 | Active TopicsSearchRegisterLogin |
| WIP (Work In Progress) | |
 Pixel Joint Forum : Pixel Art : WIP (Work In Progress) |
 Topic: Nature Landscape |
  |
| Page of 3 Next >> |
| Author | Message |
|
kenpokis
Commander 
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
   Topic: Nature LandscapePosted: 22 January 2010 at 7:01pm |
|
Ok guys, i've been working on a landscape portrait. I'm pretty satisfied with the lineart, but if you see something I should change please say so. What i'm having problems with is the shading. Such as the water. I'm not sure how to texture the water or grass, but i'm looking up references right now. I would appreciate the help and C&C. Thanks.
 |
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
inphy
Commander
Joined: 24 June 2014 Online Status: Offline Posts: 116 |
Posted: 23 January 2010 at 5:05am |
 That river/stream seems to climb a huge incline in the lower left, I think it would be more natural if you kept the it more level. If you want to have a visible level difference, then the natural profile would be a descending slope (1). If the stream is visible in a higher place, then it would mean that the source of the stream is there (2). If you block a stream with a rock/high incline/etc (3), it'll carve a new path through whatever gives way (= usually where the terrain descends). -- Maybe these fine pieces (including but not limited to - just do a search or two in the gallery) will give you some ideas regarding the grass and water: http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/23709.htm http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/4855.htm http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/34610.htm http://www.pixeljoint.com/pixelart/49116.htm Edited by inphy - 23 January 2010 at 5:15am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 23 January 2010 at 4:16pm |
|
Hey thanks for the help, I appreciate you taking the time. I'm working on the river right now and i'll try to post an update soon.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
jalonso
Admiral 
Joined: 14 June 2016 Online Status: Offline Posts: 13537 |
Posted: 23 January 2010 at 4:28pm |
|
The clouds are far too big and imposing. Break them up :)
It might be more appealing if the 3 trees are, big, med and small with the background trees less pixelled so you get a better sense of depth. Edited by jalonso - 23 January 2010 at 4:29pm |
|
|
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 23 January 2010 at 5:00pm |
|
Thanks. I'll try that. I'm not sure what you mean about the far tree though. Here is the river update. Thanks for the C&C.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
jalonso
Admiral
Joined: 14 June 2016 Online Status: Offline Posts: 13537 |
Posted: 23 January 2010 at 6:55pm |
|
Like if the row of trees were BEHIND the hill and all one color (med. green).
|
|
|
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 24 January 2010 at 11:30am |
|
ok I gotcha. I just edited the trees a bit. Tell me if you mean something different on the background trees. I'm still a little iffy with the front and mid tree. I don't know if it's the shading or just the general shape. Tell me what ya think.
EDIT:I need to work on grammar. I think I understand what you mean about the background trees. I'm going to try and layer them, but i'm not sure how I should approach it. I was thinking maybe make more trees in a darker color to give a sense of depth. Still trying to figure out how to texture and break up the clouds. I've tried several way to texture the grass, and just can't seem to get the look i'm going for. My computer is down right now so I haven't been able to work on it. Hopefully I will edit some more soon. Thanks for all the help. Edited by kenpokis - 06 February 2010 at 11:50am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 26 January 2010 at 3:13pm |
|
Alright another update, got some mountains now. I'm going to scrap the cloud and start over, but i'm still working on textures. Tell me if you don't like the trees. I'm not so sure about them.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
RollerKingdom
Commander
Joined: 11 January 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 388 |
Posted: 26 January 2010 at 3:16pm |
|
Trees looking better now and nice adding of the mountains, jst dont keep the black lines on it, the clouds needs some work but as you mentioned you will redo it..
the middle tree is missing shading under it just like the one in the front.. and the piece if lacking a bit of shading on the field to take out the flatness of it, are you keeping the border? If so would be nice some wood texture for it Keep going! Edited by RollerKingdom - 26 January 2010 at 3:16pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 26 January 2010 at 3:37pm |
|
IP Logged |
|
|
dpixel
Commander
Joined: 03 February 2015 Online Status: Offline Posts: 564 |
Posted: 26 January 2010 at 5:33pm |
|
The river still looks like a path.
And to really create a sense of depth: 1. make the closest items a lot bigger 2. make the closer items with more contrast(darker darks and lighter lights) |
|
|
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Manupix
Commander
Joined: 19 June 2017 Online Status: Offline Posts: 771 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 12:40pm |
|
Rivers flow at valley bottoms, not on hillsides. They actually dig valleys. ;)
Shading: doesn't really look like one, because you probably didn't think (hard enough) of a light source. Decide for a Sun position, then imagine which parts would get more light and which less, also add cast shadows. I strongly suggest working from reference pictures for this kind of image. Unless you have an actual landscape next to home to look at! You might remove outlines, too. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 2:31pm |
|
Yea i'm still in the process of getting all the linework done before I get the detailed shading in. I'm going to try and edit the river though. I'll get it up soon.
EDIT: Ok I redid the river and a few other things. Working on making the foreground trees bigger. Not sure if the river should line up like that, but tell me if it looks odd. Thanks
 Edited by kenpokis - 27 January 2010 at 3:06pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Chief
Seaman 
Joined: 03 April 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 22 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 4:41pm |
|
physics*
yours are wrong. i think. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
dpixel
Commander
Joined: 03 February 2015 Online Status: Offline Posts: 564 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 5:21pm |
|
Rivers can't go up hills. They go down hills or around hills. I made a quick edit of the river going around the hill. It still needs a lot of shading to define the hills more, but that's up to you.
 Also in landscapes really don't require "line art". More like basic shapes and colors to get the "feel". Other may want to chime in on that statement though. |
|
|
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 27 January 2010 at 7:15pm |
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 28 January 2010 at 10:51pm |
|
I'm really stuck right now. I can't seem to get anything to look right. I put some snow on the mountains and going to add some shading. really having trouble with the frame, water, trees, and grass. Not sure what to do. Anways here's an update.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
iggybork
Midshipman 
Joined: 09 January 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 62 |
Posted: 29 January 2010 at 1:32am |
|
So I'm going to say something that might annoy you, because people just keep saying it in this post. Either way, I hope it helps.
In Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain, the author devotes an entire chapter to how a person's drawing skill develops over time. Age 10 is usually called as the turning point where children decide to either keep drawing, or get turned off from art (teacher says I can't draw, other kids say I can't draw, I don't think I can draw, etc). But as the book explains, before that point, though, the majority of what we draw is symbolic.
"Symbolic drawing" means we draw based on an image we have in our heads, rather than what really exists. When you drew that pine tree, you didn't consciously think it, but something in your brain went, "pine trees are pointy, tall, and green. But they're not as tall as mountains!" So that's what you drew. And when I look at it, I understand what you were trying to show me, because when I think about pine trees, I think pointy, tall, and green. But it doesn't look like a pine tree; it looks like a representation of a pine tree. So, like half the posts in this topic say, let's look as some real pine trees for reference:
 First thing to note, the trees appear taller than the mountain from the perspective we're at, and this is pretty much the same perspective as your piece. So how do you get from where you are right now, which is mostly symbolic representation done from memory, to here?
Look at references and try to draw from them. Even if you don't take everything from every picture, every reference image will teach you something. Along with the perspective, this piece tells a lot about color - just look at all those different greens! As this picture was apparently taken after some fires at Yosemite, you can see how some of them are blackened, and some of the leaves are dead. The branches are also separated, not one big arrow like yours. When you look at a reference image, don't think about nouns. When you draw your hand, don't get caught up in calling them fingers, or knuckles, or veins, or you'll try to draw symbols again. Just look - really look - at angles and color changes. Try to draw one of the trees - how tall is the shape? How far out do the branches go? How much space is there between branches? Is one side wider than the other? Are these colors getting reflected on something else? What/where is the light source in this piece? What angle do these branches make with that mountain, and am I replicating them right? And, perhaps most importantly, how do all these factors come together to make me believe that this thing is a tree, and it's in front of that mountain?
The point is: draw what you see, not what you remember. Until you learn how to draw certain shapes, your mind will do a very bad job of conjuring up a mental image. And this isn't you - this is everybody. Everybody who really learns how to represent forms - 2d or 3d - has to get the symbolic part of the brain to shut off by really observing everything (angles, colours, light sources, positioning) about what they're looking at.
And here are some fantastic colors, partially to point out that not all grass is green, not all mountains are grey. Lighting changes everything! Also note that when we talk about snow-capped mountains, we mean that only the caps are snowy, because of how crazy far up they are - you've got snow all over your mountains, and if that were the case, there would be snow on the ground, too.
 Flickr is a great place to go for landscape references. You have to be careful about colors sometimes, because some of these photographers really mess with their hue sliders...
 [Edit] Probably going to edit this like a bajillion times before I'm done with it Edited by iggybork - 29 January 2010 at 1:58am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Manupix
Commander
Joined: 19 June 2017 Online Status: Offline Posts: 771 |
Posted: 29 January 2010 at 2:52am |
|
@ iggybork: this post should be featured, displayed on PJ home page, made compulsory reading upon registering, pasted on city walls and broadcast on tv. Thanks! =)
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 29 January 2010 at 9:57am |
|
Thank you thank you thank you! I finnally understand why I couldn't get my shapes and textures to look right. I think you should be president or something. lol. Going to work on a lot of things, and I hope it will be better. Thanks again for the wonderful post.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 29 January 2010 at 8:36pm |
|
Re-edited the mountain. These trees are giving me fits. I think it's because I don't have many pixels to work with. Do you guys think I should make the foreground trees a tad bigger? Anyways here basically just a bump.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 1:21am |
|
Ok, I think i've made a bit of a breakthrough. Nothing major, but it's better than the other attempts. I'm going for a less solid look with the tree. More of random pixels splashed together to create a more scattered feel. Also messed with the river color. Not sure if i'm heading the right way with the waves though.
 Edited by kenpokis - 30 January 2010 at 1:25am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
iggybork
Midshipman
Joined: 09 January 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 62 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 1:29am |
|
[Edit] The tree looks much better! But this post still applies. xD As before, I'll probably edit this a bunch.
The trees are giving you fits because, while I like that the branches are a little bit more individualized, you still haven't changed the underlying problems of this piece. Everything (everything!) here is symbolic representation, done from a wacky/imaginary perspective. And because the perspective in this is wonky, no matter how hard you try to incorporate a reference image, it will still look weird. My recommendation: just flat out re-draw a photograph. I wanted to try and explain how artistic observation is a completely different process from the way we normally see the world, and so we're off on another long post, my friends.
This is an over-simplified explanation, but the process itself is all about simplifying complex information, so I guess it suits the point. Your eyes take in an overwhelming amount of things per second, and your brain only processes a tiny fraction of all that information, because you can only pay attention to so many things. So when you walk down the street, what you see is the crowd around you, because your immediate need is to avoid pushing someone or getting pushed. You look down at the ground in front of you because you want to avoid tripping in a pothole or stepping in gum. You watch for cars when you cross the street because you don't want to die. What you don't see is the way the sidewalk is textured, pocked, and stained by a constant beating of feet, rain and rained-on garbage, or the way the colors of the sunset streak across the street signs and turn everything orange (even when you know they're green), or how that dent in the guardrail is shaped. You tune it out, because you have to - if you paid attention to all these things while you walked, you'd bump into someone, or step in gum, or get hit by a car and die (!).
But when you draw, you have to open yourself to all the information you usually don't have the brainspace to think about - and that's why drawing is so hard to learn for some people, because this isn't something we usually teach in school. How am I supposed to open myself up to things that already exist in this new way that nobody talks about? It is both analytical and intuitive, and when you really get to that point where all you see is what's really there, rather than what you think should be there, it's like meditating. Time passes around you, but all of your attention is on this combination of lines, colors, shapes, textures, and angles, and that's all you see. Things will become beautiful to you the more you look at them this way, because this is the only way to really look at anything. (The best way to understand how this feels is to draw from a reference, but to flip the reference upside down, without ever rotating it rightside up, because when something is upside down, your brain isn't able to give names to individual pieces, and the only thing you can focus on is how lines and shapes collide. You don't want to depend on flipping all your reference images, but once you know how artistic observation is supposed to feel, it's easier to turn your brain off in the future.)
So I figure the best way to show you how to get the most out of a reference picture is by showing you how I'd use one myself. The one on the right is this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gigi62/1365218963/
The first thing to do when you go to draw a reference image is to pick out key elements. Makes sense, right? Draw these key shapes out as giant blobs, which is really apparent in the first ref. Something a lot of art classes promote is "measuring" angles with a pencil - for example, it would be all too easy (in fact, I did it myself before I fixed the mistake) to mess up the angles of the hills in the second ref. If you hold a pencil up to any of the "lines" the hills form, and then compare it to the lines you drew, you can see how the two are different, and fix yours.
 The red lines denote what I usually look at first. Most of them are self-explanatory, but not all. One of the most annoying feelings in drawing is when you've drawn two perfect objects - a tree and a mountain - but then you realize that you drew them separately and they look terrible next to each other. So I usually find points where different objects meet at the same height or width - for example, the lower right corner of the Yosemite mountain is at about the same height as the tree its closest to. So, once I've drawn both, I know I'm mostly accurate if those two points come to the same height. Same deal with the three trees in the foreground - even thought they're in three very different places, the tops of the trees are on the same horizontal level. On ref two, you can see that on the mountain, I found where the high points and low points were on the peaks, but the vertical line on one of the peaks intersects the hill below it. This is to show that the top of the peak and the top of that hill are not vertically aligned - the peak of the mountain is slightly to the left of the peak of the hill.
And here's the initial drawing based on both refs. Note the near-absence of lines - it's almost all color blobs.
 As an addendum, I cannot stress how important it is to take breaks from your work. When you leave for a while and come back, you'll have a slightly more objective perspective on your work, which makes it easier to see problems. Edited by iggybork - 30 January 2010 at 1:33am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Manupix
Commander
Joined: 19 June 2017 Online Status: Offline Posts: 771 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 5:22am |
|
Wow, again...
 I'd like to add that drawing from life as practice is necessary, because drawing from a ref is actually skipping half the work. Of course I don't mean you have to go to a wilderness place to draw it - well you do if you live nearby! but practising drawing your everyday landscape or cityscape or actually anything, will help you understand stuff such as perspective, angle of view and composition. Be aware that the photographs shown by IB are the result of lots of work and experience by skilled photographers, choosing the right point and angle of view, waiting for the right light, and generally composing outstanding images which don't really exist out there as such. Drawing from those pics doesn't make you aware of it unless you draw from life too (or practice photography!). This said, here's an edit covering a few problems (not all) with your image:  River perspective: your new version still has the river on the hillside at the back; and it doesn't get enough faraway shortening. General perspective: should be enhanced by a lessening of detail with distance (forest). Got rid of outlines. Begun shifting colors, still a way to go (far too many greens now). There aren't neutral greys in nature: given the mountains some hue. Snow isn't pure white either. Distance means misty: farthest mountains are lightest. Just started some light work, decided for a rather backlit scene, with a high sun. Water reflections and distant shine, tree shadows and highlights accordingly (but crudely). This is just one possible direction this work might take! Edited by Manupix - 30 January 2010 at 6:55am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
mambazo
Midshipman
Joined: 29 November 2017 Online Status: Offline Posts: 48 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 6:47am |
|
Loving this thread :)
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:17am |
|
Again wonder post iggy, something that I will always think about in future works. @manupix I really love that edit, I wouldn't have thought it possible for it to look like that. Now i'm starting to picture the outcome. Hopefully I can make some good trees refrencing your excellent ones. Thanks to all for the help and support from this wonderful community. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
iggybork
Midshipman
Joined: 09 January 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 62 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:31am |
|
Thank you Manupix! I was going to mention that, but writing long posts drains me. xD Not only the lighting, but also the shapes - you can't see three dimensions on a two-dimensional photograph. When you draw from life, you can shift to and fro to get a better sense for why this part of something is in shadow (etc), and it really shows in your work.
I might get some hate for this, but watching Bob Ross is good for making up landscapes like this. Even though the technique he teaches is simplified, he was a traditional artist at one point, and had a solid understanding of composition and perspective. Here's one of his mountain/forest paintings:
I wouldn't rely on his method too much, because it's not always realistic, but he says that a lot of his episodes - this is your world, and you can make it however you want, etc. You still can, but what his shows don't explain is how satisfying drawing from observation is, both the process of observing and the end result in the piece.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:39am |
|
Ahaha. No hate here. If i'm thinking of the right person (afro?) I used to sit and watch him paint as a kid. I always loved his style. Going to start working on this, but there's snow and it's calling. See you all in a bit!
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 11:25am |
|
Edited the river, bg trees and front tree a bit. Still in progress. Do you guys think I should texture the grass, or leave it more of a mosaic look? I also morphed the mountains a tad, still working on it. Will update more later.
 Edited by kenpokis - 30 January 2010 at 11:26am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ninja Crow
Commander
Joined: 02 June 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 323 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 1:46pm |
|
I can't be totally sure without trying it, but gut instinct makes me think that composition for this piece would be much improved if the tree were moved left a bit to be in between the first and second mountain as far as you can stand to move it (also raise it to keep the trunk out of the shadow)and push the bird V to the right.
Also, excellent patience! It takes a lot to be able to rework a piece again and again without discouragement - bravo! Edited by Ninja Crow - 30 January 2010 at 1:47pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 3:16pm |
|
Which tree are you referring to? The very front tree? Thanks for the compliment, i'm happy that people are helping progress, and i'm learning a lot from this.
EDIT: i'm assuming you meant the front tree, so I moved it. Tell me which way you guys like it.  Edited by kenpokis - 30 January 2010 at 3:36pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ninja Crow
Commander
Joined: 02 June 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 323 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 5:01pm |
|
That's it exactly!
It looks great to me, what do you think? |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 5:20pm |
|
I think it does look good. Creates a sense of depth. I think i'll leave it that way.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ninja Crow
Commander
Joined: 02 June 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 323 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 5:48pm |
|
Okay, thanks!
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 6:19pm |
|
Alright I think I have the general shape of the front tree down. Correct me if you think otherwise. Also reshaped mountains a tad and changed color.
(Also moved birds over *wink*)  |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ninja Crow
Commander
Joined: 02 June 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 323 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 6:48pm |
|
It's good to change the mountain colour according to distance, as objects become bluer the more atmosphere there is between them and the observer.
There are two other lone trees in the scene, but the bases of their 'triangles' are too wide for their height - making them look like nearby miniatures rather than distant adults. Also, how about trying the birds more to the right - almost but not quite to the peak of the right mountain - as they stand (eh, fly?) it's hard to tell if they've moved or judge if the move was helpful. I like the mountains. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
iggybork
Midshipman
Joined: 09 January 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 62 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 6:59pm |
|
More things. About half of the piece is blank spacefrom the sky - I'd recommend either trimming the top of the canvas down a bit, or pushing the whole piece up and adding more grassiness at the bottom. That tree is leagues better than it was before. Those other two solitary trees probably need some similar love, and you might want to think about whether that forest in the background is also on the other side of the river (if not, why?), and perhaps if it extends up the front mountain just a bit.Next is the riverbank - right now it looks like the area had some heavy rain a couple days ago and now the rain is draining downhill. When a river is around for a long time, it eats away at the dirt and grass around and either digs a huge ditch for itself, or turns nearby dirt into sand, or some combination of the two. Some riverbanks:
And then you've got banks like this one. The only reason why there's no cliff effect or beachyness here is because tree roots and other vegetation hold dirt in place. But you can see how the river is eating away at the dirt beneath the trees right on the bank, which is why they're oh-so-slowly falling over.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 8:04pm |
|
Man you guys are so helpful. Going to work on the things. I haven't edited the other two tree, been kinda avoiding them. Anyways i'll update soon as I get a chance.
EDIT: ok quick update. Edited mountain, tell me if it needs to be even taller. Moved birds over, and now am working on the riverbank. I really liked the idea of a bank, it seems to make the portrait pop. Thank you iggy and your artistic genius. Do you take private lessons? XD I'm a little confused on how to make the river bank fade away. I tried applying the bank to the very back river, but it overpowered it. Maybe get a very green hue of the bank color? That way it blends with the landscape? Anyways.  Edited by kenpokis - 30 January 2010 at 8:22pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
iggybork
Midshipman
Joined: 09 January 2010 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 62 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 9:28pm |
|
Oops, guess I wasn't clear. It's not that the mountain needs to be taller - it's that all the extra sky was making the mountain look small. So I made you two edits, both of which show two things. Ready set messy!
First is canvas size. In the first image, I cut out a ton of sky, which turns the image into a landscape format instead of a portrait format (hey, isn't that convenient?). But, if you really liked the portrait-style, you could do what I did to the second one, which was to add more grass at the bottom of the image to account for all the pixels I pulled out of the sky. Also, you may want to return the mountain to the way it was before, because now it's looking a little nippleish. (Anyone seen Big Man Japan? *shudder*)
 Second is riverbank type. The first one is beachy, the second is cliffy. I have a feeling you'll need to go with cliffs, because I have never ever seen a pine tree at a beach. If others want to weigh in on this part, that would be awesome.
Thank you iggy and your artistic genius. Do you take private lessons? XD Careful now, you're going to make my ego explode.
 I'm no artistic genius, I decided I wanted to draw and stuck with it, and it took many different occasions of "augh this looks like crap" and a high school art class or two to get here*. And I teach music, so I'm used to speaking to be understood. Either way, read Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, it's a fantastic teacher no matter how good you are.*Edit: Not that you ever completely escape from "augh this looks like crap" ... xD Edited by iggybork - 30 January 2010 at 10:21pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:04pm |
|
Ok, yea you're right it looks a bit strange. I kinda found a median
between the two wonderful examples you provided me. I'm not sure if it's
right, but it looks better.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
jeremy
Rear Admiral 
Joined: 14 January 2019 Location: New Zealand Online Status: Offline Posts: 1675 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:29pm |
|
Your last post does what I was about to suggest; not relying so much on lines.
The back mountains should be bluer, in fact all of the mountains and the rearward scenery could. Check out iggy's second picture posted, aside from showing that vegetation doesn't need to be boring greens; the changes in saturation and hue the further back the scene goes are really great. Your colours are all really similar; not in hue but value and saturation. The contrast between, say, the tree trunk and foliage is too big, same as the river & bank and grass & bank. The top of that closer tree on the other hand blends into the mountain. Your composition is pretty, I don't think that the bird silhouettes are adding anything. What direction are you trying to take the piece in? An ultra-realistic photograph? An animesque, cel-shaded style? Really saturated cartoon landscape? It's important to decide at some point, or you can get confused and have a hodgepodge ;P |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 30 January 2010 at 10:35pm |
|
Hey thanks for the post. I'm not that good with colors at the moment (as you can tell) but how would I go about creating the depth. Just select certain areas and mess with hue and saturation, or is there a specific method? Thanks for all the help you guys have provided me. I couldn't have got this far without you.
P.S. I think i'm wanting to go for a realistic but simplistic style. Shading and textures, but not to the point of every pixel is a different color. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
jeremy
Rear Admiral
Joined: 14 January 2019 Location: New Zealand Online Status: Offline Posts: 1675 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 12:15am |
|
Colours are one of the most difficult parts of any type of art, unfortunately ;)
One problem I can see that I briefly mentioned was the similarity in saturation of all of the colours. All of the colours are nicely compartmentalised, something that just doesn't happen irl. Water is really reflective, same with the snow on the mountains. The lighting you have going on is pretty ordinary; there doesn't always need to be something special but it can help a piece that might otherwise be a little generic. Here's a really scribbly edit, might give you some ideas. Contrast (Light and shadow in this case) are really important, part of why I asked what sort of style you were going for. I've reduced some of the tones' values and saturation, my palette is generally cool with that splash of orange to represent sunset/rise. Nature is actually rather tasteless, you'll find ridiculous colours in the sky ;P 
EDIT: I managed to avoid answering your question :D I personally just mess round with colours 'til they look nice, they can act a little different on a screen to pigments. You certainly don't need to meticulously render every little leaf, use pixel clusters to imply texture (like my rather haphazard grass )Edited by Jeremy - 31 January 2010 at 12:18am |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 10:29am |
|
Thanks for the help. I like the idea of a sunset scene. I really like what you did with the mountains, they look very nice. I was trying to do something like that but it was coming out flat. Maybe I just wasn't using enough colors.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 11:12am |
|
Ok, i've been trying to texture the mountains, and I don't know what i'm
doing. I need more shading I know but I mean the general lines don't
look like they should. Any help is appreciated.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
RollerKingdom
Commander
Joined: 11 January 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 388 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 11:19am |
|
Its coming out nice :D the snow texture on the mountain is very good but idk about the texture no the mountain,
maybe try to follows jeremy example and give a darker side on the right side |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 11:58am |
|
I think i'm updating too much. Tell me if I am, I have a bad habit of doing that. Here I messed with the colors a bit. I like the shading on the mountain now. Still needs work though.
 |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
RollerKingdom
Commander
Joined: 11 January 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 388 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 12:08pm |
|
oo thats looks better.. i like the mountain shading now :)
and theres is nothing bad with updating thats i kept doing with mine.. |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
Ninja Crow
Commander
Joined: 02 June 2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 323 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 3:52pm |
|
Jeremy's textures are wonderful, as always O.O but I've been seeing
it flat shaded for so long that I really like it this way (not sure if
your intent is to eventually try to make it more photorealistic, though).
Originally posted by kenpokis Your latest is very strong, just don't let your forward tree get lost against the darker mountain colour.
|
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
kenpokis
Commander
Joined: 09 January 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 202 |
Posted: 31 January 2010 at 3:57pm |
|
Alright I lightened up the tree a tad. Still need to work on the inner texture and other textures. I think i'm going to leave it with a mosaic feel.
EDIT: Might help if I include the picture.   Edited by kenpokis - 31 January 2010 at 3:58pm |
|
|
IP Logged |
|
| Page of 3 Next >> |
| |
||
Forum Jump |
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
