Yes, you are right. Making several trees (icons) and getting them to look good together is hard... I am not sure if what I am doing this time will work. I guess I will let you all be the judge
The trees are still not as detailed as the mountains but adding some shading did help.
I did look at many 17th century maps and you are right that is where I found that mountain style... I went back and look at all of those maps again for trees and did not like much of what I found... most of the time there are little to no trees and most are spread way thin... i guess that was not that important back then... But it did make me realize that with this style less is more.
You have a good eye... I forgot to paste the layer style I was useing for the mountains on to the trees layer so they were still dark. it does not matter now as I did redo everything... but it ended up not being as much work as I thought. I mad a seamless texture of the tree icons 200 X 200 pix and then just cut that into the shapes for the forests... and cut some here are there from the inside too. Quite a time saver.
© C. M. Perry 2012
You are not a downer! You are correct that keeping in mind that before the great Photoshop when the pen was still mightier than the sward... it would have been a nightmare to do trees like that! I am still thinking about the Mass Forests vs. Tree Icons... no winner yet but for now I will stick to trying to make the icons work. I had not given that much thought to the number of quills a mapmaker would have used... but now that you say that... I also wonder if I should make more little mistakes, or should I say not correct some of the ones I already make to give the map a more "one try to get it right" look.
I added some triangle trees just for you! Thanks for the tip on the river meets coastline... it looks much better now.
Here is the new test:
© C. M. Perry 2012
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to post and help me! The map is already moving in a better direction.
-RPGMM