I think that I also like the original. I can't say that there is anything wrong with the second one, I just think that the first one fits the map better.
Ever the nay-sayer, I must admit I prefer the second one. There's something I like about it, the hint of very-realistic looking isometric forests, despite the very non-iso mountains. Somehow, stylistically, it just gels with me in a way your original forests do not.
I think, therefore I am a nerd.
Cogito, ergo sum nerdem.
Check out my blog: "The Undiscovered Author"
It's the story of a writer... follow me in my simple quest to get published, and share your own writing stories, adventures and writerly tips.
Pimping my worldmap here. Still WIP... long way to go, but I'm pretty proud of what I've done so far...
I am leaning towards the second style as well. It would be a more symbolic look for the forests, and due to the nature of your map that would be in interesting mix of realism and symbolism, but I think it just works. Ideally (in my opinion, of course), it should probably be somewhere in between style 1 and style 2, to retain the sense of realism, but add a shaggy edge to the forests that gives it a more tree-feel.
If that makes sense.
Individual trees could work, but those one in the second one, are a bit too fuzzy.. if you can make them look more like individual trees, then the style will work. That's my 2nd opinnion
I Will give this a new try and will see if I can tweak the forest further.
I call this one finished and I have posted the final result in the Finished maps area and in thread http://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=4903
In that thread I have couple of different modifications from this same map.
And thank you all from your thoughts and advices on the way.
-Pasi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
