Southeast Side of the Western Slopes

Started by Linda McCarthy, December 28, 2009, 06:33:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Linda McCarthy

Ok, "hit me with your best shot..fire away!"  Somehow the rocky mountain doesn't look realistic enough..and, are the trees/shrubs too large?  Your suggestions for improvement are needed and welcomed.  Thanks.  Linda

Loaded one of my World Machine terrains as a heightfield.

Birch (water or paper?) is an X-Frog object, and the shrubs- 09 and 08, are from the Dry bush pack by Jan-Walter Schliep (a.k.a. Walli)
http://www.nwdanet.com/buy-packs/details/34/8/object-packs/dry-bush-bundle-pack (must be purchased). Thanks, Walli!
DNW Flower (yellow specks) is #1 is also by Walli.

Tangled-Universe

Hi Linda,

You've added quite much elements in here together, that's well done.
I think the colorscheme of the models and the terrain works good together. The clouds look pretty as well.
Regarding the rocks, those could use some work. First I'd make them smaller and depending on how many layers you already have, you might add one or two extra with different sizes to add variation and interest. You could also try to add some extra powerfractals to the surface of the rocks for coloring and displacement (gentle with that!)
The major improvement this image needs, in my opinion, is the lighting. It is quite 2D looking and flat/dull, giving it a washed out look.
The sun's elevation is set quite high, as I can see because of the length of the shadows. The direction of the lighting is mainly from the back which in general is not the most common way to get interesting lighting and composition.
I suggest you try to lower your sun to around 20-25 degrees and to put the sun's position just outside your view, to your left for example.
This way you create more shadows and variation in lighting.

I hope you find these tips useful and if you need any help than just ask :)

Martin

Linda McCarthy

Very useful tips, Martin!  Thank you! 
One question:  I have only one layer of rocks (will add more and vary the size of rocks on the surface),
but the terrain itself is a loaded .ter heightfield from WM. 
Would adding extra power fractals for displacement help to eliminate the dome-shaped rock-like terrain?
Thanks again.
Linda

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: Linda McCarthy on December 28, 2009, 07:23:15 PM
Very useful tips, Martin!  Thank you! 
One question:  I have only one layer of rocks (will add more and vary the size of rocks on the surface),
but the terrain itself is a loaded .ter heightfield from WM. 
Would adding extra power fractals for displacement help to eliminate the dome-shaped rock-like terrain?
Thanks again.
Linda

You're welcome, no problem.
I'm not sure what you mean, can you post a small render of the terrain only, without fake stones etc.?

Linda McCarthy

Hi Martin,

I think part of the problem was as you identified it initially- in the fake stone shader; also I used a power fractal displacement with too much amplitude.  I will work on obtaining more variation in my rocks by using the power fractal method you suggested.

Meanwhile here is a render of a portion of the terrain with only the loaded heightfield with the smooth erode and base colors enabled.
I like it much better and have already begun a new render with only a few scattered stones, the 4 pops I used in my original render, as well as the grass and soil surface layers.  I have also changed the lighting.  Hopefully this render will be finished sooner than the 14+ hours it took for the 1st one.

I appreciate your help.

Linda

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on December 28, 2009, 07:38:48 PM
Quote from: Linda McCarthy on December 28, 2009, 07:23:15 PM
Very useful tips, Martin!  Thank you! 
One question:  I have only one layer of rocks (will add more and vary the size of rocks on the surface),
but the terrain itself is a loaded .ter heightfield from WM. 
Would adding extra power fractals for displacement help to eliminate the dome-shaped rock-like terrain?
Thanks again.
Linda

You're welcome, no problem.
I'm not sure what you mean, can you post a small render of the terrain only, without fake stones etc.?

Malcolm79

Hi, Linda!
Very pretty render! But ... i can't find "focal point" of your artwork. The picture should be the central point/focal point, which attracts the attention of the viewer.
About sky - it looks great!

M79.

Linda McCarthy

Hi Malcolm,
Thank you! 
Yes, I agree- no focal point.  Your suggestion is well-taken. :)
Linda

Quote from: Malcolm79 on December 29, 2009, 02:26:56 AM
Hi, Linda!
Very pretty render! But ... i can't find "focal point" of your artwork. The picture should be the central point/focal point, which attracts the attention of the viewer.
About sky - it looks great!

M79.

Linda McCarthy

Well, here's the latest version of a few more efforts at improvement.
@ Martin:  Changed the light heading and elevation, added a 2nd sun- directionally opposite from the 1st.  Also worked more on the terrain.  No fake stone shader for this render; still need to implement your suggestion for varied sizes.
@ Malcolm:  Is the lake more a focal point now? 
Thanks again!
Linda

Tangled-Universe

What a great improvement already!
I see you've changed the lighting, but it is still from the back, though a bit more from the side indeed, but still way too much. I'd move it for another -50 degrees or so.

For now I would forget about the stones, keep it for later.
First you could do some other things :)

A strong point now is the focal point and buildup of depth. The viewer is now more drawn into the image.
The clouds give very nice sense of scale and to even further improve it I suggest you reduce the scales of your bushes and trees by half.
Also, do you use size variations for your populations? I strongly recommonded using that because it makes it more realistic.
To add size variation double-click on your population-node and go the third tab "object scale".
At default these are set to 1 for min. and max. scale.

So, to explain what I suggest we assume yours is set to the default of 1 for min. and max.
First, let's decrease the scale of object by half. So set min. and max. scale to 0.5
But, to add size variation you need to alter one of the two, so I suggest you enter 0.25 for min. and 0.5 for max.
I find a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 best often.
Consequently you will need to increase the density of your populations.

I think the coverage for your bushes is fine, so if you're going to decrease the size of the bushes then increase the density to get a similar coverage.
In general some more trees could be nice. Maybe some more clumps too.

This may sound like a lot to do, but in fact it is just a dozen of minutes of work.
Reduce scales, add size variation and increase densities. Then move the sun more to the right and start testing! ;D
After you've settled this you can start focussing on your stones again :)

Good luck!

Martin

Henry Blewer

I would reduce the cloud coverage. A strong cloud slightly off the center would help provide a point of interest. The second render is much better. Nice work.
http://flickr.com/photos/njeneb/
Forget Tuesday; It's just Monday spelled with a T

Linda McCarthy

Thank you, Martin, for the encouragement and each of your suggestions for improvement!  All is appreciated. :)
Back to work! 
Linda

Kadri

Nice image and suggestions here  :)
Just curious Linda , which AA filter do you use ?

Kadri.

Linda McCarthy

Thanks, Kadri!  I use the Cubic B-Spline (soft) with the anti-aliasing bloom.

Quote from: Kadri on December 29, 2009, 05:22:39 PM
Nice image and suggestions here  :)
Just curious Linda , which AA filter do you use ?

Kadri.

Thanks, njeneb!  I agree and appreciate the good suggestion. 

Quote from: njeneb on December 29, 2009, 04:36:13 PM
I would reduce the cloud coverage. A strong cloud slightly off the center would help provide a point of interest. The second render is much better. Nice work.

Tangled-Universe

Perhaps you could stick to the narrow cubic filter or mitchell-netravalli, since the cubic b-spline is very soft.
You can always blur or soften in post, but good sharpening is a lot harder.

Kadri

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on December 29, 2009, 05:52:53 PM
Perhaps you could stick to the narrow cubic filter or mitchell-netravalli, since the cubic b-spline is very soft.
You can always blur or soften in post, but good sharpening is a lot harder.

I asked because of this   :)

Kadri.