Attached Link: Palms

Can't say about nature in general, but plants can be very hard. I've just spent 9 months working on palms, date and coconut palms in particular. While the final results seem to be good, what a nightmare getting to this point.

Oddly, 3D handles palms fairly well, at least the high-end programs do. It has to do with their relative symmetry I suspect, the math is easier to work out. That same symmetry is what makes them so difficult to do as 2D media (nozzles/tubes).

The other advantage with 3D is the ease with which you can change POV. So it's easy to look up through fronds canopies, etc. With 2D, you often need a new set of tools for that. The difference is in detail, texture and realism IMO. It would be very difficult even for advanced programs to achieve the level of detail possible with 2D palms, and the render hit could be huge.

Unless you're making a game or movie where the camera tilts up and around while moving through the scene, I'm not sure 3D is the better alternative. It can be easier, but often people prefer realism, particularly if the final result is a 2D image. Where the final is 2D, "post-processing is no sin," although it does have it's own set of problems (hi Scott, and thanks).

The real challenge, other than addressing California Palms and some very neat wild grasses not attempted yet :), is distant tree foliage like the kind you see covering a mountainsides or coastal hills (http://www.gardenhose.com/farshore.hts or http://www.gardenhose.com/tropics.htm).

These are only half-finished first attempts discovered by accident while testing new tools. It's clear (to me), however, that there's a real, fast and effective solution hiding somewhere nearby, whether for pines, oaks, rain forests, etc. Achieving it will take longer and prove harder than a person might reasonably expect, unfortunately.

My 2 cents worth anyway. Interesting topic.

Dennis@DigArts
http://www.gardenhose.com