Rune wrote:
> I hate to say this, but overall I preferred WIP #6 to this one.

No need to hate it! Refining an image, for me, often needs a step into 
the wrong direction (maybe exagherate something too much) to make flaws 
visible. The important thing is to find what was better before and get 
back to it.

> I liked how the background hills seemed to be far away and give the 
> impression of a whole world made up of these hills with paths and signs. In 
> the new version, it seems that you have increased the size of the background 
> signs/poles and the paths, making them look like they're oddly close to the 
> foreground. This not only makes the world seem smaller, it also distracts 
> from the main motif in the foreground, because the new wide paths are thick 
> gray lines penetrating though the image. I also preferred the distribution 
> of sign clusters in WIP #6 where they were all over the place. In this new 
> image, they are almost only on hill tops (it seems), which looks odd and 
> unbalanced to me.

Agreed. I wasn't too sure and happy about the signs on only the hills 
myself, but wanted to try how it looked if I mimicked the foreground. As 
for the paths being to thick: I don't like it that much either, the 
image resolution I used didn't offer anything better, so I'll have to 
switch to something bigger. But I needed to check how it looked all 
together.

> The positive improvement here is that the paths look natural. If only they 
> were thinner and there were more of them, as if the whole system of paths 
> were seen from a longer distance like in WIP #6, it would look great IMHO.

I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll model the paths in POV-Ray and render 
a topview, so that I can change the resolution and thickness on the fly 
if I need it...

Thanks for the comments, much appreciated!

Regards,
Tim

-- 
aka "Tim Nikias"
Homepage: <http://www.nolights.de>

Post a reply to this message