I prefer the mountains on the right - the shading makes them stand out, while the same shading contrasted oddly on the left-hand side, and so was omitted.
So, I have re-done the shading to suit the finer texture. Here are the results.
Does it look to anyone else as though the mountains are floating? That's been bugging me for a while.
Sorry I am Afraid so. It appears that the mountains have a shadow "Beneath" Them so yes they appear to float ! Lose the shadow and feather the transition into the surrounding terrain and that will "Ground" them. Else-wise it is shaping up rather nicely !
It appears to be coming along very nicely indeed!
I see what you're talking about. I think the floating effect is partly due to the pale grey line that is highlighting the mountain edge. As lostatsea mentioned above, feathering the transition between mountains and grasslands should help.
Alas, I know the cause of that shadow. It is the feathering that causes it. The layers are bound by masks and under effects, and that shadow is caused by the interaction of the mountains' color burn effect with the grasslands. When I move the mask, I am creating either a shadow or a light, fuzzy border. I will look for some other solution to the problem.
And thank-you to all for your input and support!
Edit: I have found a fix for the shadow, although one I do not like to use. In a separate document, I created a carbon copy of the Mountain & Grass layers, removed their layer effects and the grass mask, and merged the mountain layer down onto the grassland one. I then re-applied the grassland mask and repatriated it into the original document, applying the alteration layers to the result that were previously attached to the constituent layers. The border issue is improved with the loss of the shadow, but I kept the original layers, just in case. Let me know what you think:
I want to address water next (marshes, swamps, lakes & rivers). To begin doing so I hid the existing wetland layer to examine the layers beneath.
As a result, I began playing with the layers & discovered some interesting options.
Attachment 54656Attachment 54655Attachment 54654Attachment 54653
Each of these was created by the inclusion or removal of one or two of two specific layers. I am considering now which version to move forward with.
At this point, I am going with the image on the right. Starting rivers, which are always the hardest part for me, because I don't know how to draw them (place them, sure - but drawing them is hard).
Here's what I have for placement. I have used the light/dark bits as elevation guidelines. Does it look right (i.e. natural) to you? Once I am happy with the layout, I'll worry about how to draw them.
Looks natural to me, the lake could have an "output" as well but I think it'd work like this too. I really like this map by the way, the mountains and the colors are great!
My current plan is for the lake to let out through subterranean tunnels - but if you can point out a place where it might naturally flow out (& where it would go) I would appreciate it. A large part of this project is getting feedback on how the map looks, as opposed to wat I was thinking when I developed it.
Originally Posted by Lingon
One possible issue is that range of hills east of the lake. It looks to me like it represents an elevation change, so that's how i've represented it - is that how it looks to others?
Here's my first attempt at rivers. I would really appreciate any advice on making them look 'better,' as river art is entirely foreign to me.
Nice work so far. I'm not sure if it is what you intended by right now the centre lake does not seem to drain. Either evaporation would take off the water at a rate equal to its accumulation or it would have to seep off underground. Otherwise i'd probably full up the valley till it finds a place to flow out of. I recommend attaching the river on the right to the lake to suggest it is a drainage river from it. I'd also be careful how far up the mountain you make the rivers go as it sometimes visually flattens them the mountains. Especially if they are straight up the mountain. I suppose it also does depend on how small or streams you care to show on your map as most maps don't bother to register the tiny little ravines and tributaries. I would guess usually only those streams that have a significant impact on human life would be registered such as rivers large enough to traverse by boat or can present a challenge to pass over perhaps
Just as an example I've attached an image of what I mean regarding the rivers not going too far up the mountains and the river being able to drain to the ocean somewhere (again unless you had something else in mind)