Thought I would start this thread in the hopes that there will be good and serious critiques. I can be your first *victim* IR or whomever wishes to give me direction!!! This is in progress....it is a photo I took and then added the little ghosties...which may or may not work.
Funny you would say that because I was just thinking before I signed on just now that the more I look at it and change it the worse it looks to me. I even tried redoing those trees on the far left but they looked worse so went back to where it was. Misunderstood about the land, thought you were saying to connect it to the far horizon.
Now that looks like a place I could throw down a blanket and watch the clouds.
Ah....that's getting close...
The issue with 3D 'art' is it's actually 2D 'artifice'.
The intent is to fool the eye into accepting/believing the image has a third dimension [maybe even a fourth - a sense of life/movement].
Part of it is 'easy' in that provided the elements are 'familiar' to the viewer within the image their representation is understood...eg ...distant mountains.
But,
Sometimes the eye needs 'help' in your case the grass/foreground lacked a sense of depth that related in perspective with the horizon delineated by the background shoreline/mountains.....something that can be reinforced with a tree/trees in that new background area....with their size reduced in accordance with that perspective.
Don't forget, tho....if the treetops are lower than that horizon they're in a valley [or you're bloody tall]...
i still think the picture is far too busy, (no breathing space) out of prospective and the focal point is overshadowed by too many dominate features....
with trees that are cut off and do nothing to help the picture.
Ive helped as much as I can with this, not only by talking the talk, but by walking it and showing you a technical example of what you should be
aiming for....but........
ive got a wb to make....so good luck frankie. xx
I put one tree and one bush. If I add anything else to that corner it will become a blob! I changed the water up a little also.
I am sorry I am not going in your direction but by the time I got your perspective I was too far into what I had done to completely do an about face. It started out as simple but I guess was too simple and progressed from there. I appreciate you taking the time to give me your opinion.
I have taught people the process of 'design'....that's Architectural design.
First rule I have is never use pencil...it's too easy to rub out...and lose the value of historical, evolutionary thought.
Ink.
Indelible and permanent record of your thought processes that lead to the 'logical' [?] conclusion.
You should go back and look at the sequence of walls that culminate where you are now...and analyze the evolution.
It started poorly....and has been pushed and shoved in disparate directions but even in spite of that...it's better than when it began.
It's not [now] too busy....that was [past tense] the case when it had those bloody daisies or whatever they were.
It's simply 4 or 5 simple, basic elements.
Cloudy sky
Grassy/treed foreground
Lake/bay/ocean/water
A bird
Putting it together like they ALL belong is all that counts....and it's essentially there.
The resulting wallpaper image is irrelevant....what's important is the journey taken in getting there....
Just to add...
You've again lost the land 'connection' of the foreground to the background...so it's back to looking like a paper cut-out of a foreground looking through the gaps into a 3D disconnected image/scene.
The link is lost.
On a 'next' wall project try to avoid the cut-off 'bordering' of the trees to the sides....one side you might get away with....both is OTT.
Remember...don't work along the idea of...."oh, an empty space....I must put 'something' there".
In my rendering classes in '72 we had a third year student teaching us a way to draw trees.....using a 0.2 Rotring Rapidograph on tracing. It amounted to a non-stop squiggle which basically drew every leaf in a tree....on a good day it'd take between 1 and 3 hours...to draw one tree.
My sister showed me a way....years later....took about 15 seconds....and the result was actually better.
MOST of the tree was simply alluded to.
What you leave out is important.
Okay, now I am going to do it how I think it should look and you all can tell me how wrong I am but I have umpteen pictures of lakeviews that do not have a shoreline on either side. Once I tried adding that it looks like a bowl to me. The trees on the left side are a definate problem. The mountains, I think, are too close to the foreground. I have become mentally attached to the project so I will return later with my version!
There is NOTHING 'wrong' with the picture other than the foreground looks more like a mount/picture frame than part of/belonging to the background....an attached border.
To anchor/connect it to its background an intermediary element is needed..
Put simply....the difference between where it now is...and how I've described it should be [and how it almost was...at one stage] will be the difference between its straight acceptance as a wall submission or its rejection.
You 'may' not understand/accept the distinction/difference but it's one of the criteria by which people [mods] judge a submission....whether it looks/reads right.
The stand-out issue is that the grass is so dark immediately below the water....it doesn't so much separate the foreground from the background as separate the result into two totally unconnected images....like a cut-and-paste.
Now if THAT's because the foreground grass/trees is on a separate image layer to the background then that's a real problem with the use of layers.... splitting drawings into 'bits' that are actually unrelated....the result is disjointed.
You can have umpteen pictures without a shoreline...you can have umpteen photographs of real locations....if they don't read right they won't be approved, either.
I am not [trying to] help you with some 'other' picture of a lake scene...I'm responding to THIS one.
Maybe someone else will learn something from the advice, even if it's ignored here.
It is not my intention to ignore your advice, I am just saying that as it is now it does not look right. You are correct in that the foreground looks like a frame (or Bowl). The foreground has become too dark through endless tweaking. If I don't leave it on layers for now it will be impossible to manipulate it. I am sure it has to do with my interpretation of your intent as anything else. The tree area on the left edge has become blobby from the constant manipulation (the original edge trees). All I am saying is that I think it needs some serious reworking to look correct. It is not my intention to throw everything out, just try to refine what is there.
It's cleaner, brighter and I hope better and more connected.
Almost 'perfect'...
Now...have a real, close look at the middle of the image...where the grass 'meets' the water.....is that a hard, continuous 'line' with an overlay of grass fronds overlaid?
That's OK where there's no grass....like where the bare ground is at left...but I'd be penetrating 'transparency'/openings lower into the grass area to hide that 'line' more.
Do that and I'd call it 'perfect'....
You are so astute. That deliniation line has been driving me nuts for several days. I will contemplate some more on how to clean it up. Some one took issue with the bare ground but I think it needs to be there. I am so glad you approve of the changes.
The dirt path leaves to the imagination an old boat launch from my childhood, it.
Now you know why I ask jafo to critique stuff, hes got a wicked eye for detail, and has no problems being real about it.
[quote who="HG_Eliminator" reply="241" id="2820472"]The dirt path leaves to the imagination an old boat launch from my childhood, it.Now you know why I ask jafo to critique stuff, hes got a wicked eye for detail, and has no problems being real about it. [/quote
I like your new avatar! We used to camp on a lake that had an old dirt boat ramp when I was a kid.
Please say its good! We had our first snow on the plains here today and lost power twice which meant I lost all my revisions and had to start anew. One day I will learn to hit that save button more often.
still a bit of hard line dead center but looks good ..
It's beautiful Frankie! This wall will be decorating my screen at work. When you're cooped up in an office with no windows, something like this can be quite refreshing to look at!
Yes, I think that's good enough...
The 'right' mix of elements with no glaring issues of short-cut-taking.
Whenever a graphic [or anything] goes through a sequence of revisions/changes it's crucial to keep copies along the 'way'.
That aircraft cockpit I posted in the screenshots thread has been backed up regularly as there's a heck of a lot of work in it to 'lose'. The coding co-ordinates alone for each 'gauge' element would take probably a week to replicate from scratch... and that doesn't take into account the graphics...or the individual gauge coding. To do it all again would likely be the whole month it took to do it the first time.
Instead, I've started on a second plane... and learning from the first it'll probably be done in half the time...
Makes them Ol Step.rc's liike like childs play huh?
Oh, trust me, I have more versions of this psd on my computer than any I have ever done before, but when the power went off, I lost all revisions I had done today because I had not saved yet!
Been an interesting experience and hope to do it again sometime when I don't have quite so much work to do. I'll try not to start out with such a poor image next go round! I did learn some important things and did keep notes.
Thanks for liking the "finished" product (I know, nothing is ever finished). It was a lot of hard work but worth it for the knowledge I hope I gained.
Fishing looks real good there Frankief. Think I'll head on down there and set up house for a day or two. Hard work deserves something special.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
