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.
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
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
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.?
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.?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Thank you, Martin, for the encouragement and each of your suggestions for improvement! All is appreciated. :)
Back to work!
Linda
Nice image and suggestions here :)
Just curious Linda , which AA filter do you use ?
Kadri.
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.
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.
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.
Do my eyes decieve me? It looks like yu have 2 lights in this! Totally acceptable as I use 3 and more most of the time, but turn off the shadows of all your lights except your main sunlight. I really do like the second one. You have nice variation and very good depth!!!
@Kadri and Martin: I've done it both ways and reallyl ike the soft almost painterly look that is acheived with the Cubic B-Spline, but I will use the narrow cubic filter or mitchell-netravalli on the version I'm almost ready to render. By the way, what's the difference between the two (NCF & MN)? Thanks for your feedback and recommendation.
@Mark: Hey Mark, thanks for chiming in and for your kind words. No, your eyes are working fine- I have 2 sunlights in this one..and am thinking of bringing in a 3rd. Have been playing with the light (per Martin's suggestion) for an hour or so; sure makes a difference!
Thanks again,
Linda
Quote from: Thelby
Totally acceptable as I use 3 and more most of the time, but turn off the shadows of all your lights except your main sunlight.
Please don't forget this Linda when using more than 1 light. Keep the main light at his original strength and use fill lights up to a strength of 0.4, not more in general. Generally around 0.25 will suffice.
Really looking forward to see your next iteration. I remember a post from Oshyan which deals with the different AA-filters. Will digg it up for you, a moment.
edit: here it is http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5142.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5142.0)
I agree: the image is too blurry. Try a sharper AA filter.
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.
Thank you, Martin and TheBlackHole. I tried a test render with the mitchell-netravalli, and I liked the results..so, it's the filter I'm going with this time.
@Martin: I just decreased the strength of my fill light (decided not to add a 3rd) before I started my large render. Thanks for that and for all your help.
Linda
Hi Linda, I'm just spending some time going through and trying to catch up in the forum. You are doing very well; and, glad to see that Martin has jumped in and giving some great help. I've learned a lot from this young fellow; and, really appreciate the time he spends with us newbies.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
I'm grateful for the help I've gotten from Martin and a few other and also very appreciative of the help you and John have given me. I think I'm finally hooked. Haven't fashioned a fractal for days now. Trouble is I could spend every waking moment on this.
Linda
Quote from: choronr on December 30, 2009, 12:19:36 AM
Hi Linda, I'm just spending some time going through and trying to catch up in the forum. You are doing very well; and, glad to see that Martin has jumped in and giving some great help. I've learned a lot from this young fellow; and, really appreciate the time he spends with us newbies.
Quote from: Linda McCarthy on December 30, 2009, 12:53:24 AM
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
I'm grateful for the help I've gotten from Martin and a few other and also very appreciative of the help you and John have given me. I think I'm finally hooked. Haven't fashioned a fractal for days now. Trouble is I could spend every waking moment on this.
Linda
Quote from: choronr on December 30, 2009, 12:19:36 AM
Hi Linda, I'm just spending some time going through and trying to catch up in the forum. You are doing very well; and, glad to see that Martin has jumped in and giving some great help. I've learned a lot from this young fellow; and, really appreciate the time he spends with us newbies.
Both you and Markal are well on your way ...its fun to see your progress.
Quote from: Linda McCarthy on December 29, 2009, 02:40:27 PM
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
Linda! Your artwork is much better! Very well done!
Attaching a picture that I use to create compositions. Perhaps it is useful to you?
Thank you, Malcolm- for your kind words and for the "Golden Rule."
I know it will serve me well in my TG2 exploration. I appreciate this useful tool. Linda
[/quote]
Linda! Your artwork is much better! Very well done!
Attaching a picture that I use to create compositions. Perhaps it is useful to you?
[/quote]
Well, here is my latest result. I know the clouds need work.
Changed the lighting, made the plants & trees smaller and changed the terrain & rock texture some.
Thank you for the suggestions for improvement you've offered thus far. I really appreciate the help.
I wish all of you a Happy New Year!
Linda
Loving this thread and your progression, Linda - I am in the habit of only 1 'light', but also have GI and a weaker AO on. Mabe my foliage wouldn't be so damn dark with additional lighting - lol.
You latest is your best, and the lighting on the foliage is exquisite - the clouds look like they've been hit with a strong(ish) unsharp mask in post-pro. Do you do any post-pro?
Quote from: Linda McCarthy on January 01, 2010, 05:59:43 PM
Well, here is my latest result. I know the clouds need work.
Changed the lighting, made the plants & trees smaller and changed the terrain & rock texture some.
Thank you for the suggestions for improvement you've offered thus far. I really appreciate the help.
I wish all of you a Happy New Year!
Linda
Now this is looking real sweet! Tweaking can become a wonderful thing. Just finished downloading Win 7 and the latest version of TG2. But now, I'm temporarily confused - hope to be back soon.
Bob
Thanks muy mucho, Eoin and Bob! I appreciate the encouragement.
@Eoin: I do sharpen post-render in PS. Yes, too much, I think..on the clouds. I also need to adjust the lighting (too harsh for the clouds) and still manage to keep the light and shadow on the terrain and vegetation..as is. Suggestions anyone?
@Bob: I hope your confusion is short-lived..and that you'll be back with us soon. Win 7, eh? Let me know how it goes.
Thanks again,
Linda
Much much better now :) I really like the way you've progressed this image, well done Linda!
The strata really adds interest to the terrain I think. Especially in the foreground it looks really nice.
Next time you could try to break the strata-pattern a bit up by blending it with a powerfractal (with negative color-offset).
I'm not as good in clouds as Frank for example, but my suggestion would be to either:
1) reduce cloud color and scatter color (I'd go for scatter first).
2) reduce the glow amount to 0.25 and power to ~0.5 for example.
glow amount = how the glow is distributed over the atmosphere/clouds. The lower the value the more evenly distributed. The higher the value the more glow closer to the lightsource.
The glow power then regulates how strong that glow is.
3) you could try to reduce the enviro light strength in the cloud-node. Although I think the first 2 options should be explored first because I "believe" more in those solutions.
Good luck and keep it up!
Martin
Thanks, Martin, for your kind and encouraging response.
I sure appreciate each of your great tips and recommended settings. I'll try what you suggest re lighting for the clouds. Right now they look more like whipped egg whites. :-\
I did use a powerfractal to blend the strata, but changed the settings a bit to bring out the more. I think I unchecked the high and low color, but maybe I forgot.
Thanks again!
Linda
Quote from: Tangled-Universe on January 03, 2010, 12:01:09 PM
Much much better now :) I really like the way you've progressed this image, well done Linda!
The strata really adds interest to the terrain I think. Especially in the foreground it looks really nice.
Next time you could try to break the strata-pattern a bit up by blending it with a powerfractal (with negative color-offset).
I'm not as good in clouds as Frank for example, but my suggestion would be to either:
1) reduce cloud color and scatter color (I'd go for scatter first).
2) reduce the glow amount to 0.25 and power to ~0.5 for example.
glow amount = how the glow is distributed over the atmosphere/clouds. The lower the value the more evenly distributed. The higher the value the more glow closer to the lightsource.
The glow power then regulates how strong that glow is.
3) you could try to reduce the enviro light strength in the cloud-node. Although I think the first 2 options should be explored first because I "believe" more in those solutions.
Good luck and keep it up!
Martin
If you use a powerfractal for displacement then it's no problem to have the high or low color unchecked, or both.
But if you use a powerfractal as blendshader, the node which uses that powerfractal needs the powerfractals color for the mask.
So unchecking high-color then will not work then. Actually, I'm a bit surprised the strata will even show up if the blendshader is either not connected but activated or connected but without any color-input.
So my guess is that you have enabled the high color, but that the mask was not "strong" enough.
Anyhow, still nice work :)
Martin
Be aware of the following peculiarity. When you use a power fractal shader for displacement in a Surface layer, you do have to have Apply high colour checked otherwise your displacement won't be applied. If you haven't got a colour function or applied a colour via the colour picker on the Colour tab of the Surface layer then the High colour of your displacement power fractal (which by default will be white) will be applied unless you uncheck the Apply colour on the colour tab of your Surface layer.
John