StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[edit]
Updated with new artwork:



This time available in a wide variety of desktop sizes. Middle click to open in a new tab and right click to save.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
[Original Post:]

Hello

I've recently finished these six landscapes for my webcomic.

(click to enlarge)

The Hive: Vagabond Capitol (Night Side)


Zenith: Ioman Capitol (Day Side)


Solar Station (Border)


Landfall: Fallen Capitol (Night Side)


Light House/Dragon Roost (Dayside)


Tree City: Elven Capitol (Border)


Rhino
Maya
Photoshop
-Lunar Cell
Painter

They are 2048x1152, and are therefore suitible as desktop backgrounds for the Samsung 2342BWX (which is hard to find wallpaper for.) They also fade together well in a slideshow, as the horizon lines match.

I'm looking for critiques, but more than that, I'd like people to choose their most favorite, and least favorite out of these six. I appreciate it

Welcome; edited your post, by the way. text doesn't work, it needs to be text. I'll think before voting.

NecronLord wrote:Welcome; edited your post, by the way. text doesn't work, it needs to be text. I'll think before voting.

Thanks Your avatar is the coolest "Kosh" I have ever seen btw. Have a larger version?

[edit] As soon as I posted I found the link to the larger version. Niiiiice.

I have some aesthetic criticisms of "Tree City,' if you don't mind. One's with your stacked planets there on the left. They're big, close objects with portions in direct sunlight lit yet they're only barely distinct from the sky of POV-world (especially the large one, which has no discernible surface rightward of the terminator). Our Moon has noticeable definition when it's out in the daytime, even when it's not much brighter than the sky. Having big bright old planets right there would mess up the composition, to be sure, but it also looks distractingly funny this way.

Another is with your use of atmospheric perspective - for the amount of haze acting on the foreground out to the islands, the horizon should not be as crisp a line as you've got but more of a gray smudge. What you've got now looks about right for a clear day at noon with a 34-mile horizon, but you've set the scene with a lot of haze.

Another is what looks to be the reflection of the large planet in the ocean. Such a reflection wouldn't mirror the planet's curve, but would instead be a column of light (disrupted by wave texture, of course) the overall width of the lit portion of the planet.

The last is the placement and scaling of those islands with respect to the horizon. The islands appear to be close to the observer's island based on atmospheric perspective, size, and the angle of view. However, the horizon appears to be close to those other islands because it is grouped with them in the lower half of the frame. However, if the horizon were actually as close to the observer's position as those other islands make it appear, the planet would be quite small. For an elevated viewpoint like the one you're using, you have to pretend that the amount of ocean represented by the height of the horizon line is generous - tens of miles yonder for an elevation between 500 and 1000 feet.

Compare this picture with 'Dragon Roost', where the POV seems to be closer to sea level so the apparent distance to the horizon seems smaller, and nothing between the viewpoint and horizon messes with the scaling, and also with 'The Hive,' where there is an elevated viewpoint, but no objects between the foreground and the viewpoint so the horizon naturally appears to be far away. This is true even though all three pictures place the horizon at about the same height in-frame.

It's a just a lot of elements working together to make the scale of the scene look wonky to me. I guess that would make 'Tree City' the one I like least. As for the one I like most, I suppose I'll have to say 'The Hive,' as I prefer the lighting and colors to the others, compositionally sound though they may all be.

Simplicius wrote:I have some aesthetic criticisms of "Tree City,' if you don't mind. One's with your stacked planets there on the left. They're big, close objects with portions in direct sunlight lit yet they're only barely distinct from the sky of POV-world (especially the large one, which has no discernible surface rightward of the terminator). Our Moon has noticeable definition when it's out in the daytime, even when it's not much brighter than the sky. Having big bright old planets right there would mess up the composition, to be sure, but it also looks distractingly funny this way.

Another is with your use of atmospheric perspective - for the amount of haze acting on the foreground out to the islands, the horizon should not be as crisp a line as you've got but more of a gray smudge. What you've got now looks about right for a clear day at noon with a 34-mile horizon, but you've set the scene with a lot of haze.

Another is what looks to be the reflection of the large planet in the ocean. Such a reflection wouldn't mirror the planet's curve, but would instead be a column of light (disrupted by wave texture, of course) the overall width of the lit portion of the planet.

The last is the placement and scaling of those islands with respect to the horizon. The islands appear to be close to the observer's island based on atmospheric perspective, size, and the angle of view. However, the horizon appears to be close to those other islands because it is grouped with them in the lower half of the frame. However, if the horizon were actually as close to the observer's position as those other islands make it appear, the planet would be quite small. For an elevated viewpoint like the one you're using, you have to pretend that the amount of ocean represented by the height of the horizon line is generous - tens of miles yonder for an elevation between 500 and 1000 feet.

Compare this picture with 'Dragon Roost', where the POV seems to be closer to sea level so the apparent distance to the horizon seems smaller, and nothing between the viewpoint and horizon messes with the scaling, and also with 'The Hive,' where there is an elevated viewpoint, but no objects between the foreground and the viewpoint so the horizon naturally appears to be far away. This is true even though all three pictures place the horizon at about the same height in-frame.

It's a just a lot of elements working together to make the scale of the scene look wonky to me. I guess that would make 'Tree City' the one I like least. As for the one I like most, I suppose I'll have to say 'The Hive,' as I prefer the lighting and colors to the others, compositionally sound though they may all be.

This^ is perhaps the most well thought out, most constructive piece of critisism I have ever recieved. Just... wow. I need to post on this board more often. Thanks. If nothing else, these are mistakes I will be sure never to repeat.

I made some changes based on Simplicius's advice, and updated the Tree City, (though not the thumb.)

Well, I don't have a lot of smart things to say like Simplicius, but I would like to say that I think these pictures are intricate and beautiful! Would it be okay if I used one on my desktop? Or is that some kind of copyright infringement? I think I like "The Hive" the best. Something about the play of light and color... the deep vastness of the sky and the deep-colored mountain cradling the hive itself, which is startling and complex.

NDR-113 wrote:Would it be okay if I used one on my desktop? Or is that some kind of copyright infringement?

Please do, that's why I made them

Fuzzy_Modem wrote:I made some changes based on Simplicius's advice, and updated the Tree City, (though not the thumb.)

I think the changes work. The fog bank solves the problem with the apparent distance to the horizon very neatly.