Island Nation - Khemli

[palehorse]

The mountains always feel a bit glossy and it's hard to change. It's one of my biggest qualms with this style. I duplicated the mountain layer, took away the bevels, and then peppered it. I put it over the mountain layer with about 25% opaquity. I'm wondering if that just made them seem blurry rather than getting rid of the gloss.

You might try this:

Ctrl-Click on the mountain layer thumbnail to select just the mountains.

Create a new layer, and in the new layer fill the selection with a neutral brown. With the selection still active, Add Noise to this layer (just a bit; around 5-10% should be plenty). Depending on the resolution of your original image,you might need to add about a half-pixel Gaussian Blur to soften it up a bit, too. Change the Blend Mode of the layer to Multiply, and adjust the Opacity down a bit if need be. (You could do with a solid color, instead of adding Noise, but IMO that'd probably end up looking too flat.)

Not sure if I can do 2 attachments on one post, so I'll put the After up in a sec; this is just a quick example of what I'm talking about.

[palehorse]

And here's the after. This is at 100% opacity, which is probably too dark, but is easy enough to fix!

[RobA]

A combination of those two (before and after) along with a layer mask makes for a nice mountain as well. I tried to apply the "lighter is higher" visual rule.

I might have gone overboard (the mountains might not be snow topped ) but most mountains are lighter (bare/rocky) at the peaks.

-Rob A>

[pyrandon]

Nice mountains style, fellas, but I have two questions:

1) I don't like how the mountain "ridge" is a straight, unbroken line; do you know any way to break that up, add variations, etc.? Right now that appears far too "computerly" to my eye.

2) the "feet" of the mountain just end quickly; is there a way to broaden the slope out so they stretch out? (Even if it means repeating the process at a lower "elevation" & superimposing it?)

Thanks for this sweet add to Jharviss's thread!

[RobA]

For reference -

Here is a grab from google-earth of the Rocky's just south of Banff.

The mountain ridge lines do look very similar to what was shown on the map, just a bit more "jagged" rather than smooth.

-Rob A>

[pyrandon]

The mountain ridge lines do look very similar to what was shown on the map, just a bit more "jagged" rather than smooth.

Great reference shot--thanks. The straight lines still jar my eye as too "virtual", but I'll play with this style. I like it & think it has tons of potential--plus, the way Palehorse and RobA have listed it, how much easier can you get?

[Jharviss]

Those changes look pretty good. I like the way it blends in at the edges; it would make it a lot easier to make without the edges of the mountains being so harsh.

I'm always going back and forth with the straightness of the mountains. There are a ton of mountain ranges that do have pretty streight rows, just like those you showed. And those make sense if you look at your plate movement and know where the earth is buckling upward. On the other hand, less perfect mountains are also rather common, especially with volcanic activity. I think a mixture of the two would be the most realistic, personally.