Good eye  William,
you described most of the weaknesses of the image.
There is only one conifer type tree which is randomly scaled and rotated.

Of course a more dense forest would be more realistic, but hard to render.

I will try to add more dead branches, more trees of different age and reduce
the moss.

Thank you for your tips.


Norebrt Kern


"William Pokorny" <pokorny_epix_net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:web.410682a9b87a50fabe64aa460@news.povray.org...
>
> I agree with that the image doesn't look quite there - IF you are after a
> realistic image. The image as it exists is already effective.
>
> This area must have been logged for all of the trees to be of such similar
> age and type. The image reminds me of a large tree plantation in the state
> of South Carolina in America. I toured it a few years ago. The terrain
> there was of course flat.
>
> If this assumption about this land being farmed for trees is correct, the
> trees trunks are not straight enough. Trees farmed for logs are planted
and
> thinned as they grow. They have very straight trunks. I am not talking
> about the camera distortion, which I like, but rather the wiggle in the
> tree trunks. Lower branches are also often trimmed. The thinned trees are
> used for pulp wood to make paper while the best and straightest trees are
> allow to mature for lumber. The fallen trees would only be there as whole
> trees if this were an older growth natural forrest. A natural forrest will
> have
> trees of many ages, sizes and many more dead and rotting trees both on the
> ground and standing.
>
> Perhaps add dead branches below the tree tops. The lower branches in any
> forrest die off as the tree reaches upward for the sunlight.
>
> I think too the trees are just a bit too thin for ferns to flourish as
they
> flourish in this image. Ferns thrive in shade - at least the varieties I
> know.
>
> Even on logged land with cultivated trees there are usually "weed" trees
of
> other varieties coming up here and there.
>
> Perhaps the rock on the left front and tree in front should have less
> moss/lichen cover given the sparseness of the trees.
>
> I guess what doesn't look natural to me is simply that the environment
> overhead would not naturally support the ground cover we see. A much
older,
> dense and mixed forrest perhaps would support the damp and lush ground
> cover we see and the fallen trees.
>
> Image brightness and contrast look OK to me here.
> Bill P.

Post a reply to this message