[mr.wonton]

ok, my second try to post the image in the body. Thanks everyone!

[Zoso]

I like it! The lighting gives it a real nice feel. Good stuff!

[waylon]

Ooh, very nice! You did a great job adjusting the color, and I like the extra detail you added. And it looks a lot more like it's under water. Woot!

[Plouffe]

um i have seen this image tooo many times in the last week i think or in the last few days. How come you dont just put it in the same POST instead of changing everytime... kinda bothersome if you know what i mean

[arniemg]

great handling of technique,
but i think it needs more color.
green consists of yellows and blues. show it and use it. it will make the pic more interesting to look at.

[the_monkey]

neato!
kinda reminds me of castaway, u know when tom is in the cave, looking out at the trees....except everything wasnt green.

todays lesson is not to do drugs.

[spooge demon]

Wonton has asked for a crit privately, but I thought I would answer him here.

I have said a lot of times that something might have too much contrast or "bounce" a lot, this is a good example. If the idea is to convey size, you have to follow atmospheric perspective closely. And this is even truer with something underwater. The edges also get pretty soft. I know this is really brief, but you see the difference between wontons and mine is the amount of contrast as you go back into space. You might say, but I need to use different values to show detail, fair enough, but the difference in values can be extremely small. This is how to get it looking "big"

Also play up the differences is scale between the objects close and far away, and this especially includes the lights. The close ones should be bigger than the far ones, and the far ones could be starting to diffuse somewhat. Also the scale of the secondary forms on the trunks or whatever they are needs to recede. Also think that you are seeing a lot more of the structures in the back, so you might see what the ends of them look like.

hope this helps

[mr.wonton]

thankyou so much forthe advice...I will keep posting!

[mr.wonton]

Made the changes......what do uhtink?


thank you so much for replying!

[DirtyDigger]

All the pics above look good. I think your lighting should be a little more 'diffused' in your last pic there. it is quite bright for an underwater scene at that 'depth' from the viewer.

No offense to Spooge or you, but both still feel more like a forest scene than an underwater scene. There needs to be some sort of 'key' that this scene is underwater.

Spooge definetly conveyed what he was showing which is mass and size.

Not being a pro artist or knowing what to do about making it feel more underwater I can't help much other than point out what it looks like to me.



------------------
"I Hear High Heels!" - DirtyDigger

[mr.wonton]

Is htis better??

[Kristiaan]

Isn't it so that in water, objects that are further away are more blurred (unless it is perfectly clear water)?
With objects above water, of the magnitude as in the pictures, most are at a great distance. So when you focus on one, you can see all sharp.. (actually, the human eye only needs to focus on objects within a range of several metres. When the muscles in the eye relax, one sees sharp any objects from beyond that range)
This is actually the only thing I can think of, regarding that key-element that was mentioned. You had the colors right; sunlight at great depths only exists of greenish shades - it is the only color that penetrates this deep.
Perhaps you can add some vague rays of light penetrating from above..

[mantis]

how does spooge do that? HOW? I wish I had his powers to produce sketches like those. . .

------------------
I killed the king of deceit, wake me up in anarchy. I made a god out of blood, not superiority.
. Kein Mitleid F�r Die Mehrheit .

Arpan . B
[email protected]
currently down. . .

[spooge demon]

hmmm... I can't go on forever on this one, but I think you missed the idea of atmospheric perspective. If you have access to a 3-d program, put some cubes with texture maps out on a plane and render it with generous fog. The farther you go away from the camera, the more the fog influences the local color of the object. A black cat of a roof a mile away is not black.

Forgive me if you already know this stuff, but are having trouble applying it. Look at your forms, and evaluate each one with respect to how far it is away from the viewer.

Your picture is a little more complex in that it is backlit, so the fog is not only obscuring, but a little diffusing as well, and that can make it a light source. The end result is really just that the fog is a lighter value than it would be without that bigass light source behind everything.

So, two things to summarize,

1) your values still bounce too much, there is too much contrast for it to read as "big."

2) Organize your values more in line with atmospheric perspective so that your forms will "stack" better. This is done by really thinking about where things are in the z-axis.

Example- The left foreground pillar is closer to us at the bottom. That is the way I read it anyway. You see in my sketch that there is a little more contrast and a little darker at the bottom? That shows that it is tilted away from us. Being more sensitive with stuff like this will start to make things read as more real and less like flat abstract shapes.