Canyon Lake

skieur · Nov 23, 2007

Comments?

skieur

Patricia Kay · Nov 23, 2007

This has a beautiful sureal look.....like the colors too......

Patricia.....

astrostu · Nov 23, 2007

Is it real? No offense - or maybe this was what you were going for - but it looks fake.

skieur · Nov 23, 2007

astrostu said:
Is it real? No offense - or maybe this was what you were going for - but it looks fake.

OK, which part looks fake...as in land, sky, or water? and please explain why? Thanks

skieur

poopingfish · Nov 23, 2007

It looks /very nicely done.
But the land looks fake, it looks like a texture in a game viewed from a distance with no texture filtering.
The water also has somewhat of a gel or tinny look to it.

Is this an actual photo? Looks like something made up in PS although very well done.

astrostu · Nov 24, 2007

skieur said:
OK, which part looks fake...as in land, sky, or water? and please explain why? Thanks

Land, sky, and water.

Land - It looks like a default texture in a 3-D rendering program. It seems to have no real shading (just light or shadow) and no detail, which is unusual for a real photo.

Sky - They clouds look too sharp - not diffuse enough. I think they also show too much of a dynamic range for being so patchy (they get too dark closer to the horizon). Also, it seems as though the Sun is directly overhead (judging by the bright patch in the clouds), which is in conflict with where the shadows are on the land.

Water - It looks way too reflective, and the ripples in the foreground look too large - there is no small-scale structure in them.

Also, overall, there's no haze. In almost any landscape shot that shows significant depth, there should be haze the farther away an object is.

Now if you come back and say it's real, I'm going to feel like a moron, but that's just what it seems like to me.

skieur · Nov 24, 2007

poopingfish said:
It looks /very nicely done.
But the land looks fake, it looks like a texture in a game viewed from a distance with no texture filtering.
The water also has somewhat of a gel or tinny look to it.

Is this an actual photo? Looks like something made up in PS although very well done.

You are right. The land does not look sufficiently "random" in vegetation or look. I have managed to create multi-level terrain but I still need to master the surface and texture.

I don't notice a water problem but the grey part of the sky does not look as good as it could so I need to work in the sky lab as well.

I modelled this in 3D and then took a virtual photo of it with a virtual camera in the software. The manual for the program has 500 pages so I have only just started experimenting.

Thanks for the comments.

skieur

skieur · Nov 24, 2007

astrostu said:
Land, sky, and water.

Land - It looks like a default texture in a 3-D rendering program. It seems to have no real shading (just light or shadow) and no detail, which is unusual for a real photo.

Sky - They clouds look too sharp - not diffuse enough. I think they also show too much of a dynamic range for being so patchy (they get too dark closer to the horizon). Also, it seems as though the Sun is directly overhead (judging by the bright patch in the clouds), which is in conflict with where the shadows are on the land.

Water - It looks way too reflective, and the ripples in the foreground look too large - there is no small-scale structure in them.

Also, overall, there's no haze. In almost any landscape shot that shows significant depth, there should be haze the farther away an object is.

Now if you come back and say it's real, I'm going to feel like a moron, but that's just what it seems like to me.

Great attention to detail. I was debating about putting in haze, so I guess I should have. The sky is also in need of modification as you point out. As to the water, after looking at more closely I tend to think that the light blue is a little "questionable" but the rest looks OK based on my experience of spending most of my life around, in, or on water in every shape and form.

skieur