I may have found my biggest problem. Monitor was way out of calibration. I couldn't see the image as you all saw it. The elephant in the room was the "ceiling" and the back "wall" that were supposed to be obscured. I think my calibration is fixed now. I am posting an updated version to the thread below. If you have a minute could you take a look please? Let me know if you can still see sharp transitions where there should be none. Please tell me if it still looks like crap on your screen.
I received some help in another thread and think that the water in this is looking better but it feels like something is still missing. I suppose the best way to improve something is to have the flaws and shortcomings brought out by experts. Here is the image, please have at it. Tell me what it needs to make it better.
Dec 18 12 05:54 pm Link
Your floor's vanishing point is so different from your ceiling's that it's distracting.
Water is actually more reflective at grazing angles. Most things are. It's called Fresnel reflection. That would make the water at the far end of the corridor more reflective.
You have two lumpy 'mirrors' facing each other. That's a fairly complex thing to show.
Your 'caustics' seem too large.
Do the walls have sideways gravity? Or are they behind glass?
Dec 18 12 06:07 pm Link
Follow the row of bricks horizontally from the rear knee until it hits the water wall edge. Now follow an imaginary line straight up.
You end up nowhere near the hands, even though the hands and rear knee would be at a similar z depth.
Or follow a line down from the hands to the floor. That row of bricks you hit is well behind the person.
Dec 18 12 06:34 pm Link
The walls have sideways gravity. At least that's the intention. What are caustics?
I'm sorry but I am having trouble grasping what you are saying with regard to the relationship of the hand to the knee. Oh! Wait, I see, the reflected images are too far forward.
Dec 18 12 06:53 pm Link
Dec 19 12 10:22 am Link
Lodi, California, US
for the shadow to be at that angle, the light source would show in the image.
I think it would be better for the shadow to go more to the back with a contact
Dec 19 12 12:03 pm Link
West Plains, Missouri, US
I would brighten it up at the top, and add waves/ whitecaps and maybe some spray. Im not nearly so good as you are with manips, obviously, so this is just my 2 cents. I think that would further illustrate that what the observer is looking at is indeed water she is holding back. And maybe a big shark chasing some tuna in there. lol.
Dec 19 12 12:09 pm Link
Motordrive Photography wrote:
My intention was to make the light source actually come from within the water. That is one of the areas that needs work.
Dec 19 12 05:09 pm Link
RG Cochran wrote:
The top has been a bit of a bugaboo for me. Since it is intended to be from a view below the top, I can't add the whitecaps, only waves as would be seen from underneath. The hard part has been transitioning the wall of water to empty airspace. Some spray might help with that. I like the idea of adding a shark or some sort of aquatic life to the image. That will be in the revision for sure while I am fixing the perspective and her reflections.
Dec 19 12 05:11 pm Link
Thank you NothingIsRealButTheGirl, for taking the time to mark that up and post it for me. I totally see what you are saying.
Dec 19 12 05:34 pm Link
Dec 30 12 03:11 pm Link
Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
The angle, color, overblend, light problems. To make a manipulation realistic you have to take all these elements in consideration
Jan 02 13 04:16 pm Link