Rock Hillside

[mr-miley]

Hi all

Crap name I know, but I couldn't think of anything else. One I have been mucking around with for a while. Theres a lot more work in this than meets the eye (which just goes to prove I probably wasted way too much time on this  ) I may add clouds and fake stones / rocks to this? What do you all reckon? C&C always welcome.

Miles

[domdib]

It's a very convincing looking hillside and I like the texture a lot, and the feeling of near, middle and far distance. I suppose if I were being persnickety I'd make two points and one suggestion.

point a) the plants seem a little indeterminate in nature - are they lichens? tussocky grass? or some combination of both (in which case I apologise)

point b) the haze seems a little too strong, almost as if we are in a v. hot environment - I'd like to see a little more detail in the distance

Suggestion: yes, please add some carefully chosen clouds, perhaps at quite a low coverage, to give some nice cloud shadowing. As for fake stones, the texture of the rock already suggests a very fine gravel, so if you do add some I'd say make 'em quite small.

[mr-miley]

Sorry, didn't think to say. This was rendered at 2048 * 1536 Quality 1, soft shadows on (35 hours) and saves as an EXR. Tone mapped in Photomatix and the hue slightly changed in Corel Photopaint. Then resampled down to 1024 * 768 so the file size would be small enought o post here.

The full sized version can be seen here http://www.gintdev.co.uk//mr-miley/grafix/rock%20hillside%20large%20from%20exr.jpg

Miles

[Mohawk20]

That's a lot of detail! Great work on those displacements.

But the image is a bit boring because the main shapes are the same. Adding clouds would certainly help with fixing that.

[mr-miley]

domdib

Point a.... actually I had thought of it as being a moss type stuff. It is just a couple of merged power fractals with some displacement. I was going for a quite "hot" type feel (see point b) and after reading your comments I suppose the moss should be a lot browner, as its supposed to be hot  

I think I may well have a tinker with some clouds. As for the fake stones... I was actually thinking of weather I should make some larger ones, as there is already a dusting of very small fake stones applied. Probably can't see them much in this image (see my second post) so I guess you've answered my question  

Many thanks for the observations

Miles

[mr-miley]

Mohawk20

Ta very much. It actually started as an exercise in "buggering around with displacements" and I got so caught up with that that the composition got sort of lost 

Think I'll definately have to have a go with some clouds. Would you also go for low clouds as domdib suggested?

Miles

[Mohawk20]

Yes Low-Level 3d cumulus would be my choice. Not only for more diversity in the sky, but as Domdib said they could give some nice shadows as well.

And perhaps some reddish lighting from a low sun?

[domdib]

I meant low as in coverage, not as in altitude  - so that the scene would stay quite bright. But they would probably also have to be a little low as in altitude to make sure they were visible, which would, as Mohawk suggested, contribute to greater variety of shape.

[rcallicotte]

Hi Miles.  If this is from high up, it looks very good.

[Oshyan]

Hmm, clouds, eh? That may be a good addition. But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the contrast and lighting issues. I think the image looks very flat due to either low contrast (possibly from the tone mapping) or, perhaps more likely, the lighting angle. I think if you adjusted the lighting to give some more defined shadows (maintaining good lighting in those areas with GI, and with soft shadows if possible), then a lot more "dimension" would come out of this. I think it's a fantastic textural and terrain base though, so with just a change in lighting it could be excellent IMHO.

- Oshyan

[mr-miley]

Calico, Hi there. Actually I had always seen it as viewed from kind of head height, maybe 3m at most. Ho hum 

Oshyan Ta very much for the suggestions, I'l have a fiddle with the lighting and see what happens. Mind you, as per my answer to Calico, This is meant to be a view from standing height, the ground is Very flat apart from a few small displacements. I had pictured the slanting outcrop bands as only protruding maybe 10 - 15 cm out of the main surface, so I'm not too sure that you would see too much in the way of shadows. Still, I'll give the lighting a go and see how it comes out 

Miles

[rcallicotte]

Oh.     Well, it looks like it's from about 1000 feet.   Oooh.

Looks good, though.   

Calico, Hi there. Actually I had always seen it as viewed from kind of head height, maybe 3m at most.

Miles

[MacGyver]

Oh.     Well, it looks like it's from about 1000 feet.   Oooh.

Looks good, though.   

I thought that as well and even with all sorts of mental gymnastics I can't see how this could be from normal viewing height... apart from that I'm a very small person, so...

[Tangled-Universe]

Hmm, clouds, eh? That may be a good addition. But I'm surprised no one else has mentioned the contrast and lighting issues. I think the image looks very flat due to either low contrast (possibly from the tone mapping) or, perhaps more likely, the lighting angle. I think if you adjusted the lighting to give some more defined shadows (maintaining good lighting in those areas with GI, and with soft shadows if possible), then a lot more "dimension" would come out of this. I think it's a fantastic textural and terrain base though, so with just a change in lighting it could be excellent IMHO.

- Oshyan

Yes, spot on. You're just a step ahead of me. Lighting is key, definitely.
After changing the light you might even don't need any clouds to make it more interesting.
Also, "filling" each area of the image with fancy stuff can really ruin the image.
Like Oshyan said I think the surfacing has much potential, but the light defintely could be improved.
Please let me know if I can be of any help.

Martin