Almost done with this, so I think is time to ship it to focused critique
A very nice concept, I think. The first things that caught my eye, however, are scaling issues. The Eiffel Tower is 324 meters tall at the antenna spire. The grass blades seem far too large, appearing to be at least several meters high. Also, the color seems too bright. The Eiffel Tower appears as a darker brown in daytime photographs.
Other than that, the concept again is pretty darn cool, and the modelling is really nice, too. =D
Seconded. Cool concept. The creeper is nicely done too.
But yeah, the grass is way too large, the grass scale clashes with the creeping ivy up the sides of the tower, and the colours seem a bit too saturated. Not sure if the sky should be that aqua unless you’re going for that hyper-stylised look.
Great concept indeed!
However, I think a high res HDRI background or background plane could do wonders here, the sky is just not what I’d expect.
Seconded on the bright texture on the tower and the huge grass blades…
Great job on the modelling and the trees though!
I like where this is going
Yeah, I think you need to reposition your camera and also don’t let the top of the tower fade … especially not to white.
Right now, my eye follows that line straight-up … z-o-o-ooop!! … straight into the featureless white sky. To be quite honest, it took me several re-looky’s to even notice what was on the ground.
-less fade away
-fade to blue instead
yea, the fading seem to be too much before, but I just want to show how tell the tower is.
Well, those are some really big sunflowers. If they are sunflowers.
x2 to the idea of using a real sky texture, or a HDRi.
Nice progress on this so far.
The main things I see is that the grass seems to be a bit thin and the fact it is the Eiffel tower in a (still somewhat) good condition would suggest mankind disappearing only a few dozen years ago (unless it was coated with some extremely lost lasting coat of paint because it would’ve otherwise rusted into nothing by the time it would be old enough to be considered ancient).
It also wouldn’t hurt to place some small remains of the concrete and asphalt that surrounds the tower today and it would be nice to see the bottom better as opposed to it being somewhat cut off as it is now.
more update, this time I work more on the sky
I still need to work on the grass and flower scale tho…
I don’t know if I should show the bottom of the tower, since that is the only place I spend the least amount of time on. It will most likely do more harm than good (since I am too lazy to model a good detail base for the tower)
Nice concept indeed!
I would love to see the tower in the “real scale” I mean just take a look at this page for reference http://www.jhgphoto.com/photo-blog/2008/12/20/crazy-eiffel-tower-in-paris-hdr-series.html
If it was me I would make the trees/grass a lot smaller.
You could also try a darker/stormy atmosphere, but I won’t say the bright one is bad either.
I love what you do, ForgottenWorld.
However, I do have to agree with Ace Dragon on this one.
I could be wrong. I don’t really know how well iron or steel (not really sure what the Eiffel is made of…) hold up after a thousand years or so, but it seems like it would be junked a lot more than this.
Although I’ve heard the term “ancient” used in Star Trek: The Next Generation to describe “the Ancient West” when talking about gunfighters and saloons, I’m not really sure they are right about. I think “ancient” should only be used to describe something thousands of years old, not just a couple of hundred.
Put this 2000 in the future. How would it do?
The Pyramids are about 5000 years old. Considering that, they haven’t done so well. They are also stone.
Maybe steel and iron do fairly well. Again, I don’t know.
But the Statue of Liberty, built by the same guy, was in awful shape until Reagan got hold of it. When I was a kid I remember it being almost solid lime green, and missing chunks.
Biggest iron structure in the world isn’t it? Doubt it would last too well without a regular paint. The scale issues also distract me too much. But cool otherwise.
Well, now that I think of it, I should be more carefull on what structure I choose to be call “ancient”. lol
But which modern structures will least for thousand or even just hundred year without human maintaince, anyway?
Well, as it stands (pun intended), stone structures from ages past seem to last much longer than will the modern buildings we see today. Today’s modern skyscrapers will all deteriorate and collapse within decades without human maintenance. Interestingly, I saw something that said that the Petronas Towers would be the last skyscrapers to fall should humanity cease to exist tomorrow. They’d last 500 years or so. Compare that with the pyramids, which have stood for 5,000 years (at least) and will continue to exist (unless some crazy Decepticon decides to rip them apart) for probably thousands more before being finally eroded away by winds. =D
It should be noted, that the majority of the damage caused to the pyramids was actually man-made, as various conquering armies have stripped them of wealth. The modern reliance on metals–like iron in the case of Eiffel, steel in the case of modern skyscrapers–has a dismal record of withstanding corrosion (something stone doesn’t really have to worry about). This pretty much doomed the huge structures we see today without constant upkeep.
But, as has been said by many philosophers and smart people, change is the only constant in the universe. It happens a lot faster here on earth, however, than in most other places in the universe. Life makes things unpredictable. Valleys rise, and mountains fall. Seas dry up and deserts inundate. It’s the way of earth. =)
I think that’s the best message of your work here. What goes up must come down. Even if it takes a few seconds, or thousands of years. Eventually, it’ll break down.
the sky looks a bit purple, and I’m thinking the metal is a shade or two too bright.
(edit) also I think the introduction of another object or two could give more of a sense of scale. The bird doesn’t help much, because it isn’t clear at just what depth it is.
The scale of the grass is much, much better. The entire picture has really benefited from that correction. It’s really starting to come together. I agree with Modron, if you darken up the material, it’ll look even better.
If you wanted to keep with your original title, you might consider having us look out through some really thick jungle (which might act as a frame for the central image) and have a few dark figures in the foreground, looking out at the scene in front of us. If you make the figures really small in shot, it will really blast the scaling issues out of the water. It’ll instantly be discernible how big the tower is, and the scene will take on a new life. Just a thought, you don’t have to do it. =)
It’s coming along, and it’s still carrying its message, keep it up! =)
wonderful image though does the real tower touch the clouds? Other than that i like the texturing and attention to detail.