Wasted landscape

**mcotie** · August 14th, 2002, 12:57 AM

I am working on a landscape concept/matte painting. I don't usually do these. I would like some feedback on this to let me know if I'm heading in the right direction ( more detail, less detail, less color, etc, etc).

Thanx,
Mitch

**mcotie** · August 14th, 2002, 11:33 AM

Dang 26 views and NO replies, maybe this is the wrong thread.

**Fozzybar** · August 14th, 2002, 11:53 AM

Ok, here is viewer No. 27, actually i already looked at it as No.13, but it was difficult to comment..

I will try to write down my first thoughts, even if they are wrong:

It looked too washed-out (hope it's the right word). Especially the two big hills/cliffs at the end of the bridge. They have no structure, too less detail.

The colours are flashy...and it's just my personal taste...it seems if they don't match together...

Hmmm...as i said it's difficult to describe....

Maybe the pillars of the bridge are too unbalanced either...

**Snowfly** · August 14th, 2002, 01:06 PM

one thing stuck out when i first saw this pic.. that mass of purple filling up the bottom half. what is it? and it's so...purple. I might be talking conventions here, but aren't matte paintings supposed to be more recessive?

just a little more tweaking on the bridge's silhouette, I think. It already looks like a good blocking-in. a lot better than my landscapes, that's for sure

**mcotie** · August 14th, 2002, 01:41 PM

All right!!! now we're talkin'. Thanx guys. I appreciate this.

I don't know what the hell I was thinking with the purple stuff. I guss some kind of toxic sludge. But your'e right it was too overwelming and didn't fit. So I changed it to be like lava flow or molten stuff. I'll have to tweek the boldness of the colors some too to push them more to the background. I did a little to this effect. Here's another work in progress shot.

Thanx again,
Mitch

**guenter** · August 14th, 2002, 02:36 PM

the lava is a much better idea. cant wait to see it finished!

**keyth** · August 15th, 2002, 12:28 AM

yeah, this is a much better lava. the sky is beautiful.

**KingOfChaos** · August 15th, 2002, 01:13 AM

I actually liked it better with the purple...gives it a supernatural look.

I could actually use this piece of art for one of my books.

narisiaril · August 15th, 2002, 02:35 AM

The second version looks much better. I might make the shadows a little purpler to balance all the orange, but that's just me. The lighting's good... The sky is very dramatic.

After reading the other comments I took a second look at the bridge, and it does sort of look like the second pillar from the right should be little closer to the middle. Is the middle arch wider than the others?

**Fozzybar** · August 15th, 2002, 05:24 AM

Yes, it's better with the monochrome settings and the details.

mcotie, i think i have to be more precise with my pillar critics...

What i mean is, the pillar in the middle is to big in comparisation with the others. It's actually not bad, but the problem is this pillar attracts the viewers attention on it, though the pillar isn't a important thing.

I guess, actually the main focus should be one of the huge cliffs at the and of the bridge. So what i meant with balance is, if the pillars are all the same size (of course in perspective foreshortening (my english is disgusting)), they will be more discreet, and you'll achieve a more tensing composition...

I hope, my english could explain, what my mind thought...

**mcotie** · August 16th, 2002, 04:27 AM

Thanx for the feedback!!
I've made some changes. I got rid of the foreground all together. It works better this way since I'm using it as a background for my 3D model project in school.

Plus I added alot of detail to the structure.

Mitch

details:

**OneBigCelt** · August 16th, 2002, 04:54 PM

yeah! thats looking good don't lost the lava in the forground it gives it alot of depth

It was really exciting and had a lot of drama to to

I'm not as excited about it other wise

**mcotie** · August 19th, 2002, 02:28 AM

Thanx Celt.
but I had to ditch the foreground in order for it to work in the scene I used it in. Hre is a camera shot of the my 3D scene I'm using it in.

Mitch

**OneBigCelt** · August 19th, 2002, 08:31 AM

That looks great!

**Grooveholmes** · August 19th, 2002, 08:00 PM

I like it alot better before the 3d got involved.

hrmmmm.. what can be done? It needs a few things to bring the 3d to the level of the background.

Try some Depth of Field on your character and background.

You can also try adjusting your lighting rig on the 3d so he looks more like he resides in that environment.

Keep the crackedground and lava in the foreground that you origionally had. Just make it 3d. It shouldn't be hard at all to do that with a layered shader. then you can put a couple of lights down low so he's lit from the bottom with a soft glow, from there lower the intensity on your key light so that the top of his head and sillouette is much darker so you'll get a real nice contrast from your dude and the nice orange you have in the background.

...and as a final touch, in your compositing package you can play with the colors and levels of your fore- and backgrounds so they'll mesh better. even add a touch of graininess so its not so clean looking.

:beer:

**Deth Jester** · August 19th, 2002, 08:07 PM

The background looks almost too soft... for some things.. All the objects seem to hold the same texture... *does that make sense?*

Maybe sharpen some things.. while leaving others hazy?

I think the purple is still to bright.. Naturally you wouldnt see a purple like that without some major reason.. ...*I dunno*

I wish someone with some Matte experience could give you advice.. *Im still way too new to this to help as much as I want*

*OH!*

I think with such a bright light behind those structures you are going to get more of a silouette then you have.. More darks..

Also as things get farther away they tend to grey more.. you still have way too much saturation for far away things..

Also stuff is made up of lots of different colors.. real matte paintings use lots of different colors perhaps at more colors into yoru work to add depth and reality.. *just a thought*

Sorry for the rambling.. I hope in my chaotic words you can find some help

Peace.

*cant wait to see it finished*

**mcotie** · August 20th, 2002, 12:25 AM

Thanx Groove' and Deth'.

I appreciate the input. I will go do some tweaking with the lights and try out the cracked earth with purple stuff oozing up. and also hazing out the backgraound a little to give it more depth.

I agree with the painting being better on its own without the 3D, but I made it specifically for the 3D model, to show diversity rather than just all modeling.

Thanks

**Grooveholmes** · August 20th, 2002, 12:42 AM

Exactly! I think it'll really pop with those tweaks.
Think of the mood you can achieve with the proper lighting.

**MolvaDo** · September 11th, 2002, 05:18 PM

the only thing i think the scene needs is some atmospherics or volumeterics to the 3d part of the scene. I like the background soft as it should be, since if it was a photograph it would be due to depth of field. glad you cropped off the left part of the painting, the sky had something really worked over happening. one last thing try ajusting the specular light to a purple tint to offset there being so much orange.

**mcotie** · September 11th, 2002, 10:02 PM

Thanks MolvaDo. I havnt posted my most recent render yet. I'll have to do that, I made a bunch of changes to it since my lasst post hitting some of the issues that are mentioned here .

Iron Maiden fan eh?

Mitch

**AfroLaxMan** · September 12th, 2002, 10:47 AM

the 3d and 2d are both great peices seperately (as some have already said, in different words), but they do not work well together yet.
One thing is the lighting is totally different from foreground to background, looks like a game show. The background explosion/fireball would have a tremendous amount of energy and power, which is lost when you add such a bright spot light on your character in the fg. got to add a source of light behind to get that mixed lighting situation.
Was watching a thingy on TLC about LucasArts and ILM, they discussed their matte paintings done for episode 4(original SW), the matte painters (who were masters already b4 Lucas brought them on) said they approach matte painting very impressionistic, allowing the eyes to make out the details, which u are heading in the last couple fixes you posted.
I worked with an editor who has done some compositing, and the lighting is what makes the piece come together real well.
keep it going, brother...

:afro2:

**davi** · September 12th, 2002, 01:34 PM

it reminds me of planescape torment
pretty cool.

**MolvaDo** · September 12th, 2002, 03:02 PM

well if those are the issues that mcotie has to address the lighting is easy to fix. A simply piece of burning rubble at the feet of the character in the forground would add a good light source. Course it would be a dim light but I think give a really nice effect. Those atmosphereics i mentioned would really place the character well. I agree with part of where you are coming from Afro but I still think they look well together, if some adjustments are made.

**mcotie** · September 13th, 2002, 12:56 AM

Thanks for all of the input on this. This is a render after making a few adjustments. I put this project on hold for a bit to catch up on my Mutt model.

I added some depth of field, film grain and did a bit more work to the background. I do need to address the lighting issue from behind and a convincing source from the front. After seeing matt paintings by the Lucas gang and also by Craig Mullins, I truly believe the 2d world and 3d world can get along. but not necessarily MY 2d and 3d. I'm working on it.

Thanks again.

Mitch

**MolvaDo** · September 13th, 2002, 01:28 AM

Hey Mitch, man I completely agree with you on the issue, and your new render looks good the new ground looks a lot better, as well the change of camera postion. When are you going to post some shots of your mutt or are they somewhere else and I just haven't found them?

**Grooveholmes** · September 13th, 2002, 02:24 AM

"but not necessarily MY 2d and 3d. I'm working on it. "
Heh heh. You got skills man, there's no question about that, just takes some time and work to sweeten things up.

hmmm.. The lighting's not quite there yet. To me right now it seems like your main light is just pretty much white. Play around with giving it a much richer orange color like your painting. That would definately help.

But any composite (especially this one as moody and dynamic as the background is) depends almost solely on how the lighting is implicated in order to be believable. That includes light placement, intensity, and definately hue.

One thing I just noticed too..
What is the chain made out of? Cause it looks kind of like plastic right now. Even if its the tiniest bit reflective you should use your BG image as and environment map. That'll do wonders for bringing everything together.
:beer:

**mcotie** · September 13th, 2002, 11:14 AM

Thanx again for your input it's a big help. Here is the mutt from thunderdome I am setting it up for maps now.

Mitch

**killing.people** · September 13th, 2002, 11:17 AM

:ep:
very awesome! are you going to make your monster in 3d?

**mcotie** · September 13th, 2002, 11:24 AM

I am, but not for Thunderdome. I'm doing the model for school. My Thunderdome mutt has since changed to the more human looking pooch. The magick of concept.

Mitch