[Lunatique]

Timo- I would venture to say that the sketch of Mt. Doom might be closer to the requirements of a matt than the finished piece?

[snarf]

I'm with Lunatique on that one Bg..

Your "sketch" read a lot more realistically to me than the detailed version. With your sketch the values were separated well enough for me to be able to define the forms quickly. I had a bit tougher time doing that with all the detail. And for a matte, the last thing you want is to have people searching for how it SHOULD be visualized, especially in a split second.

Craig, when you watch movies do you try and pick out matte paintings along the way? I know that I do now, but only after having learned about them (on a very elementary level) from you and other matte artists who frequented Sijun in years past.

[snarf]

as an aside, (and correct me if I'm wrong) I have a feeling that if you were to have shown us ONLY the detailed version of the Mt. Doom pic asking for suggestions/etc., that Craig would have taken it back to your 'sketch' phase.. or close to it.

Although, I've been known to be wrong... 99%of the time. :P

[Bg]

Anthony: Thanks for sharing your knowledge, I won't be putting pure red in my next pic


Dixter: Thanks, why not join the fun?-)


Hi Stephan,

It doesn't make much difference if I paint a green image or red image, light or dark image. Learning how to do something is the only way. I personally love dark images, but here's my little something for you: (It's an entry to Seegmiller's competition, still work in progress)





Lunatique & Snarf: The sketch reads better, but I fear it's far from acceptable for a matte painting, there should be something more than just the main values and colours, otherwise it won't look realistic.. I think the way I arrange the details is lacking something and makes it hard to read.

All in all, great feedback everyone, this has been a true learning experience to me!

[Anthony]

I think animation would make the detailed Mt. Doom read much easier.

PS: What Seegmiller contest?

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Anthony ]

[shardik]

um.. wow thats cool shit.. post a link to full size high quality i need a new background

[S4Sb]

Hi Badgers.

Ummm.. I probably the wrong one to raise my voice in here, but you know what strikes me about your work? You always paint dark enviroments. Not only that they are very dark in the value range, but you also never showed an outside sunny setting. Maybe you should try something like that to get you to the next step? Just my two cents

[S4Sb]

Hehe, alright. Colours have always been your field. So I guess you're right *makes notes*
The yeti pic is again sunlight shortly after dawn. I've never ever seen a noon pic from you. And I've seen a lot from you.But hey, someday I guess... =)

Dixter: Your english has seen better days =)

[Bg]

Bigger version for shardik: Mordor hi-res

Anthony: The contest

S4Sb: At least it's lightier than the first two =P

[edit]wrong url[edit]

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bg ]

[gArGOyLe^]

wow!! awesome!! is it possible if you could show us your step by step progress to reaching that picture? pllleeeeeeeeez

[mythwarden]

DAMN...this was a great post. I'm glad you brought this one back, Ben. It's highly helpful for the new people like myself when people bring back old posts that inspire and edify.

Now that I know Craig�s member number, I�ll have to do a search on it to see what other treasured advice he�s assisted with.


Great pic BG. ;-)

-myth

[Bg]

I don't want this thread to die just yet :P

This is a new image I'm working on:

As you see it looks very unrealistic, so I made this value study to see my mistakes better (and used my brains this time hehe):

Looks better in a sense of realism. Now I want to share the things I took into account when I made it: (you can share your own observation too, or correct mine )

1. When an object is further away of the camera it has less contrast than near the camera, and it's usually lighter.

2. Ground is darker than water and water is darker than sky.

3. Usually objects are darker than ground.

4. Light side of an object tends to have the most details, details are easier to see on lit surfaces.

5. Wet object and ground tend to have very hard highlights.

6. Smoke kills silhouette last. (details are the first victim)

7. Air above water is always slightly wet = it contains small water particles and it causes the haze to be clearly noticiable near the horizon. (on windy weather this effect is much harder to see because wind breaks the haze).

8. Solid object which is in front of (or nearly) the camera loses its contrast a bit.

Can't think of any more right now, back to work...

[Crazy in Alabama]

My only knowledge of matte painting comes from watching a documentary back in the '80s about the making of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". That said, I have a question. Shouldn't a matte contain only stationary scenery? If something actually has to appear to move, like the meteor in Bg's pic, then shouldn't that be left out of the matte? I always thought that matte paintings were supposed to be stationary backdrops for live-action or special effects. What am I missing here?