Simple, conceptual.
Nice concept. Add some drama; maybe some clouds that put some rays down over the tree.
Simply nice :)
Beautiful lighting. water looks a touch too cement-like.
very nice. effective. simple. fantastic :)
render it a little bigger.
what model is that?
excellent work on the atmosphere & clouds btw.
I believe the clouds are a photo, not procedural.
Excellent application of your testing to a final image, infinity.
There seems to be some noise. did you add noise to match one part with another. Or is this a render setting issue?
Wurby: The water effect I was going for was a calm look with only a few ripples. I don't usually use water in my scenes so I wasn't able to achieve the effect I really wanted. Probably modify it with a node, but I'm still learning how to use 'em.
Zaii: The model is a Japanese Walnut from Xfrog.
Badger: Yes, the clouds are a photograph, using the technique developed earlier this week. The noise, I'm not sure where it's coming from. I think it's the photo itself, is a little grainy, and then gets exacerbated when compressed to .jpeg.
I also created this one with stars that is arguably better suited.
In the end, I think'll settle with this one. It might be good enough for a logo.
Yes, the Last one is great!
On the issue of noise in image 1. I think that is an example of where noise works. It does look more organic. But that could just be aesthetics.
Final image. Better lighting and placement.
Putting all the technical aside, what story are you attempting to tell with this composition?
-Pat
Quote from: PCook on August 26, 2012, 10:41:14 PM
Putting all the technical aside, what story are you attempting to tell with this composition?
-Pat
I don't know if I'm trying to tell any kind of story with it. Mostly, I'm just playing around and testing techniques, and colours, and ideas for an actual, much, much larger project I'm working on. Then it just so happened I stumbled across a certain group of objects and effects that kind of came together nicely. Also, I like simple, abstract ideas.
Why, no good?
Start with what you intend to say with an image. Your meaning. That will guide your composition. The composition is the layout, colors, lighting, element positions, etc. Once you have your composition, you can refine your image technically.
Asking about your image's story (its meaning) is not in any way judging the image. I asked because you started with a much brighter lit scene and ended with a much darker one. That got me asking what you were shooting for - the two images are worlds apart in terms of meaning to the viewer.
What's interesing is that in both cases your image breaks compositional rules, such as placing the primary object in the center, assuming the primary object is the tree. Your image also visually buries the primary subject (assuming that's the tree) with clouds and water. It's hard for the viewer to understand the image. Is it about the tree, or the clouds, or the water? Usually you don't want the viewer to be distressed (but you may indeed want that).
When you have a meaning in your own mind, you are much less likley to create compositions that have elements competing for the space (the tree, clouds and water in your case), which is confusing for the viewer. You want a person to view your image and "just get it" without working at it. For example, a viewer might be reminded of being isolated. Another might be reminded of being bathed in love. (the darker image changes the meaning considerably) But you want to try to guide the viewer to understand the image as you understand it. If you know what you're trying to say with the image, your "story", it's much more likley that your viewers will as well because you will tend to design to your own meaning. Then the technical can be addressed. I call it the "meaning-to-composition-to-technical" route.
By the way, I wouldn't have taken the time to comment on your image tonight if it weren't as striking as it is (the first one). Your image is approaching fine art.
-Pat
Yes, I think I see what you're saying. I perfectly understand the desire to start with an idea and then flesh it out. However, I've discovered on many occasions that, during the course of work, I will stumble across an idea for something else completely different, as was the case here. First, I had made something similar to what my first image was (only as a test). And then I had a thought of making the lake so reflective you couldn't really tell where the sky ended and the water began. And, before you know it, I had the making of a decent image. And then I did a few more tests, and came up with the dark version. Sometimes, I don't always start with idea. Sometimes, an idea will come as I go along and then I'll chase that idea to its natural conclusion. Many times when I go shooting photography, I might not always get what I want or expect, but I'll almost always come back with something.
Both versions, light and dark, are viable, and both have (or can have) very different meanings. As always, I leave the final interpretation to the viewer. But, ultimately, what these were about, is testing how my skies look against the tree models I'm going to be using for my project, as that project will demand many instances of both light and dark skies against similar looking models. In most cases for thse scenes, there will be a pre-conceived story that I will be telling. This whole affair was just a fun distraction.
Yes, I know my 'final image' doesn't really fit the title of "The Forever Tree' as much as the first image did, at is it more crowded in, almost threatening to be choked out of existence by the dark clouds around it. Perhaps, 'The Lonely Tree' or something similar might be a better name for the darker image.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Quote from: PCook on August 26, 2012, 11:41:42 PM
What's interesing is that in both cases your image breaks compositional rules
Also, compositional rules are made to be broken. ;)
Quote from: PCook on August 26, 2012, 11:41:42 PM
What's interesing is that in both cases your image breaks compositional rules, such as placing the primary object in the center, assuming the primary object is the tree. Your image also visually buries the primary subject (assuming that's the tree) with clouds and water. It's hard for the viewer to understand the image. Is it about the tree, or the clouds, or the water?
One of my favorite scenes from 'Superman': Lex Luthor explaining that some people can ready "War and Peace" and think it's a nice story. Others can read the ingredients lable on a can and divine the secrets of the universe. Where art is concerned, I think 'Rules" and "Guidelines" are interchangeable. Ultimately, the focus is whatever those things are that draw an audience to an image. I find the second, darker version of this image compelling and I'm not really certain I can tell you why. (and I have a background in psychology and spent 3 years working as a mental health therapist!). Many (most?) people are like that - they can quickly and easily tell you
what they like, but struggle to explain why. And frankly, sometimes there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. When I was in High School several eons ago, many in my art class struggled to design a cover for the class yearbook. The girl who won that honor merely flicked a few drops of ink at wet paper and called it "the world as seen in a grain of sand". The art teacher loved it. :o
I've long held to the opinion that what makes a great image maker is his or her ability to control what the viewer interprets from his or her images. As image makers we need to strive to "control the mind", sort to speak. I'm still working on that skill myself. When we point our cameras, we must be able to see the story in the frame and capture a composition that works for the story. When we fabricate an image in 3D software, we need to be able to see the story in our mind and build the composition, which involves all sorts of distracting technical details. Whether by camera or software, if we don't see the story before the image, we get what's called "happy accidents". It's good to have lots of happy accidents, but we also want to be able to control what the image means to viewers. When we can control the viewer's interpretation of our images we are better able to deliver images that rise above the untold millions of images that get produced in these digital daze. But we need to know the what meaning we're after if we're to control the meaning to others.
I don't hold to needing to have a story before we take the photo or create the image, but I believe that the author must know the story by the time a photo or image gets viewed beyond the author. As you described, the image evolved as you pursued various compositional experiments, such as blending the water line into the clouds. So, compositionally speaking your image evolved. But you still had a story in mind, whether you knew it or not. Something wanted to be expressed that took you down what seems to be a meandering design path. The idea then is to be able to articulate what that story was or became. By being able to express the story (your interpretation) of the image, you are able to keep the technicals in their place – good technicals do not make a meaningful image, rather help a image's meaning not be obscured by clumsy, distracting or ugly elements. When improperly used, HDRI is a good example of where the technical obscures the image's meaning, where HDRI becomes a process rather than a technique which all too often results in images that are not believable or downright ugly. Our 3D software is also a candidate for allowing the technical to come before the meaning. If, whether doing HDRI or 3D, we can keep the image's meaning foremost in mind we'll produce better images that will survive the test of viewer interpretation. But, even if the image development evolved, if the author can state its *intended* meaning, the image will be more likely to be meaningful to another in a way that is consistent with the point of the image.
QuoteYes, I know my 'final image' doesn't really fit the title of "The Forever Tree' as much as the first image did, at is it more crowded in, almost threatening to be choked out of existence by the dark clouds around it. Perhaps, 'The Lonely Tree' or something similar might be a better name for the darker image.
A couple points if I may. First, try to not design an image to fit a title. Let the title come last, if at all. Titles have the unfortunate consequence of suggesting an image's meaning. Leave an image untitled for maximum freedom of interpretation by viewers. When we sell our images, we want the buyer to believe what they want to believe, which a title defeats unless carefully chosen. Yes, we want to lead the buyer to believe that which is consistent with our intention for the image, but we want to do that with composition, not titling. Second, there is nothing wrong with choking an element...if that's what you intend to do. But be sure always to give strong visual clues as to what the primary element is (the tree in this case). For instance, bring the tree closer to the foreground to give it dominance in the scene. Make the tree bigger. More color to the tree. *Center* the tree (which breaks conventional compositional rules, but does clue the viewer that that's the primary element.) A busy image is ok as long as the viewer can identify the primary element in which case the viewer is "grounded". When grounded, the viewer can take it from there, else the viewer is left visually floating around the image confused. We have about 5 seconds to win the mind of the viewer. Use that precious time well.
-Pat
I liked the first one, but I have to say "final image" is spectacular.