I'm really liking where this is heading. The colors are very nice; your mountains look really gnarly; the water looks great, tho' i wonder if you could make them look a little less like they're floating on top of the mountains with perhaps a different blend mode or some shading; the trees -- I'm not so sure about. They look a little to 'sharp' to my eye. Perhaps some density, as pasis suggested, and some subtle variation in color?
-÷-÷-÷-÷-÷-÷
“It is not down in any map; true places never are.” (Herman Melville)
“A good map is both a useful tool and a magic carpet to far away places." (unknown)
I think the issue with the trees is that the philosophy here clashes a bit with the philosophy you use for the mountains and other features.Originally Posted by StillCypher
The mountains are satellite-realistic. They look like a photo that could have been taken from space.
The trees are "symbols" of trees that stand for forests. But they aren't realistic, they are much more stylized as with antique maps.
At satellite distances, no tree in any world will be distinguishable individually. My brain has a hard time, therefore, trying to figure out the scale on the map.
This is a tradeoff and balance that cartographers need to recognize - how much weight do we give to realism and how much to stylization?
I would think about looking for more of a carpet-like texture approach to the trees. The mountains (and everything else) are strong.
Oh - a technical shot in the dark?
Perhaps the issue with the trees may be the sharpness rather than the size/clumping decision.
When we see things at a great distance, the atmosphere blurs them and washes out some of the color. Mountains in the distance are more faint than nearer mountains.
Thinking along these lines, you could try blurring/smudging your individual trees and de-saturating the color a bit?
I am merely offering suggestions as they come in! Being a total newb I should probably keep my trap shut.
Reply With Quote
