Some may have seen an earlier version of this on FB, but here's a new iteration.
This is only the top half of the image.
I'm still working on the bottom section of the render and I still have to pursue some other ideas for improvement, like changing some tree types and placing some big boulders here and there, as well as some dirt/twigs and suchs.
Quite a lot of work to do, actually.
Anyhow, enjoy, hopefully.
Cheers,
Martin
It is a great start! I like it.
Thanks :)
Here's a preview of the foreground rocks...still WIP as well.
Wow, those rocks looks so real.....great job.
Excellent naturalistic color choices for the forest. The slopes immediately brought to mind some of the scenes in the 1941 Bogart movie, "High Sierra".
(https://i2.wp.com/i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/si86/highsierra.jpg)
The peak next to the two spires is Mt. Whitney. 14,495 ft. Been there.
...and what I mean by that is, on that peak. :)
Nice render going there Martin. Boulders=awesome!
Later, Ron
Excellent start, looks to be an ambitious project!
Wow, great start! I really like the overall feel. There's a certain "softness" to it, is that soft shadows? And those foreground rocks kick @$$ 8)
A few suggestions, some of which you might have thought of: More color variation in the rock faces. I know the sierras are lighter colored in general, but maybe some dull, darker reds and browns? Could use some ground cover too, particularly under the trees, and maybe not quite so rocky right under them. And maybe a few gnarly bent pines out in the scree field for some variety?
Just my thoughts, what I see looking at it, though sounds like you've already got some ideas :P. Can't wait to see where this goes!
Thanks all so far :)
Quote from: Cocateho on January 24, 2016, 11:20:23 AM
Wow, great start! I really like the overall feel. There's a certain "softness" to it, is that soft shadows? And those foreground rocks kick @$$ 8)
A few suggestions, some of which you might have thought of: More color variation in the rock faces. I know the sierras are lighter colored in general, but maybe some dull, darker reds and browns? Could use some ground cover too, particularly under the trees, and maybe not quite so rocky right under them. And maybe a few gnarly bent pines out in the scree field for some variety?
Just my thoughts, what I see looking at it, though sounds like you've already got some ideas :P. Can't wait to see where this goes!
Seems you're having the ideas as me on how to improve this. Didn't think of reducing stones under the trees though, so thanks for bringing that up :)
Still fiddling with the water settings.
I'm looking for a nice water transparency colour or volumetric colour, but I can't get it nailed so far...
This is excellent, a brilliant job. I would love to see it at a higher res. I think you definitely need some veg amongst the scree. Tree placement is perfect but the odd big boulder would break up the uniformity of the scree.
Pretty great. Very real. *Scale is awesome*. Agree with the plan going forward.
Thought you left us for some other software T-U. Really nice to see this new render man!
I agree with pretty much everyone, great sense of scale, the tree distribution and color variation is excellent, the sense of depth is spot-on. Some bigger stones/stone scale variation (mostly on the talus slopes) would be good, and more rock color variation definitely (subtle, but still, especially for rocks near the water vs. on higher slopes). Also, that cloudy version is really nice. ;)
Really looking forward to seeing this get finalized, it's a beautiful scene.
- Oshyan
Oh I actually disliked that cloud version Oshyan. I don't have that tgd anymore as this time I'm working with only 1 file-version ::) A bit of an analogy to film-photography: think before you shoot.
Those clouds used Matt's Mackerel sky setup as a base, which I tweaked. It's still in my head how I did it. I will likely be able to reproduce it and better.
Ack Martin, rookie move! :P You never work on one file. Especially with so many variations that are interesting and potentially useful here. Hehe. Ah well.
- Oshyan
Well I was better at TG when I was a rookie ;)
Just trying to re-invent myself to keep it interesting and challenging at the same time :P
Save Incremental buddy. :D
- Oshyan
That's for pussies ;)
Nah serious, I usually save things many times. My Crater Lake image has around 70 versions or so. Keeping track of that is also a nightmare (shit, I liked those colours better in version...42? or 48? or 35? or...?)
With this one I think twice and make less changes at a time.
It takes longer, but it's nice.
Here are some tests for water...what do you guys think? I think it's really hard to get the colour right.
The bottom one is better so far I think. But yes it's very hard to nail this particular color, as appealing as I find it to be!
- Oshyan
Thanks :) Can you be a bit more specific on how you think it should be? More blue, more green?
Perhaps a reference pic you think is suitable for this scene? I feel a bit stuck with this, probably spent too much time with this aspect.
I am attempting to make this water myself now, so if I get something good I'll send it to you. :D
- Oshyan
Here is some reference photographs to take some inspiration from. All from the Sierra Nevada's in varied locations.
I'd go for the silty bluegreen look. Will you be adding some reflection where water hits stone? It doesn't look very wet yet. Nice to see you posting some real imagery again, instead of 'just' words, btw ;)
Thanks Ulco :)
One thing at a time, well...may be two ;) Wet stones and nailing the look of the water is what I'm working on now with some guidance and discussion with Oshyan. Artistic vs realistic/correct, it's quite hard to choose.
I am very curious now for the bottom half. The top half image looks already great!
Killer stuff as ever Martin!
More 'milky' water?
:)
Quote from: Chris on January 24, 2016, 06:43:12 PM
Here is some reference photographs to take some inspiration from. All from the Sierra Nevada's in varied locations.
Thanks Chris for bringing these to my attention :)
I like the murky look of #2 and it's an option I'm considering to give a try.
At the moment my first option which I will explore is this reference:
http://www.grahamowengallery.com/photography/Kern-River.jpg
After that I think I will go for your #2 image.
The river is quite wide in my image so perhaps this situation applies better, but I must also not forget the esthetic aspect :)
Quote from: DocCharly65 on January 25, 2016, 06:26:59 AM
I am very curious now for the bottom half. The top half image looks already great!
There's a little bit to be seen already in the post above.
Lower quality than final though, but you can see the work on the stones.
It's still not finished though, as Ulco pointed out ;) :P
Quote from: inkydigit on January 25, 2016, 06:39:44 AM
Killer stuff as ever Martin!
More 'milky' water?
:)
Thanks Jason and yes...more 'milky' is something I will explore.
I think #2.jpg from Chris is a very nice reference which might suit my scene very nicely.
I will keep you guys posted, just a couple of hours more work and then back home ;)
The 'milky' is actually 'glacial milk', and given the terrain that you've created it's likely to have such phenomena. A common sight in the high Sierra Nevada, caused by fine clay particles resulting from the grinding movement of the glacier(s), suspended and refracting in the water. Depending on how close you are to the drainage it can be quite dense. Love to see if something similar can be created in TG. Watching this with pleasure and anticipation.
Would like to see the milk too. Would also like to hear about how you do it, if you do.
Cloud maybe?
It's pretty easy to do this actually, with the Volume Density settings. There is no arcane magic about it guys. :D
- Oshyan
Shhhh...Oshyan!
Now Badger doesn't believe I'm an arcane magician anymore :-[
;D
Yes, image two looks great. As was said, Volume Density settings are perfect for that type of look. I did something like a Lake Diablo type look some time back.
Still think more than a few of you are half human half computer hybrids from outer space. Never really liked the idea of wizards though. I always thought if I met Harry Potter I would want to punch him. At least I always want to punch adults who go to harry potter movies dressed up as wizards. Also, cyborgs are much cooler than wizards, cuz cyborgs get lasers and wizards just have wands, and I like guns more than wood sticks. Either way, you still make good renders.
:D
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 24, 2016, 06:53:48 AM
Some may have seen an earlier version of this on FB, but here's a new iteration.
This is only the top half of the image.
I'm still working on the bottom section of the render and I still have to pursue some other ideas for improvement, like changing some tree types and placing some big boulders here and there, as well as some dirt/twigs and suchs.
Quite a lot of work to do, actually.
Anyhow, enjoy, hopefully.
Cheers,
Martin
much mo better here, like this a lot
Agree with Oshyan on the water.
Volume density settings even takes lines of colors, so there's a lot you can do (whirls of silt). Or add a surface shader under the water and have a 0.2 like coverage, decreases the reflection a bit, but also colors the water. Sometimes decreasing reflection isn't a bad idea anyway.
Looks already very nice Martin.Curious about the lower half.
Lower half is on its way...
Looking forward to it.
My co-worker was asking me if I was looking for tree references ... he didn't get that that this first image posted here was a render :)
Here's how the stones look so far...sorry for the inferior quality, the other render took way too long.
Wow...them r nice rocks indeed.
The rocks are great just like granite a few small cracks and they'd be perfect. The water looks just like recent glacial melt just be fore all the sediment settles.
Thanks Mick :)
Like glacial melts indeed and it's too strong to my taste, in retrospect.
If it's glacial melt, then where's some of the snow which I would expect to be around, still?
That didn't seem right to me, so I changed to colours a bit.
Glaciers melt year round and could be just up the valley or 10 miles away. There may well not be snow around! - you get water just like this, in the alps, in the summer when streams bring the water down to the lakes from the glaciers. You are more likely to see water like this in high mountain lakes than in the large lower level ones however.
Quote from: mhaze on January 28, 2016, 09:13:25 AM
Glaciers melt year round and could be just up the valley or 10 miles away. There may well not be snow around! - you get water just like this, in the alps, in the summer when streams bring the water down to the lakes from the glaciers. You are more likely to see water like this in high mountain lakes than in the large lower level ones however.
Mick's quite correct...have seen the same in the at least Canadian part of the Rocky Mountain range...
Yes you might be right after all.
I remember when I was hiking in China that the river I hiked along wasn't particularly stained, because it was the wrong time of the year my guide explained. He was refering to melting snow which picked up minerals/particles which gave the particular stain.
If you google "tiger leaping gorge" you may find differently coloured water, dependant on the season.
I don't know whether the Sierra's have all year round the same kind of coloured water.
If I check the references I see all kinds of different things, also dependant on how fast the water is flowing, yet you should not mistake air-bubbles for colour though.
All in all, difficult design choices.
Just follow esthetics then.
Quote from: Dune on January 28, 2016, 11:33:41 AM
Just follow esthetics then.
yup...good taste will win the day.
Gorgeous rocks and the tree distribution is to die for. Hard to achieve, at least for me it is :)
Thanks guys :)
More's cooking now.
I think I have found a better POV as well.
Great.
Here it is...what do you guys think of this POV?
It seems like a good point of view. The trees and overall lighting is very photo real. The rocks seem a bit bright but it might be my monitor. What are you planning for the upper parts of the mountains, any strata rock or slight color variations? I like the water a lot. Any twigs, leaves or other debris planned?
Yes there's more discussed and planned to do, just scroll/read back if you like :)
I hope I can keep up working on this, as other ideas start pushing away my focus from this.
I must do some nitpicking, Martin. Everybody is very enthusiastic about the rocks, but, to be honest, I find them a bit dull. Especially with this lighting the shore on the left is one mass without much distinction. It might be so in the Sierra's, and in that case I would find a POV or lighting where the rocks are not such a big part of the render. Unles you will break it all up with grasses and stuff, perhaps.
I do like the algue on the rocks where they are wet.
I really like the PoV,...has a more 'human' feel to it. Like you're seeing it from the PoV of someone standing where the camera is.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 29, 2016, 03:41:14 AM
Yes there's more discussed and planned to do, just scroll/read back if you like :)
I hope I can keep up working on this, as other ideas start pushing away my focus from this.
I had not an opportunity to read this entire thread yet but i will soon.
I Agree with Dune about the large block of rocks with little contrast, it needs breaking up and less flat lighting. Veg would be good and the shadow looks out of place. Water looks great.
Quote from: Dune on January 29, 2016, 03:46:15 AM
I must do some nitpicking, Martin. Everybody is very enthusiastic about the rocks, but, to be honest, I find them a bit dull. Especially with this lighting the shore on the left is one mass without much distinction. It might be so in the Sierra's, and in that case I would find a POV or lighting where the rocks are not such a big part of the render. Unles you will break it all up with grasses and stuff, perhaps.
I do like the algue on the rocks where they are wet.
Nitpicking is being bothered about details, so to me your concerns aren't nitpicking at all :)
Without trying to use the words "It's planned for" as a standard reply/escape....it is planned for to improve ;)
The lighting is indeed the problem. It creates the flat look and it's also why it's rather bright, but that's no problem. In photography you deal with the same issues.
The reason I chose this lighting direction is two-fold:
1) lighting from behind, especially with sunset situations etc., is the only situation in TG to get really well lit vegetation and good quality of GI in the vegetation.
2) it's a challenge and your concerns prove that, Ulco.
I'll sum up, again partly, what's planned for in the next couple of days (tomorrow is shitty weather -> TG-day? yay!)
- more granite variation on stones
- finding a way to have the lichen work on the bottom of the stones (the existing variation in granite shades already works poorly right now)
- twigs/debris etc. between the rocks
- some more varied vegetation near the trees
- replace 1 or 2 tree models with others, or reduce coverage of existing to fit 1 or 2 pine-like species into it, rather than firs.
- maybe create a patch of shore with less stones and have some grasses/mosses instead
- maybe(!) some clouds
Any other ideas?
Maybe not so much a patch of shore but maybe random breaks in the rocks with vegetation as seen in the photographs. Notice how both go out to the water. Just an idea.
Thanks for thinking along, I really appreciate that :)
I like the second reference, something definitely "do-able".
Things are becoming quite complex already in the network though. Choices and trade-offs :D
Ha! I just performed a reverse image search on the latest version and some of the very few hits were photos from the Sierras :)
I moved the sun 5 degrees away from the camera and another 5 degrees lower...I like the how the light streaks on the distant trees near the shore :)
I think I'll move it back 1 or 2 degrees to create a bit more of that streaking light.
The lower sun already improves the look of the stones, but they still need the suggested and discussed work.
This is straight from the render btw...no post-processing.
re: lighting....it can also be adjusted from within the camera(exposure)....I find the slider on the left side of the 3D preview to be invaluable as it gives 'real time' feedback.
Ehhh...yes? :)
Looks muy muy nice Martin :D
Edit: I know you know this already, but yeah the rock surfaces need some work
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 29, 2016, 10:26:48 AM
Ha! I just performed a reverse image search on the latest version and some of the very few hits were photos from the Sierras :)
Great, glad the photos helped.
Altering the sun position defiantly gives the surfaces more definition.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 29, 2016, 12:46:36 PM
Ehhh...yes? :)
heh heh....Just checking...didn't notice it for the longest time myself...
Did you tried a position of the sun that comes from the upper left to the lower right Martin? Like the flow of the river?
If the look of the lighting is good it might help with the composition aspect too maybe...
I understand your concern about rock definition, but I do think the image posted on page 4 was much better :-\
Hi Martin, really nice scene. I want be the first to ask: The terrain it's a DEM, or procedurally created?
the rest is fractal poetry for my eyes.
Quote from: Kadri on January 29, 2016, 08:02:03 PM
Did you tried a position of the sun that comes from the upper left to the lower right Martin? Like the flow of the river?
If the look of the lighting is good it might help with the composition aspect too maybe...
Yes I did lighting basically first, then I started working on the terrain.
I explored sun rotation in 15 degree increments all way round and at 5, 10 and 15 degrees angle.
Yes indeed, that's 72 conditions. Takes about 5-10 minutes to check though...
Quote from: paq on January 29, 2016, 09:50:12 PM
I understand your concern about rock definition, but I do think the image posted on page 4 was much better :-\
Fair enough, but why?
Being honest is very much desired, but without an argument it's kind of useless, right? ;)
I can't stress enough that the stones are still to be worked on...
Generally speaking it seems no one is reading what others and I are saying.
They look at the picture and don't seem to check what has been said already.
Quote from: Ariel DKMultimedia on January 29, 2016, 10:52:54 PM
Hi Martin, really nice scene. I want be the first to ask: The terrain it's a DEM, or procedurally created?
the rest is fractal poetry for my eyes.
Thanks mate :)
The terrain is from WM and everything you see in relation to distribution of stones and trees is using masks derived from WM's erosion.
This terrain has been eroded 3x, twice with fluvial erosion and once with thermal erosion.
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 30, 2016, 05:03:34 AM
..
Generally speaking it seems no one is reading what others and I are saying.
They look at the picture and don't seem to check what has been said already.
I call that FaceBook syndrome...causes many a flame war there
Yes, but not here, please.
I am glad to hear that Martin. two months ago I started with WM, I have not even given a chance
to the Spline tool (which is what you probably use for the river I think), so it would be good to get
down to work on this again, but before, I can ask some advice from your own experience in WM when creating terrain like this?
just some "tips" haha thats is all :)
QuoteFair enough, but why?
Being honest is very much desired, but without an argument it's kind of useless, right? ;)
I can't stress enough that the stones are still to be worked on...
Generally speaking it seems no one is reading what others and I are saying.
They look at the picture and don't seem to check what has been said already.
Hello,
I have tried to rightly choose my words, it was just a personal impression ... maybe I prefer the shadow distribution on the right shore from the previous version.
So I'm sorry about the useless comment :-X (even if 3,4, ... 20 pages of justifications can't change anything about a first impression right ?)
See, you do know why ;)
Just take that 1 extra minute, it's not facebook :) :P
One of my concerns was that you didn't like the new composition or that the stones are different and much more close up.
Seems it's about the shadows, mostly.
I'll do a bit more experimenting to see if I can get more appealing results.
Right now I really like how the light touches those trees near the shore in the distance.
With a bit of morning-mist I think I can create a very moody image out of this?
Quote from: bobbystahr on January 30, 2016, 10:26:11 AM
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 30, 2016, 05:03:34 AM
..
Generally speaking it seems no one is reading what others and I are saying.
They look at the picture and don't seem to check what has been said already.
I call that FaceBook syndrome...causes many a flame war there
It happens. I have done it. Always feel bad after. ;D
...
On a side note, I have looked at some reference photos in this thread. I see you have done and are doing your research. But for me, it is difficult to accept the continuous white color everywhere. I see that is the reality, but it is outside of my personal experience so it feels not real, if that makes sense. So the image reference that I looked at, the ones that I like best, are the once where that natural real color of the terrain was broken up a lot by green plants and mud and such. Again I know you are not done. But just giving you my thoughts to confirm or add to yours.
Also, I don't see how a place like this can be shot in a vertical format. Don't know if that was the plan at the end, but a traditional landscape frame would probably create a better image in most views, unless this view here is the final. But then it may be nice to try a pano of some number of frames in the vertical, to make it wider, but not change your set up. Feels a little strange to look at a place like this in a vertical comp, but that is probably highly subjective.
Thanks Michael, I really appreciate your thoughts :)
The vertical composition is probably a personal thing indeed, but you're right in your observation that the vast majority of the shots out there is in landscape format.
Perhaps you could see it as "trying to do things different", but I'm not really that type of guy, only occassionaly.
At the moment, during all those countless test renders, I'm watching Photography courses by Art Wolfe and Fran Lanting (from CreativeLive) and I guess if they would look at this composition then they would very likely ask:
Ok, looks nice, but what's the subject? what's all that empty sky doing there?
Still lots to do, indeed.
In the mean time, here's a newer version where I tried to add some morning mist. It's too dense and too close to the camera.
Love the mist - still not a fan of the foreground rocks.
Please tell me you're trying to rile me up :)
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21067.msg210938.html#msg210938
http://www.planetside.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,21067.msg210984.html#msg210984
Not sure what you mean Martin! The rocks structurally are excellent I just don't like the flat light. Sorry :(
The lighting is, indeed, not very interesting here, Martin.
Everything looks flat and over-lighted on the foreground and that big shadow is not good looking.
It's a bit like people taking pictures with the sun on their back.