Discussion in 'Signatures and Small Art' started by Ian-, Mar 29, 2012.
Damn this is nice!
There should be some smoothing here and there to make it look like depth.
Its epic, but.... i just don't feel the depth...
I agree. the smudging and colors are very nice but it needs a blurred object in the foreground to the far right of the sig. It doesnt even have to be complete, just a part of an object like a street lamp or sth.
Adding something in the foreground looked weird. So I blurred some stuff to try and add some depth
Idk ... to me, your signatures always shined because of their awesome depth. This one is a step back in that matter. However, the smudging looks very nice
The smudging is great, as usually, but the depth just isn't there... A step back, maybe, but the colors are really really really awesome!!
Im bored so i made this:
and with my suggestion of depth:
The bar at the top!
Red where i would blur and blue where i would keep it sharp to create depth.
I guess you messed it up this time Maffe
The person should be in the focus, thus the "back" of the image must be sharp and the "front" must be blurred. You did it vice versa
no you are wrong Baum. The person is in the middle of the image depth wise, thus the far back and the foreground os blurred. he did it correctly.
That's where I had it blurred in the last pic, so I just intensified the blur some.
is there any way you can increase contrast or sth on the sharp part so it pops more. atm it looks like it has all been blurred a bit
this what you mean?
I really see the image differently then. To me it looks like the person is standing in front of a kind of wall (depth-wise) and the left and right sides of the image come closer to you. Thus, the "wall" (the colors close to the person) and the render itself should have the same sharpness because they've got the same distance from you.
I'll try to show it to you
Maffe however sharpened the things I would've blurred and blurred the things I would've sharpened.
So to me it is <wall>, <girl>, <things left/right fly towards you>
This is how i see it:
So why did you sharpen the edges then? According to your graphic it should've gotten blurred
That was basically my point. The background (the thing I called wall) is not visible because of the render anyway, so that's the smallest problem.
This is quite cool. The smudge and lights are nice.
In any case, the depth was just fine the way it was at first...
here he comes again to mess up this beautiful argument >.<
@Baum he did exactly what hs graphc show. Personally, I think the far bg is a it too blurry but that is personal preference. So if the wall was a Concave mirror the girl would be standing between the Focus and the mirror.
In the case below, imagine the girl being the "Object" and the "Focus" being where the camera sits. The mirror, of course being the wall, non-reflective.
I think we're talking about the same thing but we both don't understand each other.
Simple drawing of the depths/focus:
So the things that are closest to your camera have to be blurred, the things that are furthest have to be blurred, and the things on the same level as the girl have to be in focus and thus sharp.
If this is NOT the case, something's wrong with my brain.
Edit: Look at this photo:
The grass in the front is blurred, the grass at fox level is sharp, the grass in the far back is blurred again.
That's what I wanted to tell you, nothing more
Well yes you guys are correct with your science. However, in this tag, the girl/focal appears slightly blurred and she looks "far away" giving the tag depth. Therefore, the stuff up close should be sharper, but the issue actually is not that simple here. The contrast of the focal and the foreground look nigh the same, except maybe at the face, while the stuff behind her is not as contrasted so it kinda creates a contradiction of she is further back but at the same time she is kind of up close.
The depth worked best the way it was at first but to improve it, IMO blurring what's to the immediate right of the focal would be most effective without too much work. Trying to clean up the lighting can be... kinda rough if you know what I mean
Yeah, and since the BG, imho, seems to be one long curve the point where the curve is equal length away from the eye/camera as the focal is, it has to be sharpened.
ok so Baum and I and Maffe agree now. I partly agree with 25kst. I see that some parts of the girl are a bit blurred so there is some depth on her as well, meaning essentially the far bg and fg should be almost completly blurred 8O
Separate names with a comma.