next »

[Brian Wilbur]

Hey guys,

Always get good opinions from TIGSource members, so I thought I'd ask this here.

We're working on a game right now with a style that's supposed to be based primarily on watercolors. We had some art going on that we thought was looking pretty good, but we got some strong critiques (from a professional illustrator) that seemed pretty valid. So we spent a little time exploring that and we're kind of stumped on where to go now.

I really think the second trees are of much higher quality than the first ones, but they just don't seem to jive with the game's look at the moment. Is it just because we haven't re-done the rest of the art to fit them? I can't even decide if that's a worthwhile endeavor.

The main concerns with the background in shot 1 is that the trees have no depth -- there's no defined light source -- and they have no volume, really, either. But they just seem to look nicer when placed into a background. I am doing some post-processing after the artist finishes the trees by adding some bloom, color overlay, etc. for each consecutive layer.

Style 1:



Style 2:



So -- I suppose just overall suggestions would be nice...possibly on where to go next -- whether style 2 fits the look we seem to be going for or not -- or what we can do with style 1 to "fix it up" a bit. Or maybe style 1 is fine and we're overthinking it?

(I hope this stuff doesn't sound too vague -- I'm the programmer and I don't know too much about art/illustration yet)

[Zaphos]

Style 2 seems way too "loud" for a background, it's hard to focus on the foreground with that much contrast and detail back there.

Style 1 is okay ...
It's a bit weird to say, when the foreground art also looks unfinished.

[moi]

style 1, the background trees look unfinished it seems to lack a proper lighting and shading, try to imagine the shadingp roduced by the sun on all that
style 2 looks like photoshop just puked all over the screen

[Brian Wilbur]

Style 2 seems way too "loud" for a background, it's hard to focus on the foreground with that much contrast and detail back there.

Style 1 is okay ...
It's a bit weird to say, when the foreground art also looks unfinished.

Foreground/midground are unfinished. I know that makes it a bit harder to tell, so hopefully it's not a dead end.

[Zaphos]

I guess what I was thinking is that the style 1 trees have a sort of naive/childish quality to them, which may be ok depending on how it meshes with the rest of the art.

[Brian Wilbur]

^ I like that. I'm thinking (based on the 2 comments or so, so far) that maybe Style 1 may be best -- but with a little bit of touching up to make things a bit more sensible.

[Carefree games]

At first glance I thought I liked style one more, but style two is better with a few revisions:

1: Get rid of the red and purple - it's plain ugly.
2: Other than the foremost-and-right tree, they are all too yellow. Adjust that.
3: Decrease the brightness of highlights, and maybe the darkness of shadows.(to something more similar to the foreground shadows)

What I don't like about the first style is how flat and washed out it is.

EDIT: Also, this should be in Workshop.

[Brian Wilbur]

At first glance I thought I liked style one more, but style two is better with a few revisions:

1: Get rid of the red and purple - it's plain ugly.
2: Other than the foremost-and-right tree, they are all too yellow. Adjust that.
3: Decrease the brightness of highlights, and maybe the darkness of shadows.(to something more similar to the foreground shadows)

What I don't like about the first style is how flat and washed out it is.

EDIT: Also, this should be in Workshop.

Also solid critique. Thank you. Totally didn't realize I should have put this in Workshop...hopefully it can get moved there.

The yellow comes from me. My point in doing that was something that I think worked in style 1, but fell apart in style 2. In the first I think it provided a good impression of "depth in a bright forest" -- however in 2 it makes it look like it's just a mish mosh. What would you suggest to express depth rather than a yellow overlay? Also, in the instance of Style 2, bloom may not be the way to go anymore since it does not read as well and creates a huge amount of contrast.

Thanks for the solid critique guys -- the artist is also reading this thread so your comments will go directly to her as well.

[Zaphos]

Hmm, the style 2 trees do look better in isolation (second screen) than they do with all the filters as a background (first screen).  But they still look weird to me, structurally ... they look like a totally empty volumes with leaves strung along the outside?  And when the leaves are in solid strings like that, they look a bit more like pipe cleaners than leaves.

edit: maybe it's a silly question but have you tried just looking at other artists watercolor trees for inspiration?
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=watercolor+trees
Could perhaps help if you find some examples you like.

[gimymblert]

I have more problem with foreground/midground as the background style 1 fit a functionally tone down and effectively recess. The lack of defition work because they are not much a focus and it's mimic the feeling of distant fog that fade details (and I like the naive mood).

The foreground/midground bother me a lot!



I tried a quick edit to verify

I have lower the luminosity of the road and bring down the sat of the bush in both side of the whole (still same luminosity)

[kamac]

Style 1. Definitely.

[ANtY]

Definitely style 2 but with darker background.