I don't like this
at all
but I suppose I'll get better the more I do, eh? To that end, crit and painting help would be nice. This was mostly me trying to teach myself to paint rocks. I'll move this to scraps in a few days.
3-hour practice/experiment, Photoshop.
at all
but I suppose I'll get better the more I do, eh? To that end, crit and painting help would be nice. This was mostly me trying to teach myself to paint rocks. I'll move this to scraps in a few days.
3-hour practice/experiment, Photoshop.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1200 x 600px
File Size 120.8 kB
it is rather well done, the only thing I can think to suggest is giving some sense of life to the picture, by having some silhouettes of birds, pterodactyls or something.
The colour scheme is well balanced, lighting believable. Just I dunno, there's just something missing that just doesn't pull me in. >.>
The colour scheme is well balanced, lighting believable. Just I dunno, there's just something missing that just doesn't pull me in. >.>
I like it, in fact it gets a fave~
The drawing itself is done well and the place looks realistic and believable.
All that I think it's missing is some sense to make it look alive in any way, be it from animals or maybe any movement in nature such as wind, etc. and I think the buildings in the back need a lil' more altering to not look like crackers. XD
Still, good job on this one. =D
The drawing itself is done well and the place looks realistic and believable.
All that I think it's missing is some sense to make it look alive in any way, be it from animals or maybe any movement in nature such as wind, etc. and I think the buildings in the back need a lil' more altering to not look like crackers. XD
Still, good job on this one. =D
The rocks look great, in my opinion; I could almost see this being used as a matte painting in a pro production. I could tell something is off, but not sure what - I'm not a 2D artist, so I figured that throwing a few primitives and a sun in a box would help me figure out why I can't troubleshoot this. I was right! The style is great, the problems are technical: secondarily, perspective, and primarily, lighting.
Because the camera is tilted, the image needs a vanishing point, in this case far below-frame, but nevertheless still causing off-center vertical lines to appear slanted. The profile of the midground is important in this piece, and the ramrod-straight vertical profile of the bricks is incorrect - should be slanted - and confuses the viewer's sense of where they are in space. The profile would become vertical at some point, but with this point of view, would need a lens below 35mm, which would have noticeable fish-eye effect.
Chiaroscuro is a neat artistic technique, but the heavy shadow is at odds with bright outdoor ambient lighting. The technique would work here, impressionistically, if the light and shadow were geometrically consistent, but as of now it's accentuating the inconsistency - the shadow is clearly showing a sun almost behind the scene, but the diffuse and specular lighting are clearly showing the sun to the right. See attached.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3315946/
Keeping these theories in mind doesn't take any time to implement in a particular piece, but does take years of practice to get an innate feel for. One of the main reasons I like letting a rendering algorithm do my perspective and lighting for me.
Because the camera is tilted, the image needs a vanishing point, in this case far below-frame, but nevertheless still causing off-center vertical lines to appear slanted. The profile of the midground is important in this piece, and the ramrod-straight vertical profile of the bricks is incorrect - should be slanted - and confuses the viewer's sense of where they are in space. The profile would become vertical at some point, but with this point of view, would need a lens below 35mm, which would have noticeable fish-eye effect.
Chiaroscuro is a neat artistic technique, but the heavy shadow is at odds with bright outdoor ambient lighting. The technique would work here, impressionistically, if the light and shadow were geometrically consistent, but as of now it's accentuating the inconsistency - the shadow is clearly showing a sun almost behind the scene, but the diffuse and specular lighting are clearly showing the sun to the right. See attached.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3315946/
Keeping these theories in mind doesn't take any time to implement in a particular piece, but does take years of practice to get an innate feel for. One of the main reasons I like letting a rendering algorithm do my perspective and lighting for me.
Ah, this is what I needed! This is a great help. It's really good to get someone else's perspective on the things I worry about because it's like that acclimation effect that distorts my pespective as the artist. Now that I have that perspective, I can see that fixing the foremost shadow of the left cliff would be a major benefit to the piece.
Keeping everything you said in mind, I think it can all be solved by having a longer planning stage. The planning for this one was all in my head and basically went "UH WHELP I GUESS THERE WILL BE SOME ROCKS HERE AND A CLIFF BACK THERE OKAY GO :B".
I may take you up on that 3D sketch preplanning thing, but maybe not. My brain is making me think of it as cheating, in a way (if that makes any sense)...? But hey, rock on, fellow Blender user :3
Thanks again for taking the time to crit
Keeping everything you said in mind, I think it can all be solved by having a longer planning stage. The planning for this one was all in my head and basically went "UH WHELP I GUESS THERE WILL BE SOME ROCKS HERE AND A CLIFF BACK THERE OKAY GO :B".
I may take you up on that 3D sketch preplanning thing, but maybe not. My brain is making me think of it as cheating, in a way (if that makes any sense)...? But hey, rock on, fellow Blender user :3
Thanks again for taking the time to crit
Gahahaha, I feel exactly the same way about most help; this must be why we use Blender. Though, the complete lack of documentation on the higher-end features is a disservice to the community, and I might write some content for the wikibook after 2.5 gets stable and I use it for a bit. I am ass-tired of having to read dev notes for any info on the more recently-coded features, and also of getting hits only in the source code when I google for error messages.
Well, you've been improving so much. The better you get though, the more technical and crazy things get, the more you understand you haven't mastered, etc, etc...
I can't offer any critique or anything, since I don't even know how to begin on a landscape. Still a nice looking work.
What I'm trying to say is that you make stuff that's in the 98th percentile of FA. So kudos :D
I can't offer any critique or anything, since I don't even know how to begin on a landscape. Still a nice looking work.
What I'm trying to say is that you make stuff that's in the 98th percentile of FA. So kudos :D
FA+

Comments