[Mikko K]

Without a pyramid, that is

Some work stuff I'm struggling on, it's supposed to be a background for an app where you can build a pyramid via SMS messaging. The actual pyramid is going to be 3d with painted textures.




The top-down angle is because you have to see each layer of stones. Little image-sequenced characters drag the stones in a exaggerated way, from the foreground to the background (the comp is a bit strange).

I'd really appreciate any pointers how to improve this or if something is bugging you, please tell me. Thanks.

[GardenGnome]

I don't know man, I believe you've done a nice job. Looks to me as though you're done.

[Sumaleth]

I really like the image. But three things come to mind:

1/

The foreground building feels like it's on a lean because that left edge near the orange cloth appears to be at a stronger angle than anything else in that building.

2/

The large wall to the left appears to dive into the ground. I realize that it's probably 'disappearing behind the hill', but it doesn't look like that.

3/

The foreground hill doesn't give a strong impression of being on a hill. This might be because much of it is in looser focus than many things that are in the far distance.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[Mikko K]

Thanks a lot for the replies! I really appreciate it.

Sumaleth:

Thanks for pointing those out. Actually, many of the building walls were "leaning" type, but mostly temples I think. I now see the inconsistency there, have to fix it.

About the foreground in general, do you guys think that more focus will pull it forward or do I need more contrast / darken things up? Or maybe more aerial perspective to push the large wall structure further away from the camera? I've been looking at this for quite a while, so I'd love to hear any ideas you might have.

It's probably difficult to make the scenario really convincing, because the largest pyramids were around 150 meters high, so it's a big hill to look down from

[Petri.J]

It's hard to say anything about it because it seems so finished already, and I know that you're not going to change it radically anymore.
But.. I'll put this down anyway, cuz I'm such a nice guy.
[FINNISH]
��h, antaa menn� suomeksi, kun en jaksa alkaa taistelemaan huonon englantini kanssa.
Tuossa on todellakin aika huono syvyysvaikutelma, kuten taidettiin jo mainita.
Kannattaa k�ytt�� aina perspektiivi viivoja helpottaakseen urakkaa, ja silloin pystyy laskemaan esineiden koonkin helpommin. Itse k�yt�n v�lill� 3d blokkia, jos haluan hyv�n ja tarkan perspektiivin, ja joka tapauksessa se blokki on tehty melkein yht� nopeasti kuin jos v��nt�isin gridin k�sin fotarissa, paitsi nyt perspektiivi on oikein. 3D ohjelmaa k�ytt�m�ll� saa my�s helposti haettua sen parhaan kuvakulman nopeasti, ilman ett� t�ytyy vet�� yht��n viivaa.
Eli n�ytt�isi v�h�n silt�, ett� kun tuo kerran on kuvattu noin ylh��lt�, niin luultavasti oikeasti tuossa kuvassa ei n�kyisi horisonttia, ja kannattaa ehk� muuttaa tuon sumun (tai silt� se n�ytt��) v�ri hieman kellert�v�mm�ksi, jotta se n�ytt�isi hiekkap�lylt�, ja koska kuvakulma on tuollainen, niin en itse ainakaan katkaisisi tuota taustalla olevaa vuorta noin selv�sti. N�ytt�� v�h�n silt� kuin tuon vuoren takana tulisi jokin syv� rotko. Tuo etualan hahmo ja torni on snadisti liian pieni�, kun vertaa niiden vasemmalla puolella olevaa l�hint� palmua, ja tuo muuri etualala tosiaan sy�ksyy tuonne hiekkaan, niin kuin tuli jo mainittua.
Mit� s�vyihin tulee, niin kannattaa googlettaa pari aavikko-vuori kuvaa, niin huomaat ett� valokuvissa on enemm�n kontrastia.
No mutta tuon kaikenhan sin� jo mit� luultavimmin tiesit, joten tulihan h�pisty�

Huolimatta kaikesta mit� sanoin tuossa juuri, niin t�ytyy sanoa, ett� hieno se on.

Mutta kannattaa muistaa, kun tekee kuvaa, aina v�lill� sirist�� silmi�, ja katsoa niit� referenssikuvia.
[/FINNISH]

[noxi]

M�kin kirjoitan suomeksi.... Oh well, no I don�t. I�m going to practise my shitty english.

Yup, nothing to add here really. Looks really finished to me too. Looks very reliable and accurate. No obvious historical mistakes like iglus and stuff. I wouldn�t be suspicious of anthing with this pic if I�d see it in a magazine or book (then again, I don�t take close looks too often, heh).

But hey, great job! Nice brush strokes, makes the pic very vivid and not too sterile. Don�t finish up everything or else you�ll loose the effect.

[Mikko K]

Thanks guys, I'll try to reply in english anyway to keep this discussion readable.

Petri> Thanks fo the comments. I actually did use a 3d-block model here, I might post that later when I update. Not for lighting or textures, but perspective, as you mentioned already..

It's not a very nice angle to work with, having to show so much of the ground with no big overlapping shapes helping to show depth. That's why there's some obvious aerial perspective going on there.. I don't really want to make this look like a photo. I was thinking about making tha foreground dark, you see that a lot in photgraphy. But then again, if you're standing there in real life, you don't get that effect do you?

It's a hard time balancing with reality and expectations while trying to make this entertaining to look at. You wouldn't get to see the horizon from this angle, but I've been cheating a bit, trying to get some indications of depth there in the background.. Maybe those mountains are too small, you're probably right. At first I was going to try and make this look like a real desert photo, but with no source photography whatsoever, I soon realized that's next to impossible (with my skill set that is). Even Dusso and such usually do a set extension and not invent the whole matte when doing landscapes. I personally think that cheesy waterfall might be too much, but whatta hell.

Noxi> Thanks mate. I'm afraid this one has to be "finished" but I'm still working on the big things too, and not just the details.. I'm only starting to be where I have some idea of what's this going to look like, now I just have to start painting all those things I have in mind.

I'm really looking forward to more comments since I still think I need a plenty of time to finish this thing!

[Petri.J]

If you are doing this as a freelance, how much do you charge for a work like this?
150-200� ?

Just curious.

[Mikko K]

It's for an in-house production at RedLynx so I just get some peanuts off the table

To me it seems you can get a fair amount of money in case you have something to work on. My friend told me he got around 50e per page of storyboards (for tv) and those were just really fast stick figure type drawings.

I've been thinking that myself (what to charge), I mean the market here in Finland is a bit of a mystery to me. It seems there are only few places that need any painting work, or that's how I understand it.. I know Gecko has been doing some paintings for advertising, but I'm not sure what's the actual demand.

I've mostly been involved in   projects so far doing 2d graphics and some marketing illustration. Maybe 3d would be a smarter option, but I think I suck even more in that area, hehe.

[Mikko K]

Damn, the more I play around with the foreground, the more it seems that composition is the biggest problem right now (design is not up to me to decide). I think that if the camera would be lower I could more easily make this interesting. Now it seems a little stuffed to me

[Matthew]

ohh my finnish is out of tune here, moi mokulat yxi kaxi kolmonen lol.

Really nice one mikko but I will add some things and an overpaint, not sure if it helps.
To me it looks like the houses in the middle ground is miniature and with the path you have going upwards they look a bit small. I tried with reduce the scale on the guard and also exaggerate the atmosphere. But maybe the wall could be changed and try with moving around the houses to make the scale work.

What I did notice in your painting is that you have the same saturation in the grass and this can make it look flat eventhough it can be like that in the real. So pushing warmer saturation in front to make it colder further back could give you the depth, but then again I am not sure if this was what you were looking for. Maybe a pushed atmosphere will make that pyramid look weird later, hmm.

hmm ok beat me up after this here if I screwed up
keep up the good work Mikko, u finnish guys are starting to become dangerous with the painting.
overpaint


Matthew

[Mikko K]

Ocks� i Abo och Nykarleby

Hey, Matthew, thanks a lot!

I've been testing out some more atmosphere there, but I'm not sure if I want the pyramid to appear very foggy, because its supposed to be the centerpiece of this whole image. Saturation is something I definitely have to think about a little more. I'm pretty sure I can't start moving the houses any more because the whole arrangement is done around the pyramid and I'm really running out of time.

a rough idea about the pyramid, you can see how distorted the scale is. The buildings need to be quite big (or the pyramid small) because we have those animated people building it. So it's a bit like Age of Empires or something, not very realistic.



Thanks a hella lot Matthew, I'll analyze your overpaint in PS and see what I can learn from there! It's really interesting to get any input, because at the stage I'm at with this painting, I can so easily get lost in surface details and lose my idea about the wholeness of the piece.

[Duracel]

Not every pyramid is as huge as the Cheops-Pyramid - i think more important as the scale of the whole pyramid is the scale of a single stoneblock.

[Mikko K]

Like HDRI in newest version of the source engine. Yes, I've been thinking about that.. Duracel, you've done very well lately, if you have some idea how to deal with the values, I'd love to see quick a overpaint

edit: I did a bit of changes to foreground's saturation & contrast. Any better?

[Duracel]

First of all i really like the picture as it is and i think it works as it is so you can take it as it is, and this is why i just mentioned some generell points in my last comment instead of criticizing the picture.

But well, you like to see my thoughts on canvas, her it comes

i pushed the contrast in the foreground alot and take it away a bit in the midground and background and added air-perspective to the backgroudn alot as Matthew did before.

[quote]You wouldn't get to see the horizon from this angle, but I've been cheating a bit, trying to get some indications of depth there in the background.[quote]
next to the air-persp. i added some more layers of fields/hills in the background to increase the space between the pyramid and the mountains.
So now there is such a large area shown in this piece, that the horizon "visible" could be an effect by curvature of the earth.
The only point is, i guess the pyramid is in isometric perspective because of the game-type, right? ... so i didn't changed the pyramids perspective relative to the horizon.



_________________
Lars G�tze

www.duracel.de Gallery

Detailling a speedpainting is nothing but speedpainting in detail.

[Mikko K]

Wow, thanks!

Lots of things to think about now, a very good overpaint from you Duracel. It looks more solid than my version, in terms of realism. I'll take it to PS and do a thumbnail comparison, that allows me to focus more on big value relationships.

Yes, the perspective is locked for the pyramid, I think it could be a more interesting pic if there was some sky visible as well. But that's not going to happen.

I have to experiment with the atmospherics and see if that works for me.

Once again, thanks!

[Petri.J]

I just had to comment on this.
Great overpaint, looks very solid and the painting works now better.

[Mikko K]

Minor changes to the foreground mostly. I took some of Duracel's advice, the foreground now has more contrast.. I have to keep in mind that this is a background and the animated characters won't probably look too good against a overexposed ground (and too much fog can also make them look out of place since they don't react to the environment)

I have to keep repeating to myself, "this is not a standalone illustration, don't make false accents"

More feedback is very much welcome.