Cliff base

(Ace Dragon) #1

http://gallery.mudpuddle.co.nz/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=kansas15&id=0317_G
http://gallery.mudpuddle.co.nz/albums/kansas15/0317_G.thumb.png
Spent a day making it out and spending today trying to improve on it.

Hope it’s decent enough.

0 Likes

(traitor) #2

well, that’s entirely up to you. I’m going to talk about a few things that I think you could change to improve it for impact, but they are of course merely suggestions.

Compositionally you’ve already shot yourself in the foot by using a square frame. these are freaking difficult to use well and with dynamicism. I’d suggest expanding to a wider (maybe even 16:9) landscape or even portrait. Your main point of focus is right in the middle of your frame, which makes it sort of dead, your eye doesnt get led around at all.

Colour choice seems fairly typical for you :wink: , unfortunately instead of a warm glow i kind of get the feeling of being beaten around with a lot of chaotic vomitty colours. I’d tone back your saturation a bit and have a bit more of a think about warm and cool, and not just hot hot hot.

As for the scene itself, its a cool idea. i like the structures in the background, i like the gate, and i like the bridges. there are a couple of things that are sort of confusing me though. One is there seems to be little depth - i can’t really tell how far away the tower things are. This is easily solved with a bit of atmospheric haze. The main problem I have is the scale of the cliff looks kind of small, which is confusing next to the bridges. I think it is primarily the bushes at the top which do this, as well as the ornamentation on the wall.

I’ve done a very quick paint over to show a few basic solutions you could use to solve these problems, I hope you don’t mind. Upon posting it, you could actually even extend the frame further to the right, it feels a little bit cut off there.

anyway, i hope this gives you some ideas. I like watching your progress.

regards

T

0 Likes

(Auria) #3

I like the idea a lot. The towers in the background are very cool.
My main criticism is the lighting and colors that give a somewhat weird/sick feeling to it - but maybe it’s intended?

0 Likes

(Ace Dragon) #4

Well I found a new reason to use square frames, when I started getting them matted and framed I found ready-made black square frames were relatively easy to come by, usually I choose sizes by multiples of 500 (500, 1000, 2000…).

To make them all custom dimensions like RobertT would probably require custom frames, and considering the expenses of custom frames would be higher, to make a decent profit would require raising the price.

0 Likes

(Guitar87) #5

Wait, frames like… picture frames. Like you print these out and hang them up on your walls?

That’s fine and all, but seriously, if you look right next to the square frames, you would find frames that are perfectly suited for 4:3 or 16:9 or 16:10 ratios, I promise.

Or, if you really just love the square frames, at least show us a wider version, so we don’t get all goofy in the head. (too much square can result in a boxed head, I’ve seen it happen.)

goes and looks in the mirror, just in case

0 Likes

(traitor) #6

why not use standard 3/4 photograph size? i.e. 6"x8", 9"x12" etc

0 Likes

(Ace Dragon) #7

Just to note my decision to make them in 1000x1000 dimensions was made not long after I started using Blender, in fact, it was before I even first registered on this forum.

0 Likes

(traitor) #8

I dont understand. why don’t you change dimensions to something a bit simpler? and isn’t 1000x1000 fairly low resolution if you’re printing it?

0 Likes

(Guitar87) #9

uh…ok?

whaaa?

0 Likes

(superkoop) #10

Just because it’s easier for you to print them doesn’t meant that the picture looks better that way. I don’t think you should size your pictures based on what makes them easy to print. That’s like a craftsman making beds 5 feet long just because he can get lumber that size easier, rather then making them them the proper length for them to be practical.

As for them image itself. I like it. But the scale of the leaves on the top of the cave really screw up the scale. And the things on the side of the cave entrance, look…weird, I don’t like em.
But aside from that, looks nice.

0 Likes

(Jeepster) #11

I’ve noticed that you’ve been making quite a few pieces over the last month or so…maybe quality is better than quantity :confused:
spend a month making one piece perfect, rather than making a whole bunch of pics that dont take u that much time…

0 Likes

(Guitar87) #12

Agree with ^

0 Likes

(Sago) #13

Please don’t use PNG’s on the forum (why do people keep using those?). It’s just internet unfriendly, even my Peach computer has a hard time loading it.

Using JPG with a quality setting between 7 and 10 will still give you good quality images and around 15% of the filesize you have now.

0 Likes

(musk) #14

@CD: I’m with traitor and superkoop on this one. Don’t do your art because of some frames you want to get. BTW you can always make a passpartout and put the rectangel stuff into a square frame. (It won’t look as good) or simply by standard photo frames because they come in rectangular shapes. If you don’t have a local store look in the internet there are tons of sides that sell you cheap pic frames.
@Sago: PNG is not internet unfriendly. It might not be the format of choice for pics like these but they are definitly not internet unfriendly.

0 Likes

(Ace Dragon) #15

I started using .png’s because they keep good image quality without artifacts and note it messed up the grass in my last image. Plus Mudpuddle is actually a fairly decent image hosting option to link from when using .png, it doesn’t mess up the image like if I use .jpg.

0 Likes

(Enjay) #16

nuh… its bleh…

the details are just not good. way too soft looking. the lighting is,… bleh,… the concrete bridge has little effort in it. like you extuded some shapes, no dents or cracks.

its bleh… make it better, you should make an animation where people dont notcie or pay attention to your details, or lack thereof

0 Likes

(Ace Dragon) #17

Um, I can tell you seem to be very specific on what you like, and you seem to have a strict standard of complexity.

It’s not complexity or maximum detail that makes the art, it’s the way it looks in the end, not how it was made.

I spent a whole day of work to try to improve it, I couldn’t think of too much other then here and there (mainly improved materials and smaller leaves with SSS)

0 Likes

(Enjay) #18

Um, I can tell you seem to be very specific on what you like, and you seem to have a strict standard of complexity.

It’s not complexity or maximum detail that makes the art, it’s the way it looks in the end, not how it was made.

I spent a whole day of work to try to improve it, I couldn’t think of too much other then here and there (mainly improved materials and smaller leaves with SSS)

exactly, and it dosent look good in the end. and i told you a way to improve it so dont say “i dont know what to do to improve it”. You just proved you dont listen to advice! i got everyone in my class to look at it and they thought it was a screen shot for a PSP game. two stars…

0 Likes

(Jeepster) #19

I spent a whole day of work to try to improve it, I couldn’t think of too much other then here and there (mainly improved materials and smaller leaves with SSS)

make that one day of improvement a week and dont just try to ‘perfect’ your materials, but also your modelling, composition, and lighting. if you do that your pieces will be decent
:spin:

0 Likes

(StompinTom) #20

give it up already, he doesnt listen.

CD: one of your better works in that it actually resembles something coherent and somewhat laid out. the color scheme is a bit better than others ive seen. you should add some more architectural detail, using some old Indian temples as reference/inspiration.

0 Likes