FEEDBACK REQUEST: Can I make my map better?

[BlackVault]

Hi there. I've got a small map of the islands of my setting.

Any thoughts? Can I improve upon it?

The-Grey-Wastes-copy.png

What do you all think?

Any feedback SO appreciated.

Stewie

[Inky]

I'm absolutely in love with the way you use texture on the borders. The composition is good, reads well from a distance. I'm not very good at constructive criticism (don't quite feel experienced enough) but I really like the design as whole.

[waldronate]

I'm not real fond of the watermark as it's a bit distracting from the rest of it, but I suspect you can turn that off if you want. The clouds around the edge are a bit distracting for me as well, because they seem unrelated stylistically to the rest of the map (no linework). The coloring is nice and the overall palette seems to work fairly well together.

One thing that doesn't seem to fit well together is the apparently hand-drawn elements (coasts, cliffs, roads) and the embossed-texture mountains as shown in the upper-left. Unless those aren't really intended to be mountains, in which case it's hard to read what they should be. The trees seem to be a little small for the scale of the map and the linework on them is a bit finer as though they were stamped elements that were scaled down a bit from the default drawing size.

The horizontal line pattern in the water seems overly straight given the overall attempt at an organic feel. And the first coastal outline is far too heavy given the thickness and style of the coastline itself.

I just noticed that the scale shows the whole thing to be a fairly small island, meaning that the texture probably isn't mountains. Without seeing the scale, I wanted to read this as maybe 5 to 20 times larger than shown on that scale. It's probably just my own personal predisposition, though.

[Turambar]

I really love your texturing and trees. That said, I agree with waldronate on the scale being confusing, especially the difference between the large trees and very subdued mountains (?).

[Tiana]

I'm not real fond of the watermark as it's a bit distracting from the rest of it, but I suspect you can turn that off if you want.

It's not even really a good watermark because I can't actually read it. A good watermark will convey your information when the art leaves your hands, like a business card, not just make the art less usable to a thief.

I recommend putting your name, your portfolio if you have one, and the year the art was made in multiple places in clearly legible text, plus maybe a logo if you have one.

That said, I really like the map, it's got great texturing and energy to it. I was also very amused by the place names on it. The cloud frame works great to create contrast.

[BlackVault]

I'm not real fond of the watermark as it's a bit distracting from the rest of it, but I suspect you can turn that off if you want. The clouds around the edge are a bit distracting for me as well, because they seem unrelated stylistically to the rest of the map (no linework). The coloring is nice and the overall palette seems to work fairly well together.

THANK YOU!!!

What do you mean here by watermark? Which part in particular?

One thing that doesn't seem to fit well together is the apparently hand-drawn elements (coasts, cliffs, roads) and the embossed-texture mountains as shown in the upper-left. Unless those aren't really intended to be mountains, in which case it's hard to read what they should be. The trees seem to be a little small for the scale of the map and the linework on them is a bit finer as though they were stamped elements that were scaled down a bit from the default drawing size.

Great. Should I replace the hand-drawn mountains (top left) with the part on the right (that makes it clear it’s a cliff face / steep hilly part?

I just noticed that the scale shows the whole thing to be a fairly small island, meaning that the texture probably isn't mountains. Without seeing the scale, I wanted to read this as maybe 5 to 20 times larger than shown on that scale. It's probably just my own personal predisposition, though.

Hi there. The scale is very wrong. It should be 50 miles (and I'll put 5 markers in the scale so you can easily divide up to 10 miles). And you’re right, no mountains.

So overall. Like / dislike?

[BlackVault]

I really love your texturing and trees. That said, I agree with waldronate on the scale being confusing, especially the difference between the large trees and very subdued mountains (?).

Will it make a difference if the scale is 50 miles?

I thought I'd changed it!

[BlackVault]

It's not even really a good watermark because I can't actually read it. A good watermark will convey your information when the art leaves your hands, like a business card, not just make the art less usable to a thief.

I recommend putting your name, your portfolio if you have one, and the year the art was made in multiple places in clearly legible text, plus maybe a logo if you have one.

That said, I really like the map, it's got great texturing and energy to it. I was also very amused by the place names on it. The cloud frame works great to create contrast.

Thank you! I doubt anyone on here would even remotely steal it, was just being careful really. I've had sooo much work stolen (you'd not even believe).

Also, I removed 90% of the locations to avoid spoilers. I just kept a few for effect.

[XCali]

Okay, first thing. Love most of the style. Great texturing. Love the way you did the border clouds. Awesome texture for them. Also, your font and coloring of the labels is very effective. I like your cliffs and appreciate that you try and create different types of forests.

Onto feedback.
1. Maybe give a name to the border clouds. Like "The Great Shroud", what that then does is create a thematic reason for so much clouds to be there around this land.
2. I totally agree with the others ABOUT your mountains being not existent. If you are going to do your cliffs that way, it will be best to do lineart mountains as well. (Your texture does work as land.)
3. Um, some of your labels seem unfinished. "Generic Stuff" and "Scary Stuff" doesn't fit the theme of the vast majority of your other labels. And "Crystal" just on it's own doesn't give one much to think about. Maybe, Crystal Arch or Crystal Obelisk or something of the sort.
4. It's kind of odd with so many things named "Blood" in the same place. Maybe call the woods Crimson Woods, Sanguine Falls. It will break the overuse of blood while still keeping the theme.

Though, all that said, really good work so far! I really enjoy it.

[waldronate]

I recommend taking a look at your map from at least three different sizes (all readily attainable here at the guild): A very reduced-size preview (the thumbnail representative of the initial glimpse someone will catch of the artwork), a middle reduced-size view (roughly half of the full-size map, large enough to see the whole thing onscreen at once), and then the full-scale 1:1 or greater image (letting the viewer see all of the details).
What your brain catches from the thumbnail is a good overall opinion of the color balance and primary shape. All of the fine artwork and linework will tend to be invisible at this scale and just becomes shading. You should want to look at it closer to see more. On your map here, what I see is good color shading and there are enough hints to make we want to take a closer look. The cloud border looks like it has the potential to be especially interesting, especially as the very dark shadow underneath it makes the terrain seem at the bottom of a well of clouds. The texture mountains on the upper-left are just enough there that I'm interested to see how they look closer. Unfortunately, I also see a rectangular-shaped island and a GIGANTIC "BLACK" "VAULT" watermark across the image. I also don't see any hints that I can find out _where_ this place is from a closer look (no overall title at all).
The middle view shows shading and hints of nice artwork. The texture mountains on the upper-left are a little more defined, but still fairly diffuse (not so great). I can start to read some place-names, but still not a hint of an overall title. The bathtub ring around the coastline wants to read as the coastline itself at this scale. The cloud border looks flat and uninteresting at this scale.
The full view shows nice details. The coastal bathtub ring turned out not to be the coast at all and is very harsh on the eyes. The horizontal waterlines are way too prominent (drop their opacity by 50%, maybe?) The top-down texture mountains have faded to the point where it's not at all obvious that they are supposed to be mountains and their style clashes with the rest of the artwork. The cloud borders have gained some texture, but still feel flat. Are the clouds an artifact of the map style or a feature of the map? The clouds seem to have top-down lighting as well, which still clashes with the isometric hand-drawn elements.
At a thumbnail level, everything looks really good. At full scale, each item individually looks good. Put them together, though and I find it not particularly harmonious, although it was a little hard to say why at first glance. If you turn off the texturing and fills, does the map still carry the same impact from the artwork? That's one of those weird questions and relates back to the intended style and use. I personally don't like to mix linework and not-linework. Then again, my skills as a poor artist are also apparent from the few maps that I've done.
I still don't have any way to find out more about this place or other artwork by the artist (no title and no signature).