw limits around how much PP determines what it is called. As for compositing., we did that 25 years ago. I have had stuff composited by Dye transfer and reshot nearly 30 years ago. It was standard fare for many advertising photographers. And it was done with airbrush and paint brush. We never dared call it 'graphic design." Or even "photo illustration." It was, and is, photography.

Yeah. The post did rankle me. I simply am in awe of what folks think about some one who has achieved a point of remarkability. How casually thay dismiss the work and try to subtley denigrate it as being "oh well, he just does...", or "yeah his stuff is good but so-and-so really rocks", as if that has anything to do with it.

I think I will pass on this thread from now on. It has really developed into a bad place for me. Good grief, the next I will hear is that Irving Penn could have been great if he had shot more color, and maybe used that cool plugin for 'Paladium style'.... sheesh.
rmphotog 11 years ago
Glad someone posted this. It shows my original response to the David Hill thread. 80 percent of what makes his images was not his photograhic skills but the photoshop work on the images. Most of his images are not all that dramatic until the photo shop is done to it. Other than that his images are pretty vanilla.
rmphotog 11 years ago
P.S. I will give david hill credit for being maybe one of the earlier photographers to "capitalize" on the technique.
groovy judge [deleted] 11 years ago
I was not at any point trying to dismiss his work in any way.

I was simply trying to point out that there is more to what he does than starting up photoshop and running his images through a filter!. (which seemed to be the way this thread was heading)

I also stated that in my view ( a personal view that I guess I shouldn't have shared) the amount of post-processing is crossing into the realm of graphic design.

At what point exactly did I "subtly denigrate it as being "oh well, he just does...", or "yeah his stuff is good but so-and-so really rocks" "?.

Again to reiterate I was trying to steer the thread away from " Dude here's a PS action for this" , which I feel is more harming than trying to point out the effort put into his images.

Not once did I question his ability as a photographer.

However, I stand by my opinion that most of the images on the site (not all) are composite images.

many spirits gather here Posted 11 years ago. Edited by many spirits gather here (member) 11 years ago
Here's my attempt, what do you think? I didn't turn it the effect up to eleven to remain remotley natural. This is lucis, not high pass.


I'm with Wizwow BTW, I think Hill has a lot more going for him than the detailed/cartoon/lucis/hdr/tonemapped/highpass/blur mask/whateveryouwannacallit look. That's why I posted the link to the behind the scenes originally.

I also think the original poster in this thread, and most of the people posting in it, don't think they can create photos like Mr. Hill when they follow the tutorial, but what they can do is achieve the detailed/cartoon/... look, which will work better or worse depending on the source material.

johndohrn 11 years ago
it's good for people to know, but now people's editing is going to look a lot alike. I personally do a mix of various highpass and other type stuff to get what i think is a look closer to what dave hill and jill greenburg do
MillsArt Photography 11 years ago
For those who said that his images are all composites, I wouldn't be so sure. That image of the thug looking guy with the car with huge rims. Yes I to though it was a composite, then I checked out the behind the scenes photos.

Check out the Young Juc photo shoot. You'll see that same car and it appears it was made on purpose with oversized rims as a prop for the shoot.

Composite image ? no. Huge budget with lots of purpose made props ? you bet

That all aside, I think its a bit silly for a bunch of us here on Flickr', to really cast judgement on Mr Hill.

I'd say his collective talent, client list, and day rate probably put any of us to shame.

Maybe if someone here is making what he's making, or has worked with the number of clients he has they can talk, but I don't think we've got any challengers yet......do we ?
internal pie [deleted] 11 years ago
By composite I meant this one: www.davehillphoto.com/behind_the_scenes/shonlock_bts/imag...
( I originally thought the guy was added to the car but I’m clearly wrong, lol)

though I don’t think they’re all composites but hey, I've been wrong already in this thread :)


I don't think anyone was casting judgment. If anything I think all the activity here is indication of the response his images illicit. Imitation is the best form of yadda yadda but I think we all understand what Hill does with an image is far beyond a mere plug-in or clone stamp and I'm not sure he needs anyone to defend his work. Besides, I bet he gets a kick out people chatting about his work, attempting to deconstruct it and replicating it. I know I would.
I think you've nailed the look. You're certainly very close to it. I came into this thread cynical and I'm leaving convinced. Well done for figuring it out!

Not go create your own original look :-)
O Casasola Posted 11 years ago. Edited by O Casasola (member) 11 years ago
Edit: My point in sharing this technique which I am not claiming to be the exact method Dave uses, is for everyone to experiment in case they may need it some day. I myself am currently not applying it to my work because I have not found the need. I believe whole heartedly that no photoshop trick will ever replace the hard work of getting the photo as best as possible in camera. I am one of those photographers who wants to do as little manipulation as possible but enjoy and respect when others use creative techniques with success.
stechico PRO 11 years ago
Wowsers... this thread is going bonkers and far-away from its purpose. I hope it gets back. Have a good week everyone...

March Madness I guess! =)
Umaipadam 11 years ago
Thanks for sharing.
Mapewibe 11 years ago
usathyan and marin g - what were your respective procedures for your images posted above???? Very good efforts!
Mapewibe: I used Lucis Pro and blended the result in in photoshop.
Mapewibe 11 years ago
Thanks marin g. What particular function of Lucis Pro did you use and how did you blend it in?
Lucis Pro has only one function :) I used an 80 radius I think, then put the result into photoshop in a layer over the original, set it to luminosity and set the opacity to something like 35%.
Joe Fernandez 11 years ago
Yeah, this image is a composite.

Mei Mei Mei Posted 11 years ago. Edited by Mei Mei Mei (member) 11 years ago
The beauty dish on a boom seems to be common to a lot of Dave Hill's pictures.
in some shots i have seen it almost looks as Hill does his what ever to the BG only and not the subject or at least does the BG more that the subject, like the one with the guy in the car... the car looks more.. whatever you call it but the guy doesnt. could this be going on here?
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
the lucis art blended looks the best in my opinion, not too rough.

if only i could find a serial for it, I thought I had one but it mangled the version i installed.
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
here's how i would implement it into my work:

Not keen on the blue in the back here, but the face looks cool. Subtle does it.
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
the blue wasn't really up to me :)
this was shot at an event (outdoor film festival with almost 100,000 people there) and they had blue lights for when the sun went down. that or the sun flares onto my lens filter...not sure.

as for the process...i used it to bring out the detail in the face which I think it does well, it's almost a drawing effect. but some of the ones in this thread go way overboard
bronfufu 11 years ago
my results aren't coming out right.

i think you may have to mention what size image you are starting out wtih since a lot of those settings are relative to image size =)
Samuel Webster 11 years ago
bronfufu - i've found that a bigger radius works better, the preview should look like an outline of the highlights you want to exaggerate, if it's too fine and looks ot be highlighting too much detail, or too little, then alter it.

i find blurring the layer before adding the high pass helps a lot.
danpire 11 years ago
incidentally, if anyone watched the movie 300, most of the movie was shot with an effect similar to this! :P

i thought that was cool! no way of doing it w/o photoshop huh?
For a movie like this, you have someone write a plugin for your postprocessing software.

We do that all the time for video games - you want an effect, you walk over to the graphics programmer and have him code it :)
..Kev.. Posted 11 years ago. Edited by ..Kev.. (member) 11 years ago
Thanks for the tutorial... works quite well.


1 3 4 5 6 7 ••• 9 10
(1 to 100 of 967 replies)
Groups Beta