PDA

View Full Version : artic mountians


bc1967
09-30-2004, 07:03 PM
painted in PS6.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/bc1967/snowymountians3small.jpg

full res here

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ ... tians3.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/bc1967/snowymountians3.jpg)

brad
09-30-2004, 07:17 PM
It looks good, but it needs something.

look at this;
http://www.mattepainting.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=123

Janine
10-01-2004, 07:04 PM
I really quite like the mountains!

Two things though: mountains are huge, yours seem to have some sort of depth of field on them (blur in the distance) and that doesn't normally happen in nature. Mountains in the distance lose contrast and take on the color of the sky or haze. If you blur the background mountains too much it makes them look like a minature. And the other thing - have a look at these nice hires sky images, I'm sure you'll find one which would look nice in your image: http://www.mayang.com/textures/Nature/html/Clouds/index.html

I think what your sky needs is perspective. So you'd have larger clouds towards the top of the image (those would be the foreground clouds) and smaller clouds towards the horizon. Like these ones here for example: http://www.mayang.com/textures/Nature/images/Clouds/P2230470.JPG

Hope this helps. :)

Janine

anthonyBloor
10-02-2004, 04:32 AM
First off the painting of the foreground mountain is very well executed, the light, and reflection on the snow looks just right. Its a slightly odd comosition though, its all pushed to the edges, and the depth of field only pushes the eye further too the boarders. My suggestion would either be to crop it heavily and really cut off a lot of the sky, and then add a focal point, for example a climber on the ridge about a third of the way in, from the left. OR, make a focal point in the foreground high up, its a cliche but a hot air baloon? :roll:

Just suggestions, apart from the focal point problem its a very nice image

bc1967
10-02-2004, 06:20 AM
Thanks! I was thrilled to find this site. as an artist with assperations towards matte painting , this site is a goldmine!

anthonyBloor and Janine>
Thanks for the advice. I'll do that and repost the image.

Ross Forster
10-02-2004, 10:08 AM
Yeah, I think the blur is way too strong and the clouds need work. They dont fit.

NickJushchyshyn
10-02-2004, 02:04 PM
Just to add a little optical theory behind the blur comments....

If a camera where to make a shot like this (very bright day, lots of white snow), the iris would need to be nearly closed (f22) at typical shutter speeds to prevent over exposure. The result is that, even with 35mm film, a shot like this would have near infinite depth of field and distant backgrounds will be just a clear as foreground elements.

Sometimes it helps to understand "What would a camera see?" when preparing a painting. :)

Have fun.

slart
10-02-2004, 04:30 PM
could i just offer some advice,


1. please use photographic reference, for something like a mountain range there is tonnes of hi res pics around


2. use lots of photographic reference, just because its called matte painting does not mean you can not use photos if you can get them.


3. please refer to points 1 and 2


4. if it feels a bit wrong , then it is wrong


s

Janine
10-02-2004, 04:54 PM
Just to add a little optical theory behind the blur comments....

If a camera where to make a shot like this (very bright day, lots of white snow), the iris would need to be nearly closed (f22) at typical shutter speeds to prevent over exposure. The result is that, even with 35mm film, a shot like this would have near infinite depth of field and distant backgrounds will be just a clear as foreground elements.

Sometimes it helps to understand "What would a camera see?" when preparing a painting. :)

Have fun.

Yeah, what he said. ;) I think the only time when background mountains are blurry is in the desert heat, heat flicker at the horizon. But then that sort of thing would have to be animated anyway, so doing anything blurry in a matte painting is probably not a good idea in general. ;)

Janine

anthonyBloor
10-03-2004, 05:05 AM
Its true its unusual to see DOF in a shot like this, but, its certainly not impossible, neutral density filters, and higher shutter speeds means you could choose a large apature in these kind of bright conditions, and if its an extremly long lens, then the focus range becomes very limited. its concievable that this can probebly be achieved if the photographer really wanted this effect.

However its very unusual. 8)

max4ever
10-03-2004, 07:06 AM
the same problem with me: the DOF is off for landscapes, it looks small :P
in rest it's ok ;)

bc1967
10-03-2004, 09:10 AM
Very interesting points. I come from a background of traditional painting in which the idea ( at least the disipline I subscribed to ) was to recreate nature as it was seen by the human eye. Atmosphereic bluring is a naturally ocuring phenomenon.
As I understand what you're saying, That idea is superseded by the need to emulate the camera in a matte painting.
In other words: to execute the painting ( using photographic elements as well as painted ) as the camera sees it, rather than the eye.

bc1967
10-04-2004, 01:29 PM
here's an older version, pre background blur. This any better?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/bc1967/oldmountians.jpg

Janine
10-04-2004, 05:35 PM
here's an older version, pre background blur. This any better?

Absolutely! Much better. The sky is still too blue and needs "fluffier" clouds, but it's much more natural. I also think it helps that the foreground mountain isn't as bright as in the other image.

Janine

Ross Forster
10-04-2004, 06:36 PM
Oh yeah, you can really see the difference it has made. I agree with the cloud issue though.