Book Cover already Published but made new changes and would like feedback

I just spend a few hours re-texturing the main model featured in the book cover of an existing ebook for iOS and Android.



The book is about the story of a programmer, his gamer friend, their afterlife, incarnations and the concept of God in the grand scheme of things.

However, before I actually made the change, changing an existing book cover is quite a drastic move, once I have decided to use these new textures, then further work will have to be done to re-render backdrops, new camera angle experimentations, post processes and not to mention the whole re-publishing she-bang which is a lot of drama so I want to make sure I really want to go through with this, hence I would like to get some constructive feedback.

Which version do you find to be more aesthetically pleasing ?
Or should I just leave it as it is ?

[Extra data nobody asked for: Cycles Renderer at 1000 samples, no de-noising applied.]

The people whose opinion I really care about and look forward to hear from:
@SterlingRoth [ Question is never complete if you are not in it :slight_smile: ]
@cgCody [Always supportive and positive, thank you.]
@0rAngE [Canadian, but still my man ;p Without your help I would still be pulling my hair out modeling in Blender.]

1 Like

Well first of all, I’m flattered that you think highly of my opinion. :slight_smile:

Anyway, they both look nice. The first one looks like it just rolled out of the factory, which is good if you want to go for that squeaky clean, “the future looks bright” kinda look. The second shows it’s years in space and countless atmospheric re-entries. It has a more, “the future is old and run-down” feel. Think Star Trek vs Star Wars.

I’m partial to the overall feel of the second version. However, a second look begs the question; Is this a ship that makes re-entries? It looks like it could be a giant space yacht that would never go to planet side. If that’s the case, I don’t know that it would look QUITE as dirty. Sure, there are micro meteorites and dust in space that can do damage to fast moving objects over time, but it looks like it’s been spending some serious time landing on dusty planets with all that grime build-up.

Here’s a good real life example of the ISS and space shuttle Endeavor for comparison. The shuttle is definitely scarred from many re-entries. The station isn’t as battered, but it does look a bit dull and yellowed with time.

That being said, I’m really just being nit-picky since this is the focused critique section. Nice work all around. :slight_smile:

EDIT: It’s really just that black section on the nose of the ship. It looks like a super dusty window.

Wow…your response as ALWAYS is so good…please allow me some time to read through a few times before I reply.

I do think the second version is more pleasing aesthetically, but I don’t think it’s a big enough change to merit redoing everything.

If you wanted to do a complete overhaul of the entire app, with a new UI, and polished visuals throughout, it might be worth it, but if I were you, I would let that project be done for a while. Take this time to regroup and start on your next project.

I was looking for the reason as to why the space station got yellowed but then it occurred to me…I don’t like that yellowing one bit and no amount of science is going change it, so in light of that, I have decided to keep the clean look for the first book since it gives a better transition to the second book where it can look more battle damaged.

Thanks for validating what I hope you will support, which is it is really not worth the drama of republishing. Thank you.

It looks decent as a model. As far as realism goes, however, the shadows are much too light for a vehicle in outer space. If there is another ambient light source nearby illuminating the shadowed regions, perhaps give it a different hue so the eye is better convinced.

1 Like

Arh, so for outer space, if there are to be “light fills” in the shadow area, make it a different hue ! Got it thanks !