I agree that the softness was nicer in the first image, like I said this
test render had no focal blur (depth of field) so obviously things don't
look as soft as they will in a final render. I too like the softness. Also
the small details are because this is a test render at lower res than I plan
to use. I'm thinking of making it into a poster, so it will be 7800 pixels
resolution which should be enough :)

I understand what you're saying about the perspective, I'm still playing
with that.  Once I have a more complete image I'll be more sure where I want
the camera. But I do want to shift focus away from the julia slightly, I
want there to be more things in the scene and for the julia to just be part
of that.

I have to disagree about the water though, the colour of the water at the
bottom of the first version of the image was completely unrelated to the
colours used elswhere in the scene, it had far too much green in it and
appeared almost opaque. The colours I'm using now add depth and clarity to
the water, and also feel a lot more "watery" because the reflection is more
distinct from the water colour, which makes it seem shinier.

The grass and rock... I kinda like the grass pattern as it is now, it felt
wrong having grass grow on vertical slopes. But I totally agree that the
rock texture isn't good enough to fill that much of the scene. Plus the
transition between grass and rock appears too harsh in places (particularly
the closest area), so I may find some way to soften that.

Thanks for your comments. It would get boring if everyone was agreeing with
me :)

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


"Glen Berry" <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
news:77itev49fvu1e7tfluo3h16trjj4mrmtuv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:26:12 +0100, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I liked the first version much better.
>
> I liked the perspective better. The viewpoint was much closer to the
> fractal structure and helped focus attention on the fractal. (Exactly
> where I think attention should be focused in this image.)
>
> The new details you've added to the water and the distant mountains
> merely serve to distract one's attention away from the fractal. I
> liked the look of the original scene's water just fine. It looked
> soft, like a slightly out of focus depth-of-field effect. This
> softness helped to direct attention to the more detailed fractal
> object (the subject of this image.)
>
> As for your flowers, bees, and butterflies; they are too difficult to
> recognize. They could just as well be pieces of yellow litter left
> laying in the grass. At the current image resolution, and with your
> current scaling for these objects, I think they are best left out of
> the image.
>
> Finally, there was more grass and less rock in the first image. The
> grass looks nice and the rock looks somewhat ugly, at least if it
> occupies large areas of the image. I would keep the amount of grass
> coverage you had in the first image.
>
> Sorry if this all sounds harsh; but remember, while I'm criticizing
> this image, I'm also praising your first one.   :)
>
>
> later,
> Glen Berry
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message