picnic

inkydigit · June 12, 2008, 04:59:19 PM

tweaked the last world...additional vegetation,(thanks to :klas,lightning, mr miley and xfrog)....feel free to comment/critique etc as these are always welcome and appreciated!

Seth · June 12, 2008, 06:26:42 PM

i like this one !

rcallicotte · June 12, 2008, 09:31:22 PM

I like it, but it needs something more. What about those tree leaves...very nice color, but the patterns there are sort of all the same across the scene. Wonder what causes that?

Phylloxera · June 13, 2008, 02:56:25 AM

Good work !

Tangled-Universe · June 13, 2008, 04:08:02 AM

This is a nice looking picture so far, good composition and lovely trees and grasses. Which species for the trees did you use?
The bark-textures on the trees look a bit over-scaled, I'd try to rescale the bark-pattern to a smaller scale. If you need any help with this I'm glad to help. I also have home-made textures with great displacement-maps which look very realistic.
Just let me know if you're interested.

Quote from: calico on June 12, 2008, 09:31:22 PM
I like it, but it needs something more. What about those tree leaves...very nice color, but the patterns there are sort of all the same across the scene. Wonder what causes that?

Do you mean the patterns of the grasses or the trees?

inkydigit · June 13, 2008, 06:20:32 AM

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 13, 2008, 04:08:02 AM
This is a nice looking picture so far, good composition and lovely trees and grasses. Which species for the trees did you use?
......

Hi Martin
thanks for the offer of help, I have pm'd you!
as for the spacing...I scaled the trees up to between 3 and 7(depending on the species/model)
and if I remember correctly the spacing was set around 35-45 for the trees higher for the bush. the grass scale is pretty much untouched, spacing I think was 0.5 or 1?
thanks everyone for the input....I will work on this a bit more, see where we end up!
Cheers
Jason

rcallicotte · June 13, 2008, 06:37:53 AM

Tree leaves. But, now that you mention it, the grass has a pattern as well. Sometimes we see these in nature...hmmm...

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 13, 2008, 04:08:02 AM
Do you mean the patterns of the grasses or the trees?

ramsesoriginal · June 13, 2008, 06:55:56 AM

Great picture.. if Ihadto criticize something..i would probably say that the sky looks somehow flat.. but the picture is great!

moodflow · June 13, 2008, 05:54:54 PM

Really nice image and great work here.

I can't wait until procedural foliage is implemented (if it ever will be of course).

Tangled-Universe · June 14, 2008, 04:52:26 AM

Quote from: calico on June 13, 2008, 06:37:53 AM
Tree leaves. But, now that you mention it, the grass has a pattern as well. Sometimes we see these in nature...hmmm...

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on June 13, 2008, 04:08:02 AM
Do you mean the patterns of the grasses or the trees?

I think I understand what you see/mean...
I don't find it really disturbing by the way.

The pattern of the leaves could be due to the model's shape which might look 'similar' when rotated.
For the grasses it could be because they're very dense.
Just some thoughts.

Mr_Lamppost · June 15, 2008, 09:52:34 AM

Looking good. I don't really notice a pattern in the trees or grass, trees in parks often have a similar look having all been planted, times etc at similar times.

What I would do is tilt the camera up slightly, reducing the area of grass to roughly half and showing a little more of te tops of the trees

Cyber-Angel · June 15, 2008, 08:08:29 PM

Quote from: Mr_Lamppost on June 15, 2008, 09:52:34 AM
Looking good. I don't really notice a pattern in the trees or grass, trees in parks often have a similar look having all been planted, times etc at similar times.

What I would do is tilt the camera up slightly, reducing the area of grass to roughly half and showing a little more of te tops of the trees

I would have to respectfully disagree here and my argument for doing so is this. The image as presented is anchored by the trees that can not be fully seen forcing the eye through the centre of the image and drawing in the viewer, by moving the camera up you lose the visual weight of the image and the composition would no longer be as strong as it is now. In addition, by not having the tops of some trees visible you allude to a seance of scale of the trees, this too would be lost if the camera was moved up.

In real world photography, you would expect for the given camera position that the tops of some of the taller trees would be cut off; you could reposition the camera or change to a wider angle lens however either of these cases it is more often than not impractical to do so.

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel

Mr_Lamppost · June 16, 2008, 08:19:06 PM

Quote from: Cyber-Angel on June 15, 2008, 08:08:29 PM
I would have to respectfully disagree here and my argument for doing so is this. The image as presented is anchored by the trees that can not be fully seen forcing the eye through the centre of the image and drawing in the viewer, by moving the camera up you lose the visual weight of the image and the composition would no longer be as strong as it is now. In addition, by not having the tops of some trees visible you allude to a seance of scale of the trees, this too would be lost if the camera was moved up.

In real world photography, you would expect for the given camera position that the tops of some of the taller trees would be cut off; you could reposition the camera or change to a wider angle lens however either of these cases it is more often than not impractical to do so.

Regards to you.

Cyber-Angel

I was not suggesting that the tops of all the trees should be visible, I agree that cropping off some of the tops of the nearer ones gives a sense of depth. What I was getting at is that to my eye the area of fairly bland grass in the foreground does anything but draw me into the image. I am just finding my attention drawn to a large distracting area of basically nothing.