[WIP] My First Map
Hi, Guys!
This is my first map and first post in cartographersguild!
I have done with photoshop and im not good at photoshop or even drawing.
so, any feedback is very welcome!
thanks!
mappy3-2.jpg
Welcome to the Guild, len424!
I think that this is a very nice first map. My only critique is that the "waves" along the coastlines are very box-like, and don't follow the coast so much.
Did you draw those mountains yourself? I love them...
*rep*
EDIT: I can't rep you at the moment...tomorrow though
That's a nice one. I like the vaguely european / mediteranian layout, and it's great to see a map with a decent amount of rivers for once.
The "waves", as Corilliant said, are a little immersion-breaking. They are clearly digital and in their current sharp and blocky style do not really fit with the softer blurred brushes you used. (StarRaven's: it is always polite to give credit for the elements you used).
You might try to give them a little blur, and, if it is possible, to reduce the opacity of the outer ones a little.
Consistency in these things is an important part of making a believable "ancient" map.
I agree with Corilliant about the waves. I assume you did them by going Select > Modify > Expand, and then setting a few pixels. If so, you can followit by going Select > Modify > Smooth. Definitely give it a try. It might also be worth applying a blur filter after you do that, and/or lowering the opacity of the waves layer.
Have some rep for your first map.
THW
Formerly TheHoarseWhisperer
Well what hit me in the eye is that none of your mountain ranges (with the exception of the far South one) could exist even in a sligtly realistic setting.
Mountains (almost) never branch off at right angles or describe semi circular shapes. Craters do but they look completely different.
Also by the direction of the rivers flow, the NE lake would have probably an outlet on the NW shore going towards the N ocean.
I agree with teh comments about the waves.
On the positive side I like the continent shape, the nicely irregular forests and the fact that rivers seem always to flow downhill (with the exception of the missing outlet of the NE lake).
As others have said, there are a few technical things wrong with this map, but actually, it's quite good (!) especially for a first post!
You have realistic continent shapes, nice islands and coastlines, good looking mountains (except for the angles), well drawn winding dendritic river shapes, and a very nice mix of forests and swamps in realistic patterns.
For a start, this is an excellent job!!!
If you consider that on these "old style" maps, the aim wasn't so much for geological accuracy as for a general feeling of "here be mountains", I wouldn't see that as a flaw in any kind of "even slightly realistic setting".Originally Posted by Deadshade
Just take a look at the famous Ortelius map of Europe... especially the area of Bohemia. Then jump into your time machine and chide the old master for not getting his map "realistic" enough.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine: I see a map as "realistic" when it fits the style it was meant to portray, not the object it is to show.
TY for all comments!!!
ill adjust coast line and... mountains.
no, i use Sketchy Cartography Brushes made by StarRaven!
ty, StarRaven!
http://www.deviantart.com/art/Sketch...shes-198264358
can you explain more about mountain ranges or rivers? its so hard for me...
and thanks again for all great feedbacks!
Last edited by len424; 02-02-2015 at 08:52 AM.
Rivers are easy (more or less). Basically, rivers start somewhere high and run towards low ground, until they reach their end, most commonly the ocean. Rivers usually do not split, and (natural) rivers never connect two oceans. Don't worry too much about that: your rivers are fine.
Mountains are a little more problematic. Mountains are formed by geological processes, based on the movement of the continental plates. So to get it "realistical": when you have mountains, that means that somewhen it the geological history of your world, two plates once met there. This usually results in certain types of mountain chains, and, more important, usually does NOT result in some other, aethetically pleasing, but geologically wrong types of mountains.
A geologist will always look at some "cartographical" mountains and ask: how they heck did that happen? This cannot happen!
BUT....! (pet peeve incomming)
In "fantasy" cartography, you have to consider two things.
First, the cartographer wasn't really interested in "realistically" showing the area, or didn't even have the means to do so. Geographical surveying and resulting attempts to "correctly" portray elevations are a thing of the modern era. In "old" maps, you only find those little "mountain" symbols. And often they got it wrong / not quite right... espcially if they were mapping "unknown" foreign areas.
Second, espcially in "high fantasy" cartography... who is to say how mountains arose? Continental drift, or Melkor raising up the Misty Mountains to hinder Orome's hunting?
Last edited by Freodin; 02-02-2015 at 10:30 AM.
Well this is not a good example.
As I happen to have been born in Bohemia, your link is rather an example of a very realistic map where the mountains and everything else are on the right places.
A realistic Bohemia looks like a diamond with mountains and hills on all 4 sides and that is among others the reason why it created a natural frontier between the old slavic and germanic worlds with only a few enclaves for this or that historical reason.
Even the only gap in the mountains through which flows the Elbe river into Germany is accurately positionned.
Same for the Carpathian mountains which accurately start only in Slovakia. Etc.
The only very minor comment would be that the "altitudes" seem incorrectly be the same but as obviously this was not the author's concern, I would certainly not reproach him that.
What you talked about is consistency and not realismus.
A map or a picture can be consistent but utterly irrealistic.
Realistic means "that what represents things as they really are". And as we know only one reality, there is no ambiguity about what that means.
Representing a square moon or an upward flowing river can be done but is definitely not representing the things as they really are.
Mountains can be whatever one wants when one puts irrealistic magical forces in play and despite being consistent with those magical forces, they will still stay irrealistic.
That's why I added in my comment "even in a slightly realistic setting" to make sure that my comment is understood as applying only to realistic settings.
If the setting was not meant to be realistic then the comment despite being correct would be obviously irrelevant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
