|
 |
Rune wrote:
> Heh, when I read the description before viewing the image, I thought to
> myself "Oh no, this might ruin the image, which were perfect in its
> simplicity before..." However, when seeing it, I actually really like the
> background hills, very much to my own surprise! It is really well executed
> and adds to the feel the image already had.
Same thought here. I was wondering if a background would add or distract
to the foreground scenerey, which is why I kept it so simple: not too
much detail to *really* distract, but enough to show that this sign-mess
isn't just a single thing, but a recurring point in life. I've been
thinking about a title as well, and "Decisions" seems nice so far. Maybe
need an adjective to narrow it down, but once I find a title, I'm
probably also finished with the image. That's how it often goes when on
an experimental route with an image and idea.
> The only thing that bothers me is the paths in the background. They follow
> too obviously a crackle pattern. Well, that's not the problem actually. The
> problem is that they don't look natural, and I think this would have been my
> impression no matter if I had known the crackle pattern or not. The paths
> are too dense and they don't look like they have evolved naturally but like
> somebody painted them onto the hills. I don't know if there is any pattern
> that will make them look natural or if you'll have to hand paint them as
> well, like the paths in the foreground.
>
> Other than that, it's perfect!
Thanks! I was wondering about the paths, too. I added some turbulence on
top to break up the straight lines, but it's obviously not enough. I'll
experiment some more on the texturing side before I take serious steps
in attempting to procedurally/scriptly generate paths.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the background signs yet either, so if I end
up writing a script, maybe I can implement placement of the
signs-bushels as well...
Regards,
Tim
--
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
