This is a new pic that I made using a photoreference, I know that in a way the wolf howling at the moon is a cliched image, but I still find it compelling...in the original photo, the wolf is seen in sillohette only...I imitated the pose and camera angle of the reference which is why only one of the wolf's front legs is showing...some other howling wolf reference photos I looked at show the front legs are pretty much square with the shoulders, it must be a pretty typical stance while howling, even when the wolf is sitting on its back haunches. 1. I wanted to see if I could get a decent pic using the Bryce moon and starfield...I think I did fairly well. I had seen some very nice pics in the gallery using only the native Bryce moon and starfield but I had not been successful with my previous attempts. I had a lot more experience this time around. It is very tempting to use Universe for stars, and it's difficult to keep the moon round instead of egg-shaped. 2. It is difficult to make a night scene without making the objects too light or too dark. I was going for the way things look when lit by the full moon after your eyes get used to moonlight. 3. I haven't used the Poser wolf in many images. I like wolves in paintings and photos, and had wanted to try something using the Poser wolf that was appropriate. I liked the results I got very much, and have already posted this pic in my gallery, but am interested in what the members here think about this picture, especially the moon and stars.

the outline seems to be too sharp for my liking and the bryce starfield never looks right - nature of the beast.I found a way with an upended terrain and some wierd tex I d/L from somewhere (challenge entry).It's a classic pose though not to be barked at!.

Looks pretty good for using only the Bryce Starfield/moon. Mine have yet to come out that well. :)

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=305568&Start=1&Artist=Quest&ByArtist=Yes

Tjohn, LOL...hmmmmmmm, yes, I see what you mean about being a clichimage. Anyway, I found that I had to subdue the lighting in such a way that the textures in the foreground were barely visible. The ferns just barely have color, the closest tree texture grain is barely discernable and the wolf's fur can hardly be made out. Because of the moonbeams and apparent brightness of the full moon, the glare from the fog wiped out all traces of the lunar features. You could post-work it so that the moon retains its surface features. I think that the stars are too pin pointed and IMHO need some stellar aberrations to give them that twinkling appearance. Overall, I know what you mean by it being a compelling image .

Quest: Your image is very, very, good, great render and composition. But that's a VERY bright moon. Are you sure that isn't the Bryce sun? :^) The moon in my pic was as bright as I could get it inside of Bryce 5. Check item 1 under my original post. I was trying my best to use native Bryce without postwork on the sky, to see how good that I could get that to work. I agree with everything you say, I was testing my skill with Bryce 5. Normally I would just create a starfield with the Universe plug-in in Photoshop Elements, and slap a moon texture on a sphere in Bryce. But that would have been cheating under the rules I wrote myself to follow (I was trying to challenge myself. Nothing wrong with postwork, but I felt I wasn't learning the true limits of the program itself.) Thanks to all for your comments! Tjohn

Well, yes, that's my point that, like you, in my attempt to bring the brightness of a moonlit night scene, all my lunar features were washed out. And yes, I could have post-worked it so that the moon would show the features but, also like you, I decided to leave it as is, maybe in some future rework. LOL...and yes, the sky lab did show it to be the Bryce moon. I'm in agreement that it's difficult and challenging jugling a nightscene with its shadows and nocturnal glow. I find that Bryce, as great a program as it is, is sometimes limited and would not allow for the finer adjustments that sometimes have to be done outside the package using other software.

tjohn, maybe if the moon is more,hmmm,towards the yellow end might help...as for the lighting I have some photos of things in moonlight and the fur on the back of your wolf would be lit but anything facing away from the direct light will be in shadow, as moonlight in essence is reflected light after all (after standing out in sub zero weather, in full moonlight, to photograph an elk herd, my eyes never adjusted to the degree where you can make out that kind of detail on an animal)...but with Bryce you did an excellent job...

Under the right conditions, there can be more diffuse light (a slight cloudiness for example), but for most conditions you are correct. Bryce is thankfully, more versatile than a camera. As with painting, the artist can create images with impossible lighting in order to highlight those things he/she wishes to (like the fur texture of a wolf, fur instance :^) ) A yellow moon would warm the pic too much for me. I wanted it to feel cold, a bit lonesome (thus the blue fog/clouds), I wanted the viewer to "hear" the wolf howl. A limited success, but I do like the results.