 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholic org> wrote :
>
> 3) More tiny butterflies fluttering about the flowers, not near the
camera.
Agree. I almost mentioned that. It would provide a continuity of scale
that might make other things work. I might also get rid of the apparently
butterfly-sized Eagle.
> 7) No wolf.
Agree. Unless there is a story-telling reason for the wolf, it really
pulls the eye away from some other good things and ends up with me looking
at a less detailed part of the image.
All in all, I would remove the man-made clutter, the eye drawing wolf
and perspective defeating eagle, and the Duck Rocks.
...unless, as I said, there are story-telling reasons for having them
there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c791634@news.povray.org>, mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk
says...
> I'm afraid this doesn't quite work. Don't know why
> - tried a hundred or two variations with no sucess.
I think you need to focus the image more one one particular thing.
There is the girl, the butterflies, the red bridge wich all attract the
eye to themselves - thats simply too much.
One possible solution: Drop the butterflys (or make them small), move the
girl in the foreground and the rock with the food on it to the
background, and give the bridge a different texture (wood for example)
Lutz-Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm afraid this doesn't quite work. Don't know why - tried a hundred or
two variations with no sucess.
Hi Mick,
my own work anymore. This image has so much potential.
This said I see similar problems. So it seems you use a "fast grass" like
the purple flowers. But otherwise ...
For me the real problem is the color saturation of the bridge, butterflies
and the vase, which is too deep. Otherwise the girl is too pale.
Some minor problems:
water is too clear,
some scale problems and
the trees need a darker underground and a greater variation of angle.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Norbert Kern" wrote
No, there are 250 000 blades of grass in this pic.
> For me the real problem is the color saturation of the bridge, butterflies
> and the vase, which is too deep. Otherwise the girl is too pale.
> water is too clear,
Yes, I'm still trying to get fade to work on this
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mick Hazelgrove" <mic### [at] mhazelgrovefsnetcouk> wrote in
news:3c791634@news.povray.org:
> I'm afraid this doesn't quite work. Don't know why - tried a hundred
> or two variations with no sucess.
It's hard to tell what the subject of the piece is. That may be why
you think it's not working. Maybe you could point the line of butterflys
closer to, or directly at the girl, and put one or two butterflys just past
her. Get rid of the wolf, and add just a touch of turbulence to the water
surface (it seems much too reflective, especially in the distance).
This is a great image! Can't wait to see it evolve a bit more.
--
Rich Allen
(Remove SPAM from my address to reply by e-mail)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's hard to tell what the subject of the piece is. That may be why
> you think it's not working.
I think this is probably right, the picture has gone through several story lines and
has become confused, once the idea behind it is
sorted I think the rest will fall in line.
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
the size problems can be greatly alleviated by exaggerating the
atmosphere between the viewer and the distance.
the colors are a little confusing. With the strength of the
butterflies I would tone down the bridge significantly. It
attracts too much attention. If I were doing the image, I would
have significant atmosphere beginning to be noticeable just after
the woman. I would fake alot of it by graying my colors from her
on into the distance more and more.
There is too much detail in the far horizon.
Lose the bird.
The scales of objects don't seem to match. This is easily
solveable- it's raytraced, right? Check your scales match. If
you are using forced perspective (which I have done before) and
faking the apparent distance, check you sightlines, or figure out
the ratio of scales by the tilt of your plane and do the math.
The grass is very well done.
It is a potentially gorgeous image with a voice begging to sing,
IMO, so stick with it until you've finished. Don't give up.
--
Current obsession: "Ballet pour ma fille."
http://www.applesnake.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lose which bird?
the one in the air.
that's the one I meant. sorry I was not specific.
-peter
--
Current obsession: "Ballet pour ma fille."
http://www.applesnake.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:31:41 -0000, Mick Hazelgrove wrote:
> I'm afraid this doesn't quite work. Don't know why - tried a hundred or
> two variations with no sucess.
Beautiful image. For me the sharp points of the two most prominent sets
of trees and mountains gives an uneasy feeling, maybe if you smothed both
sets of mountains a bit and just had one clump of pointy trees and make
the other clum a more rounded type of tree then it mighte make a difference.
Just my 2p.
PS: I keep meaning to mail you about the POV UK get together, maybe
tomorrow.
--
%HAV-A-NICEDAY email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
Steve web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
1:17am up 9 days, 7:06, 1 user, load average: 1.02, 1.05, 1.01
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
As others have said, the main thing that appears to be wrong is the scale of
certain element, specifically the butterflies and the wolf.
Leitha
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
