i hate trees...
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: Pixel Art
Forum Name: WIP (Work In Progress)
Forum Discription: Get crits and comments on your pixel WIPs and other art too!
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8972
Printed Date: 19 May 2026 at 10:43pm
Topic: i hate trees...
Posted By: fortunato
Subject: i hate trees...
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 10:51pm
 for the love of god someone help me please.. lol i started out making my circles with the circle tool in graphics gale, as i read somewhere that a good way to make a tree was to view it as a bunch of circles. so i did. but i dont know what to do. for some reason i cant come up with a good f**king tree palette rgkjjgfjkgjkgjkng the trunk is coming out ok but it doesnt really look right either. c+c please... tear the sh*t out of this thing. |
Replies:
Posted By: KittenMaster
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 11:48pm
| You have inconsistent lighting going on, which is likely why you think the trunk is okay but still off, since it's reflecting light not coming from your light source. |
Posted By: Pumpkinbot
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 1:08am
| The leafy part is too shiny. :/ |
Posted By: Manupix
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 2:04am
|
Well don't trust (too much) what you read, hehe! There are many kinds of trees in nature, and even more in pixels. Use the PJ search engine, have a look at all the tree threads in the forum, and you will see a lot of good, different trees. Yours looks like a grape: because of those circles (too similar and regularly spaced), and mostly the light. That highlight is a reflection on a smooth shiny spherical surface: grapes! As said above, the trunk's light is inconsistent with the rest. |
Posted By: Dhr. Bosch
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 4:17am
|
Originally posted by fortunato i started out making my circles with the circle tool in graphics gale, as i read somewhere that a good way to make a tree was to view it as a bunch of circles. that would be bubbles/spheres not circles and you are basically doing it right , but you need to keep most of the shading to one side/cluster of spheres and most of the lighting the other insteead of shading each bubble evenly. also, you should try to imitate leaves some more with atleast some dithering, to roughen up the texture. Originally posted by fortunato the trunk is coming out ok but it doesnt really look right either. that's because the highlight is on the wrong side Originally posted by fortunato for some reason i cant come up with a good f**king tree palette rgkjjgfjkgjkgjkng that's because you keep to the same green too much. now i'm no saint in this, i do it too much aswell. but it's not agood thing to do, it's pretty much explained in this tutoial: http://gas13.ru/v3/tutorials/sywtbapa_de-mystifying_greats_1.php aswell as the whole "A tree is just ab bunch of spheres" thing Originally posted by fortunato c+c please... tear the sh*t out of this thing. you're welcome, good luck. ------------- Vanitas, vanitatum omnia vanitas |
Posted By: IQbrew
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 2:36pm
|
MMBN (The early ones, they change the trees in the later ones) manages to make grape trees look decent. Take a look at what they do.  They change them in the later one, here's one from the 6th and final version.  I think the second one's style looks pretty similar to the kind you're going for, and a lot better than the first. |
Posted By: Pragz
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 7:29pm
|
Those look more like broccoli than trees, IQ. ; ~;
------------- Hello - I'm new here. :) |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 9:19pm
update! obviously this is really rough and just pretty much like a digital painting so far, but i still wanted everyones opinion on it. decided to get better at doing actual trees before i start doing weird ones.. improved the palette (graphicsgale defaults woo) and i think it looks much better. heres the ref:  please comment and gimme some pointers! |
Posted By: Pragz
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 1:59am
|
Looks much, much, much better! I love it! *high-fives* ------------- Hello - I'm new here. :) |
Posted By: Manupix
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 2:40am
|
"decided to get better at doing actual trees before i start doing weird ones": you couldn't find a better way to go! This looks much better, but still a little patchy. The second lightest green at the top is flat. I think you should have more crisp detail in that lightest upper part, which being in direct light would have more contrast. That is, unless you go for hazy highlights, that's an option too, but it's probably an added layer of difficulty. The trunk could use improving, both drawing, shading and color. |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 11:36am
hey manupix! hows this? fixed up the shape and tried to make it less flat. still painting atm but i want to get the shape right before i do any detail work.. |
Posted By: Hatch
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 12:07pm
|
I think you need less blue in your palette. Hue shifting is good, but I believe you're pushing it too far. ------------- |
Posted By: Manupix
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 12:12pm
|
Getting very convincing! The top is just plain good, imo. The bottom right corner remains flat, because of these two large patches of color. I don't know how you see it, but one nice thing with this tree is that the blue parts look inside, all the others are in front of it, more or less transparent, this gives it a lot of life and volume. Except in that corner where the flat green patch breaks the effect. Now, you still have work on the trunk / branches. Mostly, the width of the branches is erratic and downright ugly in places. Edit: crossposting! Well, I didn't mind the blue, because of the above, but it might work too with a greyer tone. Worth trying anyway! |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 3:35pm
| hey hatch: i have the blue in there cause of the same reason manupix posted, but yeah ill try some more greyer and less saturated. and manupix thanks! i have the flat parts cause i wanted to show more depth, as i think things with more detail like show up more... but i see how to improve it... im not home now but i will update when i get home. thanks guys |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 7:37pm
im home! small update: fixed up the blue for hatch, and worked on defining the brances more.. added two more colors for the brown on the branch and defined more leaves and the tree bushiness.. what do you guys think, better? |
Posted By: stonewall
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 11:56pm
| Great advancements. I am enjoying that trunk. The leaves could use a little more work, but its so close. That part sort of in the middle but up and to the right a bit (if that makes any sense) its right but the branch and its shaded with the 3rd lightest tone; anyway it looks a little odd. I would consider letting it overlap that branch a bit since I think it looks odd because of that harsh contrast. Also I would add some lighter tones to the bottom portion (not the bottom but like the second half of the leaves) because trees are round and if you look at your reference, you get some of that lighter color in that area. |
Posted By: Manupix
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 12:55am
|
I'd say you're there, or very near. I have to agree the blue looks far better like this! Now for the forest! |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 12:03pm
 im feeling really good about this so far.. or i was, then for some reason im not so much anymore i dunno why.. and thanks stonewall i like the trunk too! :D |
Posted By: cure
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 12:52pm
Form is good, the tree overall looks fantastic, but you gotta eaaaase up on that saturation.  |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 1:14pm
 is this better?... to be honest thereisnocure i kind of disagree... i mean yeah this palette has like better shifting and stuff i think, but god! the bright greens and yellows and blues just give the old one so much brilliance!! ..this one looks like its dying. just doesnt give that much excitement to me.. compare please.. and you'll see what i mean. |
Posted By: cure
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 1:55pm
|
It gives it brilliance, but an unnatural brilliance. The palette seems more "treefrog" than "tree" to me right now. I think a middle ground between the two current trees might work best. |
Posted By: susuwataris
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 7:09pm
| scuh a beautiful improvement. |
Posted By: saehn
Date Posted: 18 August 2009 at 6:47am
|
Look again at the original tree photo... there's not as much of a value separation (moving from light to dark) in the photo as there is in your version. Otherwise, looking good!
------------- http://noname.c64.org/csdb/scener/?id=8078 - saehn / http://www.style64.org - Style |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 11:06pm
hey guys...  im getting worried. its starting to look like i took a tree and hit the sharpen tool a million times.. am i overdoing this? should i go with the version before? im thinking about doing that and adding more of the tree trunk... what do you guys think |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:00pm
heeellllooooooo tried to clean up the dithering and make it more leaf cluster-y like. also trunk!! what do you guys think? |
Posted By: Frost
Date Posted: 21 August 2009 at 10:24pm
|
Just have to say that I'm truly impressed by the inprovement of skill! The tree in the first post looked... well.. less than average... And the latest tree looks freaking awesome. I think you still can put in some more details in the lower parts of the foliage, but try not to over do it. :) |
Posted By: Pragz
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 12:02am
Quick anatomy edit: Yes, even trees have anatomy. A healthy tree /typically/ has a ratio of 60% canopy to 40% trunk. /nature nut ------------- Hello - I'm new here. :) |
Posted By: cure
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 12:21am
|
Originally posted by Pragz A healthy tree /typically/ has a ratio of 60% canopy to 40% trunk. source? |
Posted By: PulkoMandy
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 12:28am
|
A tree anatomy depends on the lightsource. Does this 60/40 rule apply to a tree alone in the desert, or a tree in a forest ?
In a forest the trees mus be more vertical to get some light, so I guess the ratio will change. And I find the original one better :) |
Posted By: Pragz
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 12:42am
|
http://www.sustland.umn.edu/implement/protecting_trees.html - Link . Look at the last bullet under "Determining Whether a Tree Can Be Saved" and the pictures that follow. I've also seen a few tutorials on DA before that depict the same rule, but I really don't want to spend hours hunting them down. ------------- Hello - I'm new here. :) |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 1:24am
|
frost thank you!!! i am taking that advice and its coming out great... but i wont post it until i get farther haha and also pragz you are right, somewhat; ive accounted for how short the tree trunk looks at the moment and ive lengthened it.. however, please note that im heavily relying on the source and though a 60/40 ratio is a good rule of thumb, im not sure if it applies to the tree picture. if it does, which is more than likely, you would have to account for the whole trunk; in your edit you only go from where the leaves stop... if you look at the picture the trunk goes further up.. and in my sprite the trunk goes up about 1/4 into the leaves. forgive me if all that seems a bit rude; it is 4:30 AM after all!! |
Posted By: Pragz
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 1:39am
|
I actually counted from where (what I saw as) the first branch branching off from the trunk, which is how it's /supposed/ to be measured. But, yeah. That's really more of just a loose, loose guideline. As always, nature can be very deceiving. :) ------------- Hello - I'm new here. :) |
Posted By: Elk
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 4:28am
|
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 5:35pm
|
Originally posted by Elk
please elaborate :( |
Posted By: geminoid
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 1:31am
| this is shaping up wonderfully |
Posted By: Elk
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 2:23am
|
try drawing your tree from top aswell you will get a better feel for the lighting! |
Posted By: fortunato
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 12:35pm
| ahaaaa ok... good idea. i will try that... though i might need some help as i dont really have any references of the same tree at a top view :P |
Posted By: Elk
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 3:15pm
|
yea thats the point try to think of the tree yourself how could it look from top so you improve your feelings for volume stuff |