Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano.jpg' (213 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano.jpg'

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:25:42 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:

>I can see 
>the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

It might be because I expect the volcano to loom over me. Even though
I am sure the view is correct. It might be a case of Real Life not
living up to Hollywood Movies.
A bit unsettling but I like it.

Post a reply to this message

To me, the volcano looks too black - it's hard to make out any details 
of the surface. My feeling is it should be a bit brighter (or perhaps 
just lit better), even if it's made out of lava.

The lava flying out of the top is nice, but my inner view expects the 
individual drops to be greater, perhaps even more drop-shaped along 
their flying axis.


Looks like it's going to be a great image, though!

Florian

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

 > It might be because I expect the volcano to loom over me.


I think that *is* hollywood. Volcanos (and mountains in general) are too 
big to loom. By the time they're looming, you're standing on them and 
they're under you.

Now, volcanos I think don't tend to be quite so vertical, nor quite so 
symetric.  There would probably also be outbreaks of lava on the slopes 
as well. It does, after all, melt through rock.

The smoke seems very symetrical also. If there were no wind, I'd think 
it would be going mostly up, or up then back down in an umbrella-like 
shape. Maybe having the smoke going one way and the lava coming down on 
the other side would give a nice balance.

I also doubt you'd find snow on the slopes of an active volcano, as it's 
not unusual for the ground to be like 3000 degrees six inches down. I 
was caught in a rain storm once in Hawaii that came down so hard you 
couldn't breathe if you weren't looking at the ground. My feet stayed 
dry, because the rain all evaporated somewhere around my knees. This was 
at tourist distances from the lava, too, not like I was in there taking 
samples. But of course getting rid of the snow would ruin the artistry 
of the image, so that's more a nit than anything.

The ground is both too black and too bare. Lava is very shiney, as the 
surfaces were all liquid a short time ago and cooled under gravity. It's 
mostly brittle and crunchy, like blown glass. Plus it's full of 
delicious plant nutrients, so even days after an eruption, you get grass 
there, saplings, etc.

The water near the shore looks kind of grey, but I don't know if that's 
correct or not. Unless that's supposed to be a beach or something.

I'm looking forward to how you manage the glow of the lava. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
    Luke, the Force is a powerful ally,
    second only to The QuickSave.

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> 
> 

The "something look's wrong" feeling is maybe due to the fact, that normaly the 
tip of the volcano is blown off if you have such a vivid erruption, leaving a 
crater huger then the lava fountain. Also a lava river rinsing from a break at 
the top would make it more Hollywood like.

... dave

Post a reply to this message

I'm sure our ideas on what a volcano should look like will differ with what
kind of mountains are nearby.  For me, here are the two I think of first
when I think 'volcano'since they're the neighborhood mountains (climbed
Helens, skied Hood.) They probably won't be much help for lava realism
though.  I agree with Darren about the symetry & verticality.  Hood is
fairly conical but still a lot flatter and irregular than how your mountain
is now.  St Helens apparently was once noted for how symetrical it was
(prior to what it's most famous for - it's 1980 dissappearance of it's
top). :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Hood

Also, something about the lava (which I associate with places like Hawaii)
rather than ash/steam, and the light color of the water makes me think
'tropical' which is incongrous with the snow. If the snow is due to
elevation I would expect foothills or something to show that the body of
water is a mountain lake or something.   On the other hand,  in response to
Darren, Mt St Helens is an example of an active volcano that does have
snow.

Hmm, anything else... How far away is it?  Maybe some haze?


Charles


"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

I agree with that last idea. I think the volcano lacks a feel of depth 
somehow, and a haze could really help. You could play a bit with the 
lighting as well, to make the overall shape more perceptible.
There is also something that disturbs me with the texture, but I can't 
exactly spot it now... Maybe it's just to sharp ?

Otherwise the cloud looks really impressive already... Last time I 
attempted a thing like that I failed miserably ;-) I think you're on the 
right path with this one !

-- 
Vincent

Charles C wrote:
> Hmm, anything else... How far away is it?  Maybe some haze?
> 
> 
> Charles
> 
> 
> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> 
>>Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
>>the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
>>the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>>
>>--
>>Tek
>>http://evilsuperbrain.com
> 
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

Tek nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 24/01/2006 12:25:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is 
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see 
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
> 
> 
Maybe some more snow near the top. Make the lava ejection narower, between 1/4 and 1/2
the diameter 
of the top and uncenterer. As it must be a volcano awakening, there can be snow up to
the rim and 
inside of the crater, there should be a lot of steam. One or two steam column rising
from somewhere 
on the slopes can add much interest.
The background mountains are WAY to conical.
I would expect the water to be mostly dark gray, it reflect mostly the dark ash cloud
and should not 
be as blue as it is now. It's colour should comes from what over it and from some
fade_color.
Adding caustics can improve the aquatic effect. I don't think that using photons here
is worth the 
effort nor the increased render time.
If you are short on time, I propose that you drop the under water part, or only have
it visible 
trough the surface, disturbed by the waves: remove the cutaway in the water.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.

Post a reply to this message

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?

I'm not sure but maybe something like this (Photoshop cheating)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'volcano2.jpg' (88 KB)

Preview of image 'volcano2.jpg'

"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Following my earlier post I've decided to go with the volcano image. This is
> the latest version, but I'm suffering a case of povver's block! I can see
> the volcano looks bad, but I don't know why. Any suggestions?
>
> --
> Tek
> http://evilsuperbrain.com

Seeing Mt St. Helens and Mt. Hood every day it's not cloudy and raining
around here, I have a few suggestions, but they may not actually apply.

1) Around here the rock is light gray, and the trees are that dark Fir green
color, but with distance they both turn a medium blue-gray color.  If you
want black basalt for your cone, it may not turn quite as blue, but I
suspect you lose all sense of distance because of that.  The snow should be
a real light blue also.

2) Way too perfect and cone shaped.  The ones around here are rather
deformed, St. Helens looks almost like a ball buried 3/4 down in the ground
from most view points on the south side, but with lots of vert. stripes
where rain has made gullies so there is a rock/snow pattern across it.
Hood still has a peak, but it has a bunch of bumps, canyons, bulges, etc.
from just about any vantage point.  Maybe try pointing Google Earth at some
of the volcanoes you are interested in being similar to.

3) The undersea part still has a ways to go, I think.  At first, I thought
it was a broken open crashed spaceship or something.  Not lumpy enough for
a vent, the water seems to color it too much, but not hide it enough.
Maybe less green for artistry, or more obscure for realism.

Despite all that, It looks pretty good to me, and I'm looking forward to
seeing the final image.

Jon

Post a reply to this message