J's Inkman Experiment thread

[Wingshaw]

That latest picture is fantastic! The rock formations, the ridge of the caldera, the sheer coastal cliffs; it is all masterfully done. Can't wait to see it coloured. It still does not have the ruggedness of a mountain range, but then I don't think a caldera like this needs to be so rugged.

When you draw these, are they all pen on paper? Do you have a method you could explain?

THW

[J.Edward]

THW - They are almost all pencil on paper. Sometimes I'll do them in pen but only if that is the end result. If I'm going to color them I use pencil.
Um, well, I guess after I finish the color version of the caldera I could try to throw together a bit of explanation. I don't follow any rigid process.
Though I do tend to do some similar things when coloring pencil works.
I'm doing the color right now and I think I'll be done by tonight. So possibly tomorrow when I put it up I can get to that.

As a side note, you and chick both think that the mountains should be much more rugged.
Can you link to a map that does this in a way you think is rugged enough?
And again, thanks for the feedback.

[Sapiento]

Excellent piece. A very fine composition.

[Wingshaw]

THW - They are almost all pencil on paper. Sometimes I'll do them in pen but only if that is the end result. If I'm going to color them I use pencil.
Um, well, I guess after I finish the color version of the caldera I could try to throw together a bit of explanation. I don't follow any rigid process.
Though I do tend to do some similar things when coloring pencil works.
I'm doing the color right now and I think I'll be done by tonight. So possibly tomorrow when I put it up I can get to that.

As a side note, you and chick both think that the mountains should be much more rugged.
Can you link to a map that does this in a way you think is rugged enough?
And again, thanks for the feedback.

I am surprised that pencil drawings scan so well. I've always found that the contrast and brightness get all messed up when I try to scan a pencil drawing.

I'll give two examples of rugged mountains, one by me and the other by Max:
Mine: http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...chmentid=62473
Max's: http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...chmentid=68838

I make no claim that these are the best examples, but they are the first to come to mind. Clearly they have very different styles (personally, I like mine more; no disrespect intended to Max) and methods: I believe Max almost always works with a graphics tablet, whereas I, like you, use pen and pencil.

I spent a little while looking at your mountains from the second most recent drawing (like I said, the caldera looks great as a non-rugged formation, in my opinion). A few things come to mind:
--the sides of your mountains look fairly straight, like an upside down V-shape. In both mine and Max's, the sides of the mountain curve inwards, so the slope is shallow at the bottom, and steeper as you go up (shading has a bit of a role here, too);
--your mountains appear as single ridges, whereas mine and his have numerous spurs and outcrops coming from them, and valleys between. I think, from this observation, that your mountains suit a more local-scale map (hence the caldera being perfect) whereas the ones I did are more realistic for something on a larger scale.
--the shadows are more mixed on mine and Max's than they are on yours: on yours, all the shadows seem to be on one side of the mountains, whereas on mine, there are shadows and highlights on both sides, marking areas where lumps of rock on the lit side are casting shadows, and where spurs on the shadowed side are catching glints of light (mine actually isn't quite as clear on this regard as I would like it to be; Max's might be a better example of this).

Hope that's helpful.

THW

[Sapiento]

I am surprised that pencil drawings scan so well. I've always found that the contrast and brightness get all messed up when I try to scan a pencil drawing.

I'll give two examples of rugged mountains, one by me and the other by Max:
Mine: http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...chmentid=62473
Max's: http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...chmentid=68838

I make no claim that these are the best examples, but they are the first to come to mind. Clearly they have very different styles (personally, I like mine more; no disrespect intended to Max) and methods: I believe Max almost always works with a graphics tablet, whereas I, like you, use pen and pencil.

I spent a little while looking at your mountains from the second most recent drawing (like I said, the caldera looks great as a non-rugged formation, in my opinion). A few things come to mind:
--the sides of your mountains look fairly straight, like an upside down V-shape. In both mine and Max's, the sides of the mountain curve inwards, so the slope is shallow at the bottom, and steeper as you go up (shading has a bit of a role here, too);
--your mountains appear as single ridges, whereas mine and his have numerous spurs and outcrops coming from them, and valleys between. I think, from this observation, that your mountains suit a more local-scale map (hence the caldera being perfect) whereas the ones I did are more realistic for something on a larger scale.
--the shadows are more mixed on mine and Max's than they are on yours: on yours, all the shadows seem to be on one side of the mountains, whereas on mine, there are shadows and highlights on both sides, marking areas where lumps of rock on the lit side are casting shadows, and where spurs on the shadowed side are catching glints of light (mine actually isn't quite as clear on this regard as I would like it to be; Max's might be a better example of this).

Hope that's helpful.

THW

The caldera map has a different approach for portraying mountains, so IMO your suggestions and comparisons with your or Max's (or mine) mountain style is not very appropriate - it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Not all mountains are rugged with a zigzag ridge everywhere, the same goes for the sides of the mountains.
The caldera looks like a drawing of a real existing place, what I could not always say from most of my maps - mostly mountains or other geographic elements are drawn with some artistic freedom that not necessarily catches reality to 100%. After all, maps are art.

[Wingshaw]

The caldera map has a different approach for portraying mountains, so IMO your suggestions and comparisons with your or Max's (or mine) mountain style is not very appropriate - it's like comparing apples and oranges.
Not all mountains are rugged with a zigzag ridge everywhere, the same goes for the sides of the mountains.
The caldera looks like a drawing of a real existing place, what I could not always say from most of my maps - mostly mountains or other geographic elements are drawn with some artistic freedom that not necessarily catches reality to 100%. After all, maps are art.

I agree. I offered those maps in response to J.Edwards request for alternative examples. Everyone's style is different; all mountains are different. Some mountain ranges are relatively smooth, but many others are jagged and rough. I think it is justified therefore to encourage J.Edward with a more rugged mountain style, so he can do both.

THW

[J.Edward]

So here's the color version of Shab'Ra'Tan
Shab'ra'tan 01c [L] by sirinkman.jpg

I'm pretty pleased with how this turned out but as always I welcome any feedback. This one is unlikely to change but you might notice something I didn't.
As regards the previous feedback - THW - thanks for all that. It's interesting that you used Max's Gh'orna as an example. I stated at the beginning that this was what inspired me to do this process. I will add that I don't think Max's is as 'rugged' as you would say. Look at the ridge line - it's more uniform than my second attempt on Paloket.
That's no dig at Max either. I love that Gh'orna map - just as it is.
As regards your map - it's a very different set of mountains to be sure. I do believe that the local versus regional thing does play into it. And when I am doing a larger regional map I will have to take that into account.

All that being said, I do agree with Sapiento in regards. I've hiked and climbed many mountains. Photographed even more. There are many mountain/hill types that do not follow that model. I think maybe the area one is from can influence one's view on things. I'm from central PA and there are ranges here that differ from most across the world.
Long straight ranges that run for miles with zero zigzag. They're more humped or domed. I've encountered a lot in New York state that are more domed.
I'm sure that affects my view on mountain and hill shapes generally. I do try different forms and shapes.
I try all sorts of things. You are only seeing a minute fraction of the work that I do. That's kind of why I started this thread.
I do a lot of maps but many don't go all the way to a finished map. There's just not enough time in a day, week, year, etc. to complete them.

Later, if I have time I might post some examples of some mountains and islands that I liked and used as inspiration in the past. There are some very interesting shapes and forms in northen Africa and throughout the middle east that I like. And many cool islands with mountains that may surprise you.

All that aside, I will be redoing the Tol'Imen lands. The ranges just don't look right. And I will give it a go at something more varied and rugged.

[Abu Lafia]

No remarks, just here to say: WOOOOOOWW! My mind is ready for immersion . The perspective labelling of the Sea is just the icing on the (amzing) cake...

[Ilanthar]

That caldera map is awesome! My only nitpick : I would like to see more easily the details of that temple of magma .

[arsheesh]

Damn. That is fine work Inkman.

Cheers,
-Arsheesh