I've now read through all of Max555's references and am currently looking at Varian's. I'm starting to get a grip on just how much I DON'T know about imaging. For example, lines. "The lines in your image should do this ... or that." WHAT lines? What are they talking about?! They don't show examples. And then there's Balance. "You should divide your picture into 3 irregularly sized sections." And then what? What do you do with the sections? Please see the attached image (rendered in Preview mode). Can some of you artist types please use this pic and explain what they mean by balance and lines? Or am I getting too hung up on this whole composition thing? PS: I did this image before I read anything about composition. Thanks in advance.

Well, for one thing, "lines" are generally kind of vague ways of determining focal point or motion. Your tree branches here, are "lines" pointing into the picture, and leading the eye towards other things. The one on the left seems to be pointing to the other one, which in turn is pointing mostly up and out, if that makes any sense...The grain in your ground texture seems to be pointing towards the right and into the distance, and the cloud "lines" are pointing towards the sun. This is actually pretty good as far as simple pics go. As for "balance", there's all kinds of balance: color balance, object balance, mood balance... Balance is a form of "tension and release" (a term occasionally used in music composition). "Balance" is really kind of subjective, but it's fairly simple: If it looks balanced, it generally is. This picture, to me, seems a little "right-heavy" in the balance, what with the "weight" of the trees and the sun both mostly to the right.

One thing you generally want to avoid, for some odd reason, is to have your main point of interest dead center. Of course, portraits and advertisements would be exceptions, most of the time. Equally, in "design", often perfect symmetry is desired.

And another form of balance would be in the dimensions of the image. Generally a vertical picture does better to have strong vertical elements in it (trees, buildings, people standing, etc), with some "balance" created by the addition of horizontal elements, and vice-versa for horizontal pictures. The best thing to do is to decide on a theme, like will it be predominantly vertical, or horizontal. Your theme, be it horizontal, vertical, or diagonal, then, should be the dominating element in he picture. This is largely opinion on my part, but most of it has come from alot of what I've read about art in general. There are always exceptions, and you don't want to become a slave to following the art "rules", because in the end, if it LOOKS good, it IS good.

Hey there Well lines are what you do when you set the pic up IE say you divide the canvas in to a grid and the choose were best to place the objects like in the top pic, Or for portraits it`s generaly a triangle you go with but any triangle shape will do say you have a person seated the head will be at the top of the triangle and the rest follows the shape it`s just a guide remember , And as a rule when you use only one object never place it smack bang in the middle of the canvas move it laft or right to give it more impact. Then you have your perspective lines which will start at the front and recede into the pic again these are just to guide you As for balance as mike said there are a few different things to consider IE lighting colours and ,say you have a tree on one side of the pic and nothing else that will full the eye into thinking the pic is going to tip over to the side the tree is on i could go on and on but mike has coverd quiet a few aspects and im sure others will also help hope it helps cheers dolly

Whatever you choose to do, if there's one "rule" which should be followed is to try to have on main point of interest. In theory, all the other elements of your picture should in some way highlight that main object, and complement it. "Lines" will point to it, shadows will cause it to stand out.... Rembrandt was real good at that sort of thing.

I wasn't considering the term "lines" in the way the manual uses it... thanks dolly. :)

Don't ever bother much with compo rules, I put things in a pic, shuffle 'm around till it feels OK to me, guess that's the only rule :)

I think this is a fine and elegant composition. Maybe you shouldn't take TOO TOO seriously all that can be written formally about composition because you seem to have a really good sense of it naturally. Still, what has been said above is very good too. Another very important aspect of composition is an interesting variance of the size and shape of things - ie: if everyting is about the same sixe, shape, color etc = boring. There is always the exception to the rules. ALWAYS! For instance in this composition of yours, there are few radical color shifts, but the differences between what is there is really striking and describes subtle nuance and mood. Nice. Go for it!

I'm another who doesn't pay much attention to the rules, although they really are a good guide. Of course, some of my renders suffer for that. I just go by eye, think it's more fun that way. To me, this scene isn't a matter of lines, but one of interest. I don't mean to say your subject isn't interesting, far from it. Dead trees on a flat plain can make for a fascinting picture. It's all in how you approach it. This is just my own taste speaking, but I'd lose the left 1/3 of the scene. There's just nothing happening there. If you don't want to do that, add something that spans the scene. Also, the terrain is extremely flat. I've been to some flat places in the world, but there's always some amount of bumpiness. A few boulders would add interest beyond the dead trees. Maybe a vulture circling around overhead. Even on a flat plain like this, I would expect to see some very distant mountains. Make em extremely low, and fade out a lot. I think lighting is the most important thing to consider. The sun appears to be ahead, just to the right. A very good position. But the trees are lit from behind the camera. Try letting the sun light the scene. Lots of shadow could make your subject very dramatic. I could be wrong, of course, but give it a try. I'm really interested in seeing what happens when you try some of the suggestions here. Be sure to post an update.

Well, you've gotten some excellent responses already on this! Here's my small addition. You can imaginatively divide an image into nine equal sections, like "drawing" a tic-tac-toe grid across it. The four points where the vertical and horizontal lines are the most compositionally=balanced areas to place your "center of interest." Note, as has been said already, none of these four points are in the center of the frame. Each one is a bit to the left or right of center, and a bit higher or lower than center. Pick one point and put your main item there. All else should "support" or "balance" it, because that item is what your image is about or for. In your sample image, which I think looks darn good, I'd move the sun to the upper-left point -- that's upper-left point of the imaginary tic-tac-toe grid -- and then I'd move it ever-so-slightly further to the left of the exact point. I think everything else in the image has a good balance and sense of interest. :)

I am ghasted with flabber! Thanks all for the comments and compliments (I sure didn't expect those). There is so much here and in the references that I'm a tad overwhelmed. So I guess it's off to buy a book. Right now it's between Susan Kitchen's recommendation, "Design Basics" and Varian's, "Artists Design: Probing The Hidden Order." Thanks again everyone.

Welp, here's a re-try with your suggestions implemented. A couple of points: 1) In the first pic the sun was the only light; it was lighting the scene. But I see what DigReal was talking about, I just don't know why it looks like that. 2) After moving the sun to the upper-left, I had to reduce its intensity. At its default setting, it washed out the entire sky. 3) I couldn't get those mountains to look right no matter what. Sheese, I stink at this. 4) The sun is the only light in this scene too. 5) I haven't been able to find either of the above mentioned design books. Barnes & Noble has neither one; Amazon wants way too much for "Design Basics" and doesn't have "The Hidden Order." Although they say they *might* be able to get it in 4 to 6 weeks. Can't find 'em on eBay, either. 6) The suggestions that I not take composition too seriously have not been lost on me. But I still want to learn about it. Thanks again everyone. I think my next try with this will be to lop off the entire left side of the scene and make it portrait oriented. Any further suggestions and comments, as always, are welcome.

It is looking good, I wouldn't change its orientation at this point. I had been suggesting to move the sun to the upper-left point of the tic-tac-toe grid, not the upper left corner of the frame. But where you have it really works for this, I think. The play of light and shadows that's been created on the foreground grasses is especially delightful. I'd call it done. :)

Attached Link: http://www.hiddenorder.com/

P.S. The Hidden Order can be purchased directly from the publisher at this link. Kind of pricey, but it's a book you'll keep handy for years to come. The basics never wear out. :)

What do ya mean you stink at this? I think it's turning out great! Really like the light and shading now, too. I love scenes like this. Will you be posting a larger version at some point?

Oh man, now I'm confused. I have to tell you guys that I like the second one less than I like the first one. And I don't like the first one all that much. Maybe I should confess here that I pretty much don't like anything I do. My images never seem right to me. That's why I don't post in the gallery. It's also why I said I stink at this. Anyway, in the second version of the scene, all detail in the trees is lost. That's one of the features I did like about the first one. And the clouds (the "lines") in the sky are gone. Plus, now it's harder to see that the trees and grass are sitting on top of a small plateau, separate from the plane below. By the way Varian, I'd forgotten that you gave me that URL. Thanks, I'll go there tomorrow. Also, I saw your recent comment on the redwoods. Thank you very much. I'll work on it some more and post the results. Thanks guys for everything. I'll get this one of these days.

I think you did fine, but I DO prefer the lighting and the strong shadows in the first one. Maybe try a non-volumetric atmosphere in a future version? Don't be shy--- everyone was new to Vue at one point or another. :)

Thanks for the encouragement, Mike. Guess I'm just pissed that I haven't caught on to this 3d thing as quickly as I caught on other computer endeavors in the past. By the by...this is a non-volumetric atmosphere.

Every time you make a major change to a scene, you're going to run into the same dilemma...some parts look better in the revision, some look better in the original. Try not to let it drive you crazy because you want to keep some hair on your head. grin The bottom line is that you have the final word on which is best. :)

Here's one thing which you might want to consider: If you have a paint or image editing program that is capable of "cloning" an image and then "painting" it into another, try making different renders of the same scene, with different lighting, etc, and rendering them ALL at the same size. in this way, you can open the different versions at once and "paint" the different versions together. I do it all the time, and I'v combined as many as 6 or 7 different renders into one, in this way.

Varian: But I have no taste! I can't judge (especially my own stuff) what looks good and what doesn't. And you're right about making changes...it does drive me crazy. I ordered Hidden Order this morning; they're sending it tomorrow. I got it $5 cheaper than the Amazon price and I don't have to wait. Thanks again. Mike: That's an interesting idea. Acutally, Photoshop is one of the past computer endeavors I referred to earlier. I started with v2.5 and caught on quickly and learned fast. I have tutored local photographers and at the local university. But I thought that was considered "cheating" here in the 3d world? You aren't supposed to do that in these contests are you?

Whatever works, ya know? Contests will usually state whether or not post work is allowed. If you're referring to the monthly challenges here, we don't have a policy, really, and it's just for fun, anyway. Even that could change too, though, because whoever wins, gets the right to make the rules for the following one. Most of my pictures have at least some postwork in them. Some have alot, and a few have none. Like I said, whatever works! Even "traditional" artists often use very much NON traditional techniques....

Like Mike said, whatever works! As a traditional artist, I used mixed materials all the time -- pen and ink with acrylic paint, watercolor with Magic Marker, colored pencil with pastel chalk -- the final result is what counts. :) And whattayamean you can't judge?? I have tutored local photographers and at the local university. You can't teach unless you know something, and because photography deals with imagery, you're bound to be knowing a lot more than how to choose an f-stop! My suggestion: don't try for perfection. Don't set out with the idea that you have to knock anyone's socks off. Just make "a nice picture". Then modify it -- change the lighting, add another model, color the sky differently, change the focal length on the camera -- in other words, P L A Y with it! When you're enjoying the PLAYing, the "perfection" takes care of itself. Probably something you've told your students. ;)

Well, okay guys, I'll keep playing. I'll post the thing again when I think it's OK. Thanks for the inspiration. Also...I finally printed the redwood scene for my aunt (from the old "Can You Guess..." thread). Some weird things happened to it in the render and print process. I'll post a small version of it in that thread.