What a fun week...for money no less!
-
Ross, the differences I see are in color and textures. Subtle but they are there. Maybe there are more that Tom can point out.
-
Hi Boof
I see the wobbly edge and the slightly differnt saturation but I still don't see Waldo in either. I'm getting tired of looking.Regards, Ross
-
Thanks all, bunches! Really was fun and the big plus was it turning out much better than I expected...I guess the hundreds of hours over the past few months in PSP trying to learn the DWC paid off in another way!
Ross...Letraset: you brought back "fond" memories of scraping little sticky's off the blueprint machine rollers
You are right, very subtle (the way my client likes it) though I think the job looks tight enough he will pick the after rather than the render (so I will have to clean up the fence and make right and pretty). Here's a couple of details (from original 2800 pixel wide) for those who still haven't surrendered to needing eye glasses (and a render closer to what I would do...though better than this if I can):
Dylan...the process isn't hard, just time consuming, especially if you aren't going to mush it up with DWC filters. It's just a matter of cutting out of the bottom what's to be on top of the inbetween, sometimes pixel by pixel when the photo is close up to the detail (not like this one). Then you just merge the layers and hit the edges with a soften brush.
The hard part is making the model look like it sits in the same time on the same day...lighting, shading, color, etc. This one was pretty easy 'cause I built the new buildings and parking lots from pieces of the original photo, so sameo-sameo...except for the fence (the only modeled part of this image) in the "after"detail. Not even the in same century so far: lots of fussing to do if the photoreal is chosen.
Best, Tom.
-
Tom,
Looking at it again, I actually feel the second image is fine....without the need for much [any?] filtering.[I find all those flat roofs interesting....obviously not a lot of snow in Kansas
] -
Thanks Tom for the additional zoomed-in images. It does make it more clear on the differences between your original images that was not so apparent with my 1600pixel wide screen resolution. Actually all your images look good. The DWC is effective but the non-DWC certainly isn't problematic. I suppose the DWC technique does make it all more seamless.
Regards, Ross
-
yeah I think it's pretty much perfect... I think any client would be very pleased... and really couldn't expect much more...
with the water color version... it shuold be hanging in the building if they do the project. like 7'x9'
-
This is a very impressive work Tom,
How many time you work to do something like that?
That's really incredible!
-
hey, tom, amazing work that makes me feel humble in a positive way, meaning i still have a lot to learn, fortunately.
would you care to enlighten my ignorant self as to what is DWC? i assume PSP is Photoshop, right?
keep it up, man, and do not fall off those trees.
-
Edson...DWC is digital watercolor (though I should probably call mine DFWC since they are mostly filter applications mooshed together and not much painting). PSP is PaintShop Pro, now a Corel product...for less than a hundred bucks, full featured and much easier to deal with than PhotoPaint.
Daniel...25 hours so far. This includes some fussing with several aerials looking for the right composition to show all of the rather sketchy program, and a wasted couple of hours trying to logically resolve that strange perspective before I gave up and just fudged the buildings in. Also started by using the clone brush to much and threw some work away in favor of cutting chunks of stuff, like pavement and lawn, out of one place and stitching it in in another. Bottomline, I'm done charging and will finish up free from here...this really good client deserves as much.
Thanks again guys, Tom.
-
Awesome work as always, Tom. You really can't tell it was SkecthUpped by just glancing at the image.
-
Okay here's the final: the PR and two DWC choices (thanks kwick7, name please?, hope I made it clear to all the only thing SU'ed here is the fence, I want no hint of deceit...on this one :`)
Anyway, a couple of questions:
First, the typical request for C&C, any in depth help I can get, thanks (I provided links to the full size images to facilitate any of you willing to lend an eye, bend the brain, and squeeze some time).
Second, some professional opinions on the market worth of this effort. The supply/demand relationship in my little neck of the prairie works a little differently than in larger markets...basically: "Sure, we can try that...if it don't cost too much." For those of you who regularly do, or regularly hire done, this sort of thing, how does my 25-hour/$1k-fee relate to your norms/markets? Am I fast? Slow? High? Low?
Okaybye and best, Tom.
-
Go with the PR. With so much detail I think the DWC's don't look as good. All in all however, they look fantastic.
As far as a fee... I am sorry but I work for the man and that is all decided for me. Can't help you there.
-
Tom,
I see the two new buildings that show up in your 2nd image. How did you get the proper perspective? I guess I am still confused. If these were not done in Su how were they done? Photoshop? -
lapx,
here's a few of the pieces and parts I used to compile the new image (copied from the original or a subsequent generations). The two main buildings were massed from the original, one with the center section cut out, the other with a center added in the other direction. The details were either built from stuff similar to the "bridge" pieces shown, or painted with the clone brush...lots of touchup after all was in place. The fence I did with photomatch in SU because vector drawing in PSP would have taken me a lot longer...only had to fudge the wierd perspective once in SU.The fence was brought into PSP in three layers (cut behind the rest where appropriate): the shadows burned, the fence multiplied, and the posts normal but transparent...then again lots of touchup.
That help? Best, Tom.
Advertisement