Playing with mountains

[jfrazierjr]

Is that in Photoshop or GIMP? Either way, I need to go back and look up Ascension's technique!



Yeah, I thought about that, but I also thought about the mountains in the Appalachians, and how they're mostly covered in trees... There, I've been to above 4,000 feet and had trees around me. So... how high to trees normally reach?

Anyway, I was going to try to go back and blank out the trees primarily around the ridgeline.

Though I am by no means an expert, I seem to recall hearing something around 5000-7000 feet is where most treelines top out on average

Of course, I could be remembering something totally different such as the approximate number of feet in a mile... My brain is a sponge for information, keeping it slotted in the right spot... that's a different story...

Joe

[Karro]

Though I am by no means an expert, I seem to recall hearing something around 5000-7000 feet is where most treelines top out on average

Of course, I could be remembering something totally different such as the approximate number of feet in a mile... My brain is a sponge for information, keeping it slotted in the right spot... that's a different story...

Joe

I feel your pain... I truly do. I think I have the exact same condition.

That's probably about right, though.

[torstan]

Yep, I thought about that too. It may be more that trees can't grow on the windswept mountain tops than there being a hard altitude limit. The tops of all the Scottish mountains I've climbed have been treeless and they are only 1000m or so. Also, the steeper the cliff, the less likely there will be trees on it, so the sharp ridges on those mountains are going to be relatively tree free no matter what.

[waldronate]

Tree line is one of those things that it determined by both altitude and altitude (or, if you prefer, by soil depth, temperature and water mobility). So there are places in the warmer latitudes where tree line is 12000+ feet and places where tree line is at sea level (these are arctic steppes). http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...9.2003.01043.x has measurements in the middle of the document.

[Karro]

So much complexity...

Well, here's another go:



I just used a jittery brush to clear out the forest mask along the ridgeline. The hard part was going back and trying to add a bumpmap on the new edge of the forest....

[jfrazierjr]

So much complexity...

Well, here's another go:



I just used a jittery brush to clear out the forest mask along the ridgeline. The hard part was going back and trying to add a bumpmap on the new edge of the forest....

Yea, and now your mountain has a green tinge....

[Karro]

Yea, and now your mountain has a green tinge....

Yeah, I thought that, too... which was strange because I had masked out the ridge on the color layers, too.

So... I went backwards, hiding each of the forest layers in turn, watching the ridge where the forest surrounds it, just to make sure. In actuality, there was no change to the ridge... The green was there all along, even in the original mountains.

I figured it must look greener because of the surrounding forest, sort of an optical illusion.

Anyway, it's still not working for me, but this represents only about 15 minutes of additional effort over the previous attempts.