Valhalla -- I Just Got Photoshop!
Hello Guild,
I'm on a diehard quest to create superb, realistic topography, without having to resort to DEM data, which I discovered I didn't have the patience for anyway. USGS wouldn't respond during a DEM download for over 30 minutes, so I temporarily gave up and attempted another makeshift algorithm, specially adapted for Photoshop, which I happen to have a trial version of. (Finally!!)
So, before I go naming towns, rivers, and such, I wanted to inquire from all of you: how "realistic" is this map, based on how closely it conforms to what you'd expect out of an atlas?
Is there anything you can recommend to make this better?
If I achieve success and meet my high standards, yes I plan to write a tutorial. For now, however, it's all very experimental.
Hope you're not disappointed.
Peter
Valhalla.png
Hi! Nice work! Clean and neat! All i can say is that there is a bit too much mountains in my opinion; it seems that from the mountain to the sea it descent at a regular steep, while in reality the mountain part are much much more steep than the plains part. Did you use fractals? Because it feels so. However the result is pretty, i just try to stretch the plains more inland.
It's very fractal and thus very good! The rivers may be a little too jagged. It's mountain-heavy too, that's true. If you meant it to be this way, it's fine, but you would normally expect more variety in slope steepness in reality. ^^ I love the colours and the shape though.
My website (commissions open)
My LinkTree (to find me everywhere)
I think scale matters here. If this is continental in size, then yes, I would say that there is an excess of mountains and a lack of plains. OTOH, if this is a fairly narrow mountainous isthmus, possibly even in a period following rising sea levels that covered a bit of coastal plains, then I think it is fine.
Wow, that's impressive (and I'm already waiting for the tutorial! xD).
I love the colors, although I'd tone down the topographic lines a bit, maybe trying another color and/or opacity level.
Hello Michi, Eowyn, rdanhenry, and Bruno,
Thank you so much for your responses and critiques. I originally wanted a smaller scale to show mountain detail, knowing that a continental scale would make the contour markers very close and cluttered. (I know the other option, using a higher resolution, was out of the question due to computer limitations.)
I did start out with a fractal, which I modified extensively (and playfully) until I reached a result that merely looked aesthetically pleasing, but not necessarily geologically accurate. Yes, I JUST noticed the jagged rivers; I believe it resulted due to incorrect settings on GIMP's river finding algorithm (Incise Flow), but admittedly 99% my own negligence!
My only problem with writing a tutorial is my own unattainable standards: even though I'm making better maps (thanks to many of your honest critiques), I still think I could do FAR better. I'm striving to become a leading fantasy cartographer, like vorropaiah, but with my own distinct style. That might take decades, and by then who knows, computer technology will probably be able to mimic terrestrial topography better than even the finest artisan on this Guild. (I pray that doesn't happen in my lifetime, though.)
At any rate, thank you for your honest, professional opinions; I shall use them to create another, hopefully better, map.
Peter
Looks good but I would smooth some aspects of it, in Nature the erosion would work out a lot of the fractal coasts and features you have there.Originally Posted by Peter Toth
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
