How do I draw mountains better? Images inserted. Looking for Feedback/criticism

[Havercakes24]

This style is based off The Atlas of Middle Earth by Karen Wynn Fonstad. I'm trying for the more 3d look here. All feedback, advice, and criticism is appreciated. WIP Mountains 2.jpgWip Mountains.jpgWIP Mountains 3.jpg WIP Mountians 4.jpgMountains WIP 5.jpg

New image update: Hope to try TheHourseWhisperers style tommarrow I definitely need a reference image in front of me to draw that. I like the way this sketch came out, but I look to improve. Looking for criticism. Especially the shading I agree with Lingon that shading is very important its something I'm not very proficient in so if it looks off or dumb please let me know.

[Midgardsormr]

That's looking pretty good to start with, so you're on the right track. Your line work is very sketchy; I think you could do a bit to refine the final look if you sketch in your mountains lightly with a hard, sharp pencil, then finish them more deliberately with strong, confident strokes in ink. The image on the right looks particularly good in the thumbnail, where the doubled-up sketchy lines aren't as evident.

I don't think you need the border line around the mountains. There isn't usually a hard division between where the mountain is and where it isn't, and the distinct border is adding a little visual confusion that you don't need. Though looking at Fonstad's work, she has indeed done the same thing. Still, I find it distracting.

If you want to enhance the 3d appearance, you could do a little bit of shading. A soft light grey or brown wash on one face of the mountains would do it. Or you could even do it by reducing the density of lines on one side to make it appear lighter. You might also experiment with a small perspective effect, making the mountains at the bottom of the page a little larger than the ones at the top.

By the way, the usual abbreviation for Mountain is Mtn, not Mnt.

I really like this style; looking forward to seeing how you develop it.

[Deadshade]

I have been experimenting with that for 2 weeks in Wilbur now.
I find that making realistic mountains with a sofware is the most difficult thing in a (realistic) map.

The most frequent errors are :
- it looks like an ellipsoid blob glued on a plane (like the first image from the left above)
- it has a straight line as crest (the blob being generally symmetrical with regard to the crest)
- the sides are regular planes with more or less constant slope

The real mountains and mountain ranges are approximately fractal. That means that you have smooth planes almost nowhere.
The crest is not a line but is extremely broken both vertically and horizontally.
I have sketched you right now a bit of a mountain range - as you can see, there are no straight lines and no smooth planes anywhere. Of course this was just a 5 minutes job so it is not very polished but it is just to give the idea.
Attachment 68734

Like it was said above, I find that the best way is to draw the mountain first as seen in perspective from the ground and if you want to see it from above, then make a projection on a horizontal plane (or imagine that you rotate your point of view from ground towards some point above the mountains looking down). This may take some training.

Range.png

[Havercakes24]

Thanks for the feedback. This is what I was looking for. Also thanks for the heads up on the Mtn thing hehe.

[Havercakes24]

Yeah. I have been really lazy in trying to push my art style for my maps over the last 2 years. It will take some practice. Thanks for the picture and feedback!

[Wingshaw]

I don't fully agree with Midgardsormr about the sketchy issue. I think sketchy mountains can look good, if it is consistent with the map style (I cite my own work as an example). Nor do I think shading is what is lacking in your examples, since image 2 does seem to have shading (but yes, shading on mountains is crucial). I do agree with him/her about the border line around the mountains.

A good online guide is this one. Just scroll down to 'drawing realistic mountains (hard)'.

Your current examples really are off to a good start, but here are a few thoughts I have had that may help you improve them:
--it may help to keep in mind that the lines you draw are always going to be ridges. I generally try not to include lines for valleys, because that confuses things. If you keep this principle in mind, you can set up a simple method: start with the highest ridge (the mountain range); and then a few ridges coming down from the highest peaks; and then a few ridges coming down from those other ridges; and a few more, and so on. At the moment, your lines look a bit random. They don't come off each other in a realistic way.
--one thing I think isn't working in your examples is that too much of the far side of each range is visible. If you imagine that the mountains are being viewed by a bird, then it can only see one side at a time, and a bit of what pokes out from peaks and ridges. By showing too much of the opposite side of the range, the angle of view changes to almost directly over the mountains. Unfortunately, doing as I am suggesting does mean your mountains will hide a bit of what is behind, but that is the nature of mapmaking: deciding what to show and what to conceal. Deadshade's picture does a good example, I think.
--as a little trick that enhances mountains and, I think, makes a map look more atmospheric: if you've drawn in mountains and there is ugly empty space between, putting some wispy clouds in can work nicely.
--also, as Deadshade points out, really understanding how ridgelines are not straight horizontally or vertically is a good point. I'm sure you've already done plenty of research, but I always think it helps to look at pictures (and fortunately, mtn pictures are common).

Simple practice may be the key. Find photos of mountains and/or mountains done by members of the Guild, and try to copy them as exactly as you can (but be sure not to publicly display any copy that hasn't been approved by its original creator). I think if you do that a couple of times, you should get the hang of it.

Hope that helps.

THW

[Havercakes24]

I see. I appreciate all the feedback. My main problem is that the angle I am drawing these things at is somewhat skewed. The mountains are not being drown horizontally but at a angle or going vertically straight up and down. This is what I struggle with. I am not trying for a birds eye view. So I have to figure out a better angle. I agree with all of your assessment that the ridge line is probably where I should start and just keep going from there. I like the pictures submitted by both you and Deadshade, already taking a close glance at your map is already giving me a better idea. I just want to draw them in a more vertical fashion as indicated by my pictures. But I agree I just need to keep practicing at it, as this level of art is something very new to a scrub like me. Thanks again for your feedback. Hope to keep getting it when I update the map WIP.

[Deadshade]

So I have to figure out a better angle. I agree with all of your assessment that the ridge line is probably where I should start and just keep going from there. I like the pictures submitted by both you and Deadshade, already taking a close glance at your map is already giving me a better idea. I just want to draw them in a more vertical fashion as indicated by my pictures. .

You know, it is not a very good idea going to a "more vertical fashion" for mountains. It is great for lakes or rivers because they have strictly horizontal structures.
Mountains are quite an opposite - it is their vertical structure that makes them mountains.
So as I said above, when your angle of view (0° being you are on ground and 90° you are vertically above) is increasing, what you see is more and more an orthogonal projection of the mountain on the ground.

And guess what it does .
It destroys the vertical structure ! So your mountain becomes less and less mountainous. You loose ridges, peaks and crests and you finish just with a thin and long quite structurless feature.
The only thing that would bring some contrast are colors like valleys that are brown/green and tops/glaciers that are white and shadows (that's why Thehoarsewhisperer is right by saying that shading is paramount for mountains).
But if there is little color contrast and no strong light casting shadows, you couldn't make a difference between a mountain range and a frozen snow covered lake if your angle of view is high.

As for the drawing technique, the best is indeed to do what Thehoarsewhisperer said and that is also how I did my fast sketch.
You start with a ridge (in my example I started with the ridge on the left side). Then when you feel that you have been drawing a single line for a too long time, you make it 2 lines then 1 of the 2 you double again and get back to the original ridge. By progressing like that from left to right and realizing that at low points there will be other parts of the range emerging behind, you get something like what I did.
Then you refine the secondary ridges (for example I added a glacier coming down on the left side) and add shading.

If you want (and you would want) to make it more beautiful, you would then draw the foothills that are much nearer to the place where you stand (perhaps with a few copses on them) e.g the way how the mountain merges with the plain. I have always found that this finishing touch was what really makes a believable mountain scene because it shows a smooth transition and allows to realize the scale.
Btw you note that all this can be done with only black and white if your angle is low. Colors would be a bonus but are not really necessary.

[Lingon]

In my opinion, the most important thing that makes a mountain range look like a mountain range is the shadows. You can have lots of peaks or a smooth ridge, tons of sketchy lines or few confident lines, every little valley shown or none at all, anything, if you have a strong light source that is consistent across the map. One lit side and one in shadow makes it look like it rises from the rest, and that sells it as mountains right away, no matter how detailed or abstract, clean or sketchy, isometric or top-down they are. The amount of details and neatness and the perspective depends completely on the rest of the map and your personal taste.