I think you've pushed hard to get to this less predictable and more enchanting final concept. I do think there's more to do and think about in terms of design as it relates to trying to think about your elements in a 'real-world' way. For example, what I like about your temple is the way it communicates clearly in regards to what it's made from and how it's constructed. This is not true of your other designs, where the doors are just black squares and the surfaces are just 'colour'. If you don't commit to a greater understanding of the materiality of your objects, you will struggle to model, texture and light them. You need to join more of the dots and close more of the gaps, Emily - I'm looking to you to demonstrate some independence here - that ability to reflect on the successes in one area of your project, and then apply them to everything else. I'm not suggest that all your other buildings are going to be made from brick, but I do want you to move your production art forwards in terms of design - and likewise your orthorgraphics. For example, right now, your windows are black squares stuck onto the surface of your objects, but a quick glance at 'real world' windows will tell you that you've got some decisions to make - are these windows recessed or extruded? Do they have surrounds or ledges? How is their glass divided or fixed in place and so on... It's the difference between drawing a thing and designing a thing, and whereas your temple feels like you 'designed something', the rest of your assets feel like they're merely drawings.
Just in terms of your temple - again - you need to push your understanding of this '3D object in-waiting' - if you look at the base of your temple - the way it meets the ground plane - you'll see that the curved, rather wobbly bottom of the building isn't practical; how will it sit on the ground plane if it's shaped like that? Your side orthograph shows that the bottom of the temple is actually flat, but this isn't true of your production art or your other orthographs. I'd like to see you push all of your assets further in terms of articulating them as production art - this might entail creating close-ups of the 'onion domes' so we can understand them properly - likewise the actual designs of the windows... You are going to need to understand all of these things technically and accurately if you're going to model effectively.
I think you've come a long way and I think your final concept painting is nicely atmospheric and I'm looking forward very much to seeing your temple model take shape, but I do want to see more work undertaken in terms of you dealing with the nitty gritty of your assets - no generic doors or windows please - no generic flat surfaces. There's more to be done here to ensure your digital set is as appealing and as enticing as possible.
OGR 23/11/2017
ReplyDeleteHi Emily,
I think you've pushed hard to get to this less predictable and more enchanting final concept. I do think there's more to do and think about in terms of design as it relates to trying to think about your elements in a 'real-world' way. For example, what I like about your temple is the way it communicates clearly in regards to what it's made from and how it's constructed. This is not true of your other designs, where the doors are just black squares and the surfaces are just 'colour'. If you don't commit to a greater understanding of the materiality of your objects, you will struggle to model, texture and light them. You need to join more of the dots and close more of the gaps, Emily - I'm looking to you to demonstrate some independence here - that ability to reflect on the successes in one area of your project, and then apply them to everything else. I'm not suggest that all your other buildings are going to be made from brick, but I do want you to move your production art forwards in terms of design - and likewise your orthorgraphics. For example, right now, your windows are black squares stuck onto the surface of your objects, but a quick glance at 'real world' windows will tell you that you've got some decisions to make - are these windows recessed or extruded? Do they have surrounds or ledges? How is their glass divided or fixed in place and so on... It's the difference between drawing a thing and designing a thing, and whereas your temple feels like you 'designed something', the rest of your assets feel like they're merely drawings.
Just in terms of your temple - again - you need to push your understanding of this '3D object in-waiting' - if you look at the base of your temple - the way it meets the ground plane - you'll see that the curved, rather wobbly bottom of the building isn't practical; how will it sit on the ground plane if it's shaped like that? Your side orthograph shows that the bottom of the temple is actually flat, but this isn't true of your production art or your other orthographs. I'd like to see you push all of your assets further in terms of articulating them as production art - this might entail creating close-ups of the 'onion domes' so we can understand them properly - likewise the actual designs of the windows... You are going to need to understand all of these things technically and accurately if you're going to model effectively.
I think you've come a long way and I think your final concept painting is nicely atmospheric and I'm looking forward very much to seeing your temple model take shape, but I do want to see more work undertaken in terms of you dealing with the nitty gritty of your assets - no generic doors or windows please - no generic flat surfaces. There's more to be done here to ensure your digital set is as appealing and as enticing as possible.