Quote Originally Posted by Morgan View Post
@ jfrazierjr: Alas, the second image has no sketch, I drew it directly on photoshop. But I have an earlier sketch on paper, it's almost the same. Dunno if it can help you, but here it is:
Well dang it!! Don't do that!!!.. heh


Quote Originally Posted by Morgan View Post
I'm not sure I understand your last comment. What do you mean by going deeper? With central slope lines?
Yes... think in terms of a first step being the "top outline" of the mountain. So, in a simplistic terms, your upside down V's. Now draw an imaginary line between the bottom two points of the "V" and this is what I mean by baseline. By deeper, I just mean further into the "negative" from that baseline with your central spines (multiple appears better!!!). This mainly points to singular mountains as opposed to your approach which has multiple "peaks" in single brush as I have recently been playing with also..

For me, flat = bad. rounded = not bad, but not best either. jaggedly sort of roundy but not really round = really darn nice!

For me, the bottom row of the last image are the clear winners in overall style and 3D-ishness. BUT, then again, it also depends a huge amount on how you link them together... ie that extra bit of line shading around the base really helps make mountains pop. Even "flat" bottom mountain symbols look much better when you have added some additional shading between each symbol. On your last scan image, take off your "land" shading on both sides and just have the mountains themselves(including shading on the cliff faces but not any "horizontal shading. My guess is you will notice a huge difference(feel free to share both copies if you want) and that the one without the land shading will look much flatter....