What do you think of smth like this? (I've got 2 variants...)
Is the coastline ok? Should I improve the colors and textures somehow?
I tried to play with different mountain brushes... Even tried to make some... Now my wrist aches
They just don't look good, when i place them on the map.
They seem too dirty... too complex... (especially when the image is zoomed out) I think I should simplify them a bit. Or do I miss smth else?
to me the brush seems to big for the map size... i'd try even half that size, and i'd make an entire range not just some random bits.. with the mts they look best together, not apart. not sure if these brushes are hollow in the non-black parts, but it's best to overlap the mts, back to front, close together, breaks up the repeating brushes and allow you to build new shapes. as far as how it looks, it'd be hard to tell without more use.
Photoshop, CC3, ArcGIS, Bryce, Illustrator, Maptool
Of course their going to overlap:Originally Posted by loogie
You are right, that is the point i missed, and I hope that will help. I'll try to make some mt ranges in next few days. So more wrist pain awaits me
wrist pain? welcome to cartography
Photoshop, CC3, ArcGIS, Bryce, Illustrator, Maptool
There is another variant. I thought: the mountains will be TINY on the final map. It means they should be simple. Yes, I know, that the 1st version of the mountains wasn't good. But, after all, this is my first map and it definetly won't be a Cartographers' choice.
Remember, that this is only a part of the map. Whole map is going to be about 8x8 inches - this part will be 4x3 inches.
Either i leave the mountains like that - without shadows at all, or i try to make the shadows better than in the 1st version.
I actually really like the mountain brushes you made above, although they could definitely use some refinement. I have a feeling that you're pretty good with a pencil; if that's true, then consider drawing some nice mountains on paper, then take them to Kinko's and have them scanned. Unless you have a scanner at home, of course.
Some more smudgy shading rather than detail would probably be a good course to take, given the scale issue.
I feel I should point out that your coastline looks an awful lot like Middle Earth.
edit: I just noticed you're in Moscow, so you may or may not know what Kinko's is. If not, it's a shop that offers printing, binding and mail service. I assume there are businesses with similar services in Russia.
Last edited by Midgardsormr; 05-23-2013 at 08:41 PM.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
I've tried to reduce the amount of detail a bit. Used some rubber. Still they should look like pieces of one puzzle - definitely not like Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves all put in one big barrel.
And it seems I'm not so good with a pencil after allI made this with a pencil, photoghraphed it, and then used it as a sketch in Photoshop (trying not to implement too much detail). I think now there too little detail... And they're too dark... I'm no artist:
If you're not going to use more textures/color work on lands, more simple outlines will match better in my opinion. More detailed mountains are harder to blend with a light and pale color texture/background. You can try a simple outline (like the one you did in post #16) with a very few diagonal hatch lines to simulate shaded side.
The darkness is easy enough to fix: Just turn down the opacity a bit. I agree with - Max -: at the size you're going to be showing these, the simpler icons will work better. Do a Google Image search for Pete Fenlon and check out his hill symbols. His mountains are a bit complex, but his hills are so beautifully simple.
I do still like those sketchy mountains, though, especially the gently sloped ones with the smudgier details. They may not work for this map, but I hope you find a place for them in another.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
