Yes, nice view. I thought it to be a plain, not a sea. The flat Bryce sky is not your fault. Have you tried to use spherical clouds, move them up at max hight and decrease frequency? The sky won't be perfect, but probably a bit better.
Join Date: 04.15.2004 Comments: 1097
Hey, probably some seagulls will help this scenery to feel more "maritime". Trees are very good as usual, I'm not sure if I remember correctly, did you said once that the trees were 2d, added in postwork? Anyway, I like it. There's still room for improvement but for now this scenery looks fine to me. Keep up.
Join Date: 06.04.2006 Comments: 2615
I too thought for a second that the scene was incomplete as there is a large area where it looks like nothing is happening. Is it water or plains? Either way the lighting fails to give us the illumination we need to see what is happening there. It could be ambient flattening also confusing my eye.
Kounelos, please forgive me as I am likely off base or out of line with my upcoming comment but please understand that I mean it in only the very best and most positive way.
You have alot of skill Kouelos. Judging from many of your submissions you have a knack for interesting compositions. I only wish I could conceive of images the way that you do. You make it look so easy when I know it is not easy at all.
But, I think that now you must look to raise your technical choices to the level of your artistic ones. I say this to suggest that you begin to experiment with different lighting choices, especially in terms of sunlight. There is a dimness often in your Bryce renders which makes me think it is a look you are after purposefully. I feel you are holding back, you have more to give but you will need to not be afraid of a long render time. Your amazing compositions deserve the best possible lighting and texturing like foliage transparency. Personally, I think you could produce award winning works in Bryce if you would step up the lighting choices for real lights instead of Bryce render flattening tricks like ambient glow and skydome and bryce sunlight. The Bryce default sun is very dim and is well known as a disappointment as a sunlight simulation. No one can produce convincing sunlight with just the Byrce sun, it is not possible. You likely need to use radials for sunlight. Next is to make sure the sunlights are aligned with the sun that is drawn onto the sky in the sky lab which in the past has been an issue. You are using ambient glow for the foliage but this glow is flattening the trees so that they look very 2d. If these trees are indeed 2d then there is not much you can do about the flatness. But if they are 3d yet appear 2d in the render then the lighitng is the problem. I have seen a few entries where you did not use ambient glow, the look was more 3d but the undersides of the leaves were too dark. Skydome will not help because it gives light from only 1 angle, directly above like a spotlight, just a big one that does not cast shadows. Skydome works well on terrans but other forms of geometry do not look good with skydome light.
I have suggested numerous times that you test out the foliage transparency technique I developed but you have not yet chosen to test it even once. Your choice, but remember that I do not suggest it for my benefit but for yours. It adds to the render time and if your system is not fast I fully understand why you would not use the technique I developed. Still, there are things you can do to improve the look of the foliage even without transparency. If you remove the ambient glow and experiment with using secondary light sources for true 3d ambient light you could get renders that shut me up for sure. I get the feeling that you are working on a machine that is not very fast at handling complex effects. But fast renders are not always best. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and allow the scene to render for a few days instead of just a few hours. Do not let the computer speed dictate the level of artistry. Your skills are ready for you to jump to the next level so to speak.
Also I have suggested to you many times in the past that you use maximum cloud height to avoid to some degree the flatness of the Bryce skylab. This suggestion has been made again by Horo. It is good adive if you ever try it out. Your clouds as are now look good and would benefit from greater height which will provide a better viewing angle, it is all about viewing perspective.
I want to apologize if I am picking on you or singling you out, I just see incredible potential in your work that is hard for me to ignore. I am not an instructor nor anyone's boss. You can do whatever floats your boat with no explanations for me. I am merely a peer who has a suggestion for you. You can take it or leave it. It is up to you.
Join Date: 11.10.2007 Comments: 358
I like the FOV as always. I am going to have to give this a try sometime as it give a nice depth to the scene. You did a great job on the tree placement and some extra light would have showed them off a little more along with the plant life.
Thank you guys for the suggestions. Rachadcarter im going to give a try and see what will happen.. Im not saying you r not right. What i was trying to do was just a view from a very high area/place. Yes i agree something needs to be done with the light. mmmm
Ok 'till the next time... have fun and keep up :)
The trees are 3d. If i put something that it is 2d i will let you know