A re-do of The Chessman's Mark old map

[JhekieJ]

world_map_for_the_chessman_s_mark_by_jhekiej.png

This was the map I created for a G+ roleplay community that did not take off due to the owner's circumstances offline. I inherited the community but aside from the initial lore, I didn't have the time to further develop it at that moment. This map is technically 'finished' at that time but was not really used. I was satisfied when I initially finished this map but now, I would like to re-do it for the homebrew idea I have in mind with the same lore.

Unfortunately, I don't have the original psd of this map. Two years ago, I had a major computer crash that wiped my working harddisk and messed up my back ups on RAID. I lost a lot of work in that crash, which was also the reason why my interest was a bit dampened (hence, I was just mostly an observer in the G+ group and had not logged-in the forum).

The fortunate part was that the outline of this map was hand-drawn. I just have to re-scan them and get them ready for photoshop.

I posted this 'finished' map as a WIP, in hopes of getting some helpful tips or input on what I can do to improve it on my attempt to re-create the map and improve it. Please don't mind the Arctic Ocean label down south. I was just instructed about the names of the different locations and did not question (to be exact, I did not notice) the label until it was pointed out some time ago. Another reason why I wanted to re-do the map. XD

Great appreciations for any input from anyone, thanks in advance!
JhekieJ

[Kellerica]

I really love the broken archipelagos in this, but there is something about the larger landshapes that bothers me... I can't quite put my finger on what it is. ... I'm sorry, I know that is pretty much the least helpful feedback ever...

The thing that most sticks out to me is that the old map just looks unfinished to me. There is not much to go on in terms of terrain or ocean, the labels look like they've just been added very quickly.

The first thing would be figuring out what kind of style you want to go for, be it a more more realistic satellite type, or a classic hand drawn antique thing, or something in between. Take a look at the tutorials section if you haven't already, if you have trouble deciding what kind of style you want to go for. Now, me personally, I'd go with some handrawn moutains (most likely pretty small at this scale), heavy parchment texture and decorations like a border and a legend box for starters, but that's me and my preferred type of mapping. Whatever style you go for, something like cities and a more detailed look at what the terrain looks like would go a long way to making the world come alive. On a scale this large, you most likely can't go marking every village and hamlet onto the map, but some major capitals cities could still be added.

But honestly, since you don't have the original .psd anymore and will have to start from scratch anyway, I don't know how much point there is in giving feeback in advance. Even if you went out of your way to try and re-create the exact map as before, chances are the result would still look different. Just get started on the new version, post the what you've come up with if you want, and I'm sure some feedback can be provided when you do

[JhekieJ]

Heihei! Thank you for the feedback!

It's okay, even if I am re-starting from scratch, I can avoid or add elements from what I done before. It's still a big help to hear insights from others before I start anew.

The map is quite big, I was going for the simple non-terrain map like this simple.PNG but still have aesthetics for it, hence there's no details added. The plan was just one general global map that indicates how the continents were divided. Afterwhich, I will be breaking them down into smaller continental maps where I will add details like terrain and forestry. Kinda like this old continent map I made when I was still dipping my toes in cartography.

I am actually looking at books of old maps from the library to study more on the hand-drawn details. I used to only add them with photoshop brushes but I would like to make my own. I have posted a question to one of the groups in the guild last night but I haven't received a reply yet. Perhaps you can give me your insight about my observation--- I noticed that the details like trees, mountains and hills were drawn with majority of shadows to the east and the light source is coming from the west. Is there a reason for this or is it a rule to keep the whole image consistent?

Great appreciations for your suggestions and feedback. They are a big help, thank you.

[bkh1914]

Perhaps you can give me your insight about my observation--- I noticed that the details like trees, mountains and hills were drawn with majority of shadows to the east and the light source is coming from the west. Is there a reason for this or is it a rule to keep the whole image consistent?

In many programs, the default light direction for light/shadow effects is from the northwest / upper right. (135 degrees on the mathematical unit circle.)
That gives shadows cast to the southeast / lower left.

[JhekieJ]

In many programs, the default light direction for light/shadow effects is from the northwest / upper right. (135 degrees on the mathematical unit circle.)
That gives shadows cast to the southeast / lower left.

Ah, but my observation was from very old maps, dating to 15-1600s. Maybe the programs were based from this too?

[bkh1914]

Ah, but my observation was from very old maps, dating to 15-1600s. Maybe the programs were based from this too?

I think you are right.

I was looking at NASA satellite images once and they had an explanation of why most people have trouble reading the shadows correctly.
If I remember correctly, it went something like this:
In the northern hemisphere, the light in satellite images is from the south and the shadows are to the north, but people are accustomed to seeing shadows from the other direction on maps.
I also wonder how that precedent was set.

[Kellerica]

Ah, I see. I think the colors with the use of the Difference Cloud patterns on the original made it kind of look like you were going for a realistic terrain style and left it halfway.

I prefer to work the other way around - start from a smaller map and eventually expand further. It's just a personal preference, I found that creating an entire planet sized world was too much for me and I found it much easier to get things done on smaller scale But I know others who prefer to do it like this, starting big and then detailing on smaller, maybe it suits you better than it did me.

As for the shading, hmm... I think it is mostly to keep the image consistent - if there is any official reason, I've not heard of it. But then again, I honestly don't know that much about historical maps. I approach maps like these from more of a design-focused point of view, rather than historical/scientific accuracy. So maybe there is someone smarter who knows better than I do. I usually shade my elements the same way, but I know some people here who prefer to do it the other way around, with the light coming from the east.

[JhekieJ]

Oh, okay. I haven't really noticed it before, tbh. It was just yesterday when I was looking at the map details, so I wondered if there was something more to it.

I tend to start from global or continent size because it makes it easier for me to gauge the distance of travel and the climate conditions of an area. But it usually depends on what I was making the map for. I guess, I kinda got a bit traumatized with a person who went overboard about a fantasy map I created a few years back. The questions went as far as geological behavior, movement of tectonic plates, soil composition, climate changes and gravity. Person harassed me to no end as I try to research and get answers for the questions. I know, it was absurd. It's a map for a fantasy roleplay with unexplainable magic-- anything is possible, right?

Nowadays when I get absurd questions, I just reply 'It's magic!'
But I still tend to check on some details that, at least, would be common sense like climate and distance. So, I still have the tendency to research deeper when I observe something on the maps I look and study. I'd like to be sure that I am not missing a reason for why it was like that or if there's a rule I should be following. So that if someone comes up to me and asks about the map, I have more replies aside from 'It's magic!'

Thank you for your insights and being patient with my inquiries.

[Kellerica]

Haha! Yeah, some people like to go with 101% realism with their fantasy creations - needless to say I'm not one of them I'm assuming they tend to be the more science oriented people in general, who get their enjoyment out of figuring that stuff out and I guess that is largely what makes worldbuilding fun for them. I'm much more of an emotional/creative type, all that stuff for me is basically just the stuff I need to get out of the way before I can move into the fun stuff. Of course it's important to give some thought to geography and such, so my world isn't insanely unrealistic (or at least give it a good explanation to why it is so), but in the end for me, it's less about the world and more about the creatures that inhabit it, you know?

And no problem at all, the pleasure is all mine! I always enjoy chatting with fellow worldbuilders. Given how few Nordic people there are on this forum, we're practically neighbours aren't we

[JhekieJ]

Haha! Yeah, some people like to go with 101% realism with their fantasy creations - needless to say I'm not one of them I'm assuming they tend to be the more science oriented people in general, who get their enjoyment out of figuring that stuff out and I guess that is largely what makes worldbuilding fun for them. I'm much more of an emotional/creative type, all that stuff for me is basically just the stuff I need to get out of the way before I can move into the fun stuff. Of course it's important to give some thought to geography and such, so my world isn't insanely unrealistic (or at least give it a good explanation to why it is so), but in the end for me, it's less about the world and more about the creatures that inhabit it, you know?

And no problem at all, the pleasure is all mine! I always enjoy chatting with fellow worldbuilders. Given how few Nordic people there are on this forum, we're practically neighbours aren't we

Yes, indeed we are. It always make me extra happy when I meet neighbours over the net.

Same with me! I am more interested with the lore and inhabitants of the worlds I create and the map is more an enhancement and backdrop to the history and their development. I think most my maps were shaped in reference to the history of the inhabitants and how they traversed their world. And I agree, I think it's the same with my need to check on climate and distance, some people needs to check on other things to make the map 'real' for them. Different strokes for different folks, it is sometimes fascinating.