Step Four: Into 3DSMax - here the model was lit from a single source, sky and atmosphere was added, and the water surface was added. This was exported as a jpeg at 4096 pixels wide...

Step Five: Photoshop time!! Lots and lots of hand painting to add detail and individualise the structures. Plus add additional lighting, colour-correction etc. At this point the Photoshop work is approx 20% done.

And here is an enlarged detail showing before and after the Photoshop work...

That's it for now. As the Photoshop work progresses, I'll post more updates. Hope this is of some interest or use to some of you.

Andy.

I've had several requests to explain my work process. So, here's an ongoing project, step-by-step. Not completed yet, but I'll post the final version when it's done.

Step one: the SketchUp model. I've always described my models as 'basic' - and you can see here that I wasn't joking!

Step two: photo reference from the web...

Step three: the photos were cropped, manipulated and re-touched to produce about seven or eight texture maps, which were applied to the SU model...

Well I read all the way to the end Greg .

Really interesting post. Agree with your point about traditional hand-drawn production designs carrying a great deal more information than we can easily communicate with SU. Hard to see how software can bridge this gap.

Some really great images in your post too.

Andy.

As my last piece vanished in the forum difficulties, thought I'd stick up another one from last week. Foreground structures done in Sketchup. Everything else in Photoshop.

A.

Double - some of my stuff might be relevant. SU and Photoshop. Agree with your assessment that SU can only take you so far though, especially at the conceptual design stage. For basic blocking and perspectives though, it's a great tool.

[attachment/img=0]Untitled-2s.jpg[/attachment]

A.

Had no time to get this done, so opted for a minimal black and white approach - and quite like how it turned out. Any thoughts?

Andy

Thanks cheffey.

Mainly trial + error, to be honest. I've found a lot of good inspiration here to: http://www.conceptart.org

A.

Thanks guys. WIP of the full image attached.

I'm happy to post up the SU scene, but you're gonna be awfully disappointed . It basically consists of a ground plane and about half a dozen boxes. I use the SU model to establish the composition and perspective, then work over the top with photo textures and hand-painting in Photoshop.

Small section of a bigger piece I'm working on. SU and Photoshop, as usual...

A.

Interesting thread.

Me:

Modelling:
SketchUp
3DStudio Max
Maya (learning, but this is a truly awesome bit of software!)
AutoCad
Terragen
Bryce (very rarely)

Post and concept art:
Photoshop
Painter
ArtRage
GimpShop

Video editing and mulitmedia:
Adobe Premier
Flash

@unknownuser said:

Alan,
Regarding “radimetric dating”, you can start w/ an easy article like this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

I wrote that latin expression is “orbe terrarum” and it wasn’t correct translated in English, as 'simple' spheroid...!

Cornel

Cornel - thanks for the link. Did some more digging on that website. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-fossils.html "Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There was never a time when dinosaurs ruled the earth. From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs"

A.

@plot-paris said:

well, in regards to how old our planet is, I have to agree with Cornel, that science can't be 100% sure that its 4.5 billion years old.

But the difference is that science KNOWS it isn't sure. This figure of 4.5 billion is derived from what all the available evidence is telling us. Should future evidence contradict this, scientists would revise their hypothesis. The difference between science and dogma.

Loving the Batman quote too. Actually more illuminating than the biblial quotes....

A.

We need a 'banging head against brick wall' smilie....

@alan fraser said:

Although I thoroughly respect his science, it's also true of Richard Dawkins, who is as fanatical and dogmatic in his atheism as many of the religious figures he takes issue with. In the case of Creationists, they have it coming.

Not true Alan. Richard Dawkins describes himself (in "The God Delusion" - if you haven't read it, I recommend it strongly) as agnostic - because he acknowledges that he cannot prove the non-existence of a god. True atheism is a belief system - as unsupportable by evidence as religious faith. However he also explains how there can be degrees of agnosticism - citing the 'teapot hypothesis' -and describes himself as being at the far end of that agnostic scale.
Crucially however - and this is the REALLY important point - he also says that should he be given genuine, testable proof of God's existence, he would instantly change his views. This is the key difference between an enlightened scientist and a blinkered 'believer' who would cling to his views in the face of all evidence.

@chango70 said:

The man that more than any other credited with kick starting the scientific revolution was 15th Century theologeon Thomas Aquinas. He posited a thesis in which God as a creator set in motion the laws of nature and do not interfere (no freakin' miracles). Sounds familier? Because it is a scientic view of nature.

Sorry chango, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Any thesis which begins with God as creator cannot be described as scientific.

A.

@chango70 said:

I am keenly aware of the contribution of Religion in literature, art and scientific thinking.

Sorry, exactly what contribution to scientific thinking? Or literature come to that? I'll grant that some great art has been produced for (not by) religious institutions. But usually by an artist who was inspired by the need to pay the bills, not inspired by divinity.

Contributions to bigotry, persecution, and small-minded stupidity would be more accurate.

A.

Thanks all.

Earthmover: 3dsMax, but just the standard scanline renderer. All the lighting was painted afterwards in Photoshop, so no need for a ultra-realistic render. The model and textures are really very, very basic. Render time was about 30 seconds. Photoshop time was about 3hrs.

A.

Latest stuff. SU, Max and Photoshop.

Andy

Animations from latest project...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2841270223598160435&hl=en
A.

[flash=400,326:3ph9khpk]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2841270223598160435&hl=en&fs=true[/flash:3ph9khpk]

Tom,

This may sound odd, but the first image is by far and away the strongest IMHO.

Love the simplicity and the muted colour palette. Less is more

Really nice. More please.

Andy