Strangewood - Ancient City (Submission Declined)

#1

"Your submission has been declined for the following reason(s):

  • Your image currently does not meet the general quality level of the Showcase Gallery. There could be a number of different reasons, but generally, images are rejected due to artistic or technical problems. We cannot provide you with a detailed critique, since we have hundreds of submissions to the Showcase Gallery to sort through.

We suggest you post your work in the WIP forums so that other members in the community can help you troubleshoot your image by providing critiques specific to your image."

Can someone advise me on this? :slight_smile:

#2

Maybe by way of general critique… the clouds and foreground seem a bit too similar in value and treatment. Maybe if one were darker and the other were lighter to suggest some depth. It also seems hard to make out the shape of the building since the values are so close to the clouds and foreground.

#3

Hmm… i see what you mean. Thanks for the feedback!

#4

the shape of that top ring on the building is poorly drawn and could but corrected with better perspective. Thats the main thing I see. The idea is cool though.

#5

The perspective of the right part of the top ring seems a little strange to me… Maybe it’s because i’m seeing it resized.
Also, the purple light’s seems to atract too much attention to them, maybe they are contrasting too much with the rest of the piece.
I think the idea is nice too.

#6

I intended the Ring to be a “0” shape rather than a “o” shape, but maybe the shading cause the right part of the Ring to appear weird. Thanks for all the feedback!

#7

Did some amendments, please continue to give me some feedback. :slight_smile:

#8

Still think you need some counterpoint with the textures… the softness of the clouds should contrast with something… the trees(?) on the ground look like the same texture.

Also think about showing the bottom of the cloud line. The way it’s drawn it looks like they touch the horizon, which kinda kills any depth illusion for them.

#9

Wouldn’t that intense of lights have more of effect on the ground around them? Just a thought.

#10

When I look at this I don’t see a city. I see… I don’t know, a strange structure. Some sort of power station maybe. Or a futuristic switchgear.

It’s understandable that you want to make something that doesn’t look anything like what we have today, but in doing so you present a problem for the viewer. It can be a tough balancing act to create something that looks like it comes from another planet and at the same time have the general viewer recognize it for what it is supposed to be.

Feng Zhu talks quite a bit about this in his videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/FZDSCHOOL

#11

regardless…its not even an “0” shape its a bent 0. going the perspective you have if you layed it down flat on a 2d plane it would be all distorted or “warped” for lack of a better word.

#12

I like the overall idea.

It seems like the image would benefit from more perspective devices (such as values) to lead the eye around. As it is, the eye is drawn from light to light. I would suggest that there needs to be a dramatic core. Lights in images are hard to use because they generally have to complement, help describe, or “say something about” the main subject matter. I would lose all but a couple of lights as “key” lights, which could define the structure by casting light on it. After that smaller, tiny lights could be used to show how big the structure actually is.

My two cents.

C

#13

you need to manage your tonal composition better. There are a lot of similar values of the same contrast scattered all over the image. If you turned this image into B/W, you’ll see how it lacks a sense of value hierarchy and value management that makes the image easier to read. Simplify everything down to their basic shapes and values and then work on arranging and managing them so they create an interesting visual composition even before you add any details at all.

#14

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.