I tried to implement some of the comments made on the original image. I used
a more yellowish green for the greens, reduced the blue tint of the clouds,
and most of all removed all ambient light. This version uses radiosity.
Rendering time increased from 3 to 12 hours. Does it look more realistic
now? Personally I'm not shure which version I like better. Thanks for
viewing and commenting.

Regards, Christoph

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'BushRad.JPG' (212 KB)

Preview of image 'BushRad.JPG'

It looks more like rocky ground now. I like both versions of this texture
equally, but it depends if you want it to look like soil, which the hole may
suggest. I mean, the hole is very soft, like mould, and I doubt a rock would
"break" like that.

The radiosity gives a better shadow in the hole. But the plant up in front
is too dark now, I think..

The animal is much more visible now.. I prefer that.. Unless it's supposed
to be a cameleon.

Overall everything is clearer now, but I'm not sure this is thanks to the
radiosity. If you were to render this several times for some reason, I don't
think the extra render time is worth it..

It was great before, it's great now! Not completely photo-realistic if this
is your goal, but a great painting!!

Regards,
Hugo

Post a reply to this message

I think it is a very nice picture as is but because I think it could go 
much further I am going to be quite pointed in what I say.

The clouds are beautiful
The bush is good and "carries its weight".
The foreground rock, while a little artificial, would carry too
except that the middleground, terrain and forest, doesn't cut it.
This is where you need to put all your attention IMO.
You need to improve the modelling of the trees, this is detracting the 
most.  But the rock terrain does not really work either.
If this is improved, I believe the foreground would carry as is.
(I like the stick and lizard you placed to add detail btw.)

You title the piece, "Lonesome Bush". The current irtc entry topic is 
"Loneliness".  If this is more than coincidence I would say you have a 
very strong entry underway and with lots of entry time left.  Get more 
ruthless with the middleground.  Rethink your approach there. -Jim

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Gerber wrote:

> Does it look more realistic
> now?

The foreground is very good. The background is what mainly keeps it from being
realistic, especially the trees.
First, it seems like there is a problem with scale. The trees in the valley
looks too small, compared with the trees on the hill to the right.
Then, there don't seem to be enough soil to support the trees on the hills,
perhaps bushes and smaller trees would look better.
Also, the trees look too identical to each other in both appearance and length.
Mixing in some other trees and some under-vegetation might help.
Going into extreme detail; the color of the ground in the valley doesn't seem
right for that kind of trees, as they normally grows in a different kind of
soil than trees with leafs.
Some reference photos might be a great help for you.

Sorry if I'm too picky. But I enjoyed your image a lot.

-Tom Stone

Post a reply to this message

How about a double_illuminate on those leaves to lighten up that bush, and
simulate a translucency?  Nice work so far.

Skip

Post a reply to this message