Techniques to Convey Depth to Surfaces -- Exercise/Challenge

[jclements]

Some background:
I have been working on graphic to support a project in which a bridge maybe constructed over a river (the bridge also is symbolic of bridging two communities, the past and the future, etc.). I created the bridge in SketchUp and imported into XaraX is an alpha-PNG.


The Challenge:
I ran into a problems trying to give depth to the river which flows under the bridge. I usually use fractal plasma fills and transparencies to accomplish this. However, I stumbled in trying to get a feeling of depth/distance. I was hoping to make the surface texture of the water surface in the background appear smaller (further away) and that in the foreground appear larger (closer) and somehow get the area in between to blend properly.

I would welcome some examples and instruction in how to accomplish this. I would like a method which is not only is eye-catching but is not overly complex and time consuming ... if that is possible :}. Otherwise, I am willing to go with the eye-catching aspect and persevere with the complex.

I will also attach a XaraX file to use as a starting point.

If necessary, I can arrange a place on an FTP site to trade files which would be too large to post here.

Regards, John

[RTK]

As going from “front of the image to the back� – what you can use to achieve depth:

L - Light, warm and saturated colours - more detail, and texture. In focus – no/less “blur�)

To:

D - Dark, cold and desatured colours – less detail and texture. Out of focus – more “blur�)

Your foreground shape (Lightest)
Bridge (Second Lightest)
Other shore (Second darkest)
River - Darkest
Sky – Make it neutral (but still pretty), as it’s not important to the composition, and not what you want to the viewer to focus on.

I’m saying lightest and darkest here... but I’m really referencing the two categories (L & D) You don’t need to make the river super-dark... You can give it any colour, as long as the other areas relate to it in the right way (L & D), and you should achieve depth.

Don't use black to "colour" - Rather use a very dark version of a colour. Black will just end up being a lack of everything - a hole in the composition.

As the bridge and water are the most important details, start with these until you get a colour you enjoy – then colour the supporting elements.

The detail, texture and focus/blur are "optional" and can be used to highten the feel of depth, but you have to use colour.

That’s how it works in theory – now someone has to do it...

[jclements]

And the .xar file.

Please note, this is an X file but I also have X1 installed as well.

[AndFarr]

Here is a photo that may be useful.
Note that the only in the reflection is there any blue at all. Also notice that "curves" in the distance are almost actually straight, and that the lines become more horizontal the further they are from the viewer.
It is only because of our understanding of the world that we "see" them as curved. - Andrew

[jclements]

This is ment to be symbolic. There will be no vegetation. I want to minimize the total number of major shapes (graphic elements).

I'm primarly interested in rippling/flowing water effects.

A shadow cast by the bridge and the transparency of the bridge reducing the effect of height are something I hadn't thought of. Good ideas. Since the bridge is part of a future development I thought that a fade-in transparency might convey that, but perhaps that's not the case.

[Ross Macintosh]

I attach the result of some playing.

I'd say if the intent is to be symbolic go for a dynamic 'graphic' approach. Bridges traditionally have been seen as the symbol of 'connection' so I'd say the emphasis should be on the bridge itself and not the two sides.

I added the water ripples just to see the effect. I thought it looked fine without them. To make the ripples I overlayed a white/black plasma fill on a solid black background. The shape with the plasma fill was then given a linear transparancy. The shape that is the far shore is feathered and the sky behind a linear transparancy --- intent was to give a less defined horizon.

Regards, Ross

[jclements]

Ross,

That is close to what I was trying to describe. As always, much apprecitated.

John


Thank you, Kane.

I have learned something new ... or may be I should say something I should have remembered. :}

[stlewis]

John

I wonder if this is a case of 'less is more'; I just love the simplicity of it as it is. It has great movement, across the bridge and then following the line of the river. As it takes the eye so it creates the message.

[RTK]

Dab influenced colour choices... but still an attempt! http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Only one colour in each "plane."

[jclements]

Damn nice, Risto.

Now I "see" what you mean. I've got to start thinking more like you :}

If there could ever be a Annual Xara Conference ... you, Ross, Gary, and others who posted here could present some great lessons.

John