HOME | DD

Nocturnaliss [2015-09-09 06:51:05 +0000 UTC]

This is looking pretty good, globally. Looking at the details, a few catch my attention in a negative way:

- it looks like a nightsky, yet there's light as though it was day. Now, I understand this is a fantasy setting, but I can't identify the light source, which makes it hard to feel as though the world might exist.
- the lighting around the rocket. Clearly that's a lot of light being emitted, yet it doesn't reverberate on, at the least, the closest mountains.
- I do think the background mountains' tops are a bit too sharp considering the distance.
- something about the rocket's mirrored image in the lake feels off, but I can't quite say what.

This said, this manipulation is good. The basis you've got right now is really well done; it would take little to make it excellent. The sky, for instance, is gorgeous and very realistic, as are the mountains. It's mostly a matter of lighting I think.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RetSamys [2015-09-01 21:05:19 +0000 UTC]

This is beautiful. At first look, I didn't see anything wrong, then I saw a few things and checked the stocks.

You want to improve your photomanipulation skills. That's admirable, unfortunately I can't help you with that. I'm not a manipper myself, so all I can do is giving you a general comment on this Deviation. Besides, you seem to be quite good at it already!
So please keep in mind: You tricked my eyes. This is good. My comment is really nit-picky. Just because there are flaws mentioned in my comment, don't mope.

My first thought, when I had a closer look at the image, was that everything seemed to be fake. Which is not a bad thing, after all, faking is what most of art is about, but a few parts seem to be more fake than others.

Let me start with the part that most surprised me: the landscape. To me, it looked like a good CGI rendering, but one that clashed a bit with the background sky. Imagine how stumped I was when I discovered that the original stock was in fact a photo!
So here's my attempt at explaining why it looked like a 3D environment to me:

• Colours. Something I learned about myself while making constructive comments is that some colour palettes instantly remind me of computer generated images. I think it has to do with how light usually works, how much is reflected and what kind of saturation it has. I like the general way you corrected the colours, but now it looks a bit odd. The colours are oddly blunt and yet too bright. There's a lot of white stuff, as if there was a lot of reflective material. And I think the red doesn't suit the green very well.
• Light. I have no idea where it comes from, but there is light. It's a bit confusing. Also, I think (not sure) there isn't light everywhere it's supposed to be. The rocket is quite bright.
• Horizont. Most of it is good, you don't seem to have altered too much of it. But the leftmost mountain has a brighter line tracing it. That's because the stock has that line, and it's natural, don't get rid of it, but it's really too bright. The horizon is one of the tell-tale signs to look for when it comes to spotting CGI. Seems to work here as well.
• Foreground objects. This is probably due to the colour correction, but the foreground plants look extra weird. I think their reflection is too bright, which makes it look to me like they consist of shapes rather than multiple colours. A bit as if there was some kind of vectorisation...
  
  Come to think about it, everything looks smoother than in the original landscape. Is it because the stock is a bit pixelated and you smoothed it out? I mean, it's a great shot, but at full size, there are artefacts everywhere.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mikajolly [2015-08-18 19:05:06 +0000 UTC]

Oh my, this is gorgeous!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BrokenWasteland [2015-08-18 07:18:30 +0000 UTC]

You know for an attempt like this it's not bad at all. I think to off set the color of the landscape I'd drop more purple or pink into the stars.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1