GR#111 - Isle of the Dead - Pixel Artwork

[Facet]

I see what you mean now about the map vs projection but I'd reckon the idea will be lost on the great majority of viewers and I think the image of the skull only becoming apparent from the one viewpoint, Holbein style, might be more effective.

Regarding trees etc. sorry, I must have skimmed a bit; the first image is well catered for in this regard . Other stuff; to my mind the choice of more rounded rock formations is puzzling considering the pronounced planar qualities of the source image.

You seem already to have incorporated more of that rock-cut temple idea, sounds great to me

[Manupix]

Latest:



New Petra-inspired background; some slight detail fixes in fg; and a try at more convincing water ('wavy' reflections).
Also back to full color: I've realized I had a number of time-costly palette mistakes in the greyscale versions that were just getting out of hand due to the growing number of layers.

Petra references here; and this one in particular for what I'd like the more natural parts of the island to look like (possibly too much detail there considering the scale I'm working at and the available space).

The idea of the rounded rocks is (was?) to provide a contrast between Boecklin's harbour and the rest of the island. This contrast was supposed to be built through gradients of light, detail and rock shapes: brighter, more angularly man-made and detailed in front. I now see plainly that the previous versions shapes were out of character, esp in the first version it looks like a different image altogether. Hopefully it's better integrated now.

I see what you mean now about the map vs projection but I'd reckon the idea will be lost on the great majority of viewers and I think the image of the skull only becoming apparent from the one viewpoint, Holbein style, might be more effective.

Not sure we understand each other there
My point is not idea here but visual consistency: I see the perspective as wrong if the skull shape isn't flattened down to the iso plane.
Are you suggesting that I'm losing readability this way? (I don't think you do, but I'd rather be sure!)

[Facet]

Improvements a gogo them some sexy temples, much better rocks and the reinstatement of the palette brings the whole thing alive. Minor niggle; I preferred the mirror-like still water.

To clarify what I meant about the perspective; I'm advocating having the isometric projection of the island resemble the skull and not so much the island itself. I think this would be more effective in terms of the duality of the image and also the symbolism; it's not a skull-shaped island but the viewer is interpreting it as such.

I am suggesting a (small) loss of readability with your current approach. You mentioned earlier you didn't want it to be 'obvious iso', I guess a lot of people will just see a distorted skull. Removing detail from the equation by squinting, or looking at it from a distance as you might well do on a shirt, is it as skull-like as it could be?

Edit- Actually that sounds a bit strong. I'm just trying to explain what I meant and offer an alternative vision, not dictate that one way is objectively 'better'    

[Sharm]

Personally, the edited perspective made me stop looking at the image and start looking at it as an image.  In other words, if you want the piece to say "Hi, this is pixel art!" it works, but if you want to say "This is a really interesting picture" it's distracting.

[Manupix]

Update:



I've darkened the central part of the island (possibly too much), so as to surround the foreground in darker/bluer areas as was the case in the first version. Started detailing, mostly to validate the new options. This is going to take ages!
Not quite sure I've gone for the right kind of building, looks overdetailed. I should probably stick to the austere Boecklin hypogea.

I'm totally undecided about the island shape. I see good and bad in both options now :S
Thanks anyway Facet and Sharm =)

[Manupix]

New island shape: it does look better. I think. 
Toned down the temple detail, and a few other changes.
Still lots to do.

[Facet]

Yeah, as nice as some of the temple stuff looks, perhaps distilling it down to a few show-pieces and going flatter elsewhere might be better overall as well as being less labour-intensive . My first reaction and I think that of other guys earlier was that select simplification could read nicer, especially in the area above the eye-socket.    

There doesn't seem to be much in the background that really takes advantage of the isometric angles as per the foreground. It might help both with simplification and also consistency if some of the other temples and rock formations were seen to exaggerate this alignment/aspect.

I didn't mean sow doubt as to perspective; you're pretty invested now and it does look good already.

[Manupix]

I'm happy with the general idea of the landscape. It's probably too busy at the detail level as you said, esp since I've added some separate elements layers again to see how they fit. I guess I'll expand the featureless green and red high ground.
The landscape detailing is not finished yet, mostly in the 2 to 4 o'clock sector.

I'm also quite happy that I followed your advice about the island shape, when I compare versions! =)

[Facet]

It's a very hansom picture, sort of rich, velvety. I'd say more, but I'm tired and it's good

Edit - I do think the still water was more effective; it sold the idea of the solid darkness of the background being an expanse of water better and bringing back some of the pathways you had before to suggest the borders between the plates of the skull and also more trees/little Mediterranean style shrubby bushes would look great.

[surt]

Gorgeous piece.

Given the subject matter (and that I imagine this scene being lit by the moon) the warm earthy colours don't seem so fitting to me.
Tried more moonlight-like colours, but the result is rather uninteresting:


Also the volume of the neurocranium looks considerably reduced in the latest version.