Inside the Snyderville Basin, Utah.

This image is based on memories of when I visited Park City, Utah, which is in the Snyderville Basin. This is several miles from the city. I’m entering this piece into a competition, so it has to be perfect.



What I like about it is that there is a clear foreground, middle-ground and background. I like how the top half of the image isn’t just the sky, but there’s something else there. There’s some tree-free area where the grass is easily visible. I don’t see anything wrong with it, but that’s why I posted it here, so I can get honest feedback.

Tell me EVERYTHING you see that is wrong with this image. As I said, this has to be perfect because I’m entering it into a competition. Here’s the full-res image:
http://jumbofiles.com/k8e90qb8zx03

Thanks.

I really like the grass and the trees, nice work. You made the trees with sapling right? I’m jealous - my first attempt at using sapling did NOT turn out realistic trees, great job.

Main things that jump out at me:

  1. All the trees appear to be exactly the same size and shape. I’d spend some time making some bigger, smaller, different shapes, etc. It looks like an area that got razed a few years ago and everything started growing back at the same time (so, all young trees exactly the same age). Unless that’s what you are going for, I’d add some variety. Maybe add some fallen limbs? Real forests have dead stuff in them.

  2. The grass is really nice IMO, but a smattering of different grass type would help make it more believable. Perhaps a wildflower variety? Just an idea.

  3. I’m not sure I like how the tops of the foreground trees are out of frame. I’m not real sure what I’m supposed to be looking at. The foreground trees are kind of in my face, but they’re exactly the same as the middle-distance trees so they’re not particularly interesting. Maybe they should be even closer and further out of frame, so you see some really upclose detail like you are standing “in” the tree almost? I think I don’t like the fact that they take up 1/2 of the frame - it’s too spatially dominant.

  4. The background mountains aren’t very believable. There are a couple places where the texture is visibly warped. They are also more homogenous than real mountains. A real mountain will have some trees/visible treeline, some big rocks & boulder fields that jut out here and there, some vegetation, etc. There isn’t a sense of depth with those mountains (partly because they’re far away, but still). I’d try to work on massaging the geometry and lighting to get areas of shadow and light. Mountains like those have crevasses/erosion creeks (not thinking of the right word) that cut into them where water comes off the mountain. Those would be good places to have shadow. Also more vegetation grows on the north side of mountains, which would add variety and detail to your scene, and make the mountains less monotonous.

Just my $0.02!

PS I think your sky is spot on.

Perhaps make the grass a shade thicker and add translucency of 0.6 ish, and an area diffuse of 2 to the material
try mixing up the trees a little, perhaps select them all and choose 3D View->Object->transform->randomize transform
the mountains are great, but too in-focus for the amount of detail, perhaps add some snow or rocks or something to them, or give it more DOF
Just my thoughts,
Tree detail is fantastic though