well if you're tired of this one, try something new, experiment with it, try to make it look fancy
[QUOTE='Ninja Nub[NOR];51416160']well if you're tired of this one, try something new, experiment with it, try to make it look fancy[/QUOTE]
Or I could just move on as normal...
I'm gonna face it: I'm NEVER going to be as good as most people here, and I've been doing stuff like this for almost four years now.
There's other people here who haven't been doing artwork as long as I have, and some of their work look MILES better than mine.
If anything, I shouldn't be doing this anymore if all I'm doing is lounging away and not reading piles of text that I don't understand just to have good fucking lighting.
The Star Destroyers look way too small. It looks like they're the same size as the AT-AT - and at the same distance.The further away something is, and the bigger it is, generally you want pretty heavy haze. There's a 2D artist out there called Simon Stålenhag who uses this a LOT in this images and it perfectly illustrates what I mean
[t]https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dNRC-nDpLcII_VD129jtV9S7I8U=/1020x0/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2769314/bonaverken.1377628866.jpg[/t][t]http://www.simonstalenhag.se/bilderbig/klovsjorelaet_1920.jpg[/t]
Notice that these giant structures in the far-off distance are very uni-colored and almost blends into the sky due to the haze. The further away and the bigger something is, the hazier it should be.
[QUOTE=benoski;51416186]I'm gonna face it: I'm NEVER going to be as good as most people here, and I've been doing stuff like this for almost four years now.[/QUOTE]not with that attitude anyway - i was stuck doing the same things for years because i didn't think i could improve.
[QUOTE=benoski;51416186]If anything, I shouldn't be doing this anymore if all I'm doing is lounging away and not reading piles of text that I don't understand just to have good fucking lighting.[/QUOTE]point out the parts that were difficult to understand and i'll try wording them better; i've tried to keep things as simple as possible so far though.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51416241]not with that attitude anyway.
point out the parts that were difficult to understand and i'll try wording them better; i've tried to keep things as simple as possible so far though.[/QUOTE]
I don't care anymore. I think I should just fucking stop.....
Seriously, I feel like beating my head against the fucking wall, knowing that other people are improving, while I'm fucking not!
I felt the same for a bit Benoski. First time i went into the Espionage Wars thread the other day, felt like i'd got everything wrong. My screenshots didn't look half as good as most of the other posters and i felt i would only let the thread down.
But instead of giving up, i'm deciding to stay. This community is a perfect mix of friendly and tough, like Joazz. He's done some absolutely amazing fucking stuff, he could be doing nothing but just posting the images and then leave, but he doesn't.
He gives well meaning informed advice to random people online who post their stuff.
Sure he's tough about it but as he said, [QUOTE]we point out flaws with brutal honesty instead of sugarcoating like most other communities[/QUOTE]
I know how you feel and i'm in the same boat, i have much much more to improve on, so don't worry, you're not surrounded by just Gods of the Screenshot. You're also surrounded by the Peasants of the Screenshot.
Whatever.
Maybe I'm just fucking tired. Whenever I make something new, it usually happens in the evening and into the early hours of the morning.
I'll probably come back to this once I get some sleep.
benoski, I silently lurked in the thread for a while (I enjoyed how interactive it was, and how you welcomed feedback). Then I saw you were contemplating on giving up, so I wanted to give you my two cents.
The advice Joazzz gave you is great, even if he put the nail in too deep. In essence, he was telling you to sit down, flip open a notebook with a pen in your hand, and start taking notes of how our world works, literally in a physical sense. Things like light, atmosphere, materials, reflections, shading, natural geometry are all things you have to understand if you want to replicate them.
What do I mean? Take what you called 'fog' for example. See that once I explain how it should work, you'll immediately understand what to do and what not to do.
Quoting from page 56 from my [URL="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OQ5nK11qKaOCNBT66Jd8Njf8vOkCmZe8Eywmn7JT2z4/edit"]guide[/URL] (which I suggest you skim through):
[QUOTE]we need to understand how atmospheres interact with light, so we know how to replicate it for our needs (as close as we can).
[T]http://visitcherokeenc.com/user-content/made/user-content/page-images/168/cherokee_hiking_1133_522_80_s_c1.jpg[/T]
It all has to do with how light and atmospheres interact with each other. Our atmosphere is made up of gasses, and is essentially a thin volumetric layer that surrounds our Earth’s surface. These gasses let the vast majority of light (from the sun and other stars in space, as well as light bounce from the planet’s surface) through, absorb some wavelengths of it to their own, and reflect and refract tiny remnants in random directions. Some of these remnants are directed towards our eyes, and this is why atmospheres light up. This means the more ‘layers’ of atmosphere we look at, the more light is directed into our eyes, and the more it’s lit up. Due to the Earth’s curvature, and because of how thin the layer of our atmosphere is, we see more ‘layers’ of atmosphere when looking towards the horizon than we see when we look straight up. Therefore, almost any atmosphere will have a gradient of light intensity identical to the one in the image above. Additionally, we can see that further away ‘blacks’ are filled with light while closer blacks are actually more black. This is because in real life, light is additive in a relative logarithmic scale[/QUOTE]
The reason 'fog' in your second iteration wasn't convincing:
[T]https://66.media.tumblr.com/99a10c89df449b33778b53b5557df03a/tumblr_oh29dqQYAX1rkypbeo1_1280.jpg[/T]
was because it was colored red, while the sky behind it was blue. Why is this unconvincing? Because fog and sky aren't separate entities. They're the same thing: Fog = atmosphere, sky = atmosphere. If the 'sky' is blue, the atmosphere is blue, and if the atmosphere, your 'fog' should be blue.
[T]https://media.timeout.com/images/101705313/image.jpg[/T]
Notice how what we'd call the 'sky' has the same tone as what we'd call the 'fog'. If you simply stop calling fog - fog, and sky - sky, and rather call them all 'atmosphere', you're already lining yourself up on a more correct approach.
Using real life references during your work is a great way to make good replicas. Opening your eyes, and developing a critical eye towards how the world works, questioning why it does, and trying to answer yourself is great not only for screenshots but anything else in life you'd want to produce.
I really think if you give this mentality a shot, you'd have a much easier time with your shots. Don't give up just yet.
[QUOTE=benoski;51416248]I don't care anymore. I think I should just fucking stop.....
Seriously, I feel like beating my head against the fucking wall, knowing that other people are improving, while I'm fucking not![/QUOTE]
It's taken me 1000+ hours of SFM to get where I am today. Improvement doesn't suddenly happen overnight. As long as you keep practicing, experimenting, and listening to feedback, you'll improve over time.
IMO you should remove the vignetting, the image would clearer and better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
