HOME | DD
overseer —
Colonization
Published: 2012-03-20 16:36:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 63797; Favourites: 1479; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Thank you AFineWar for the suggestion, and alltheoriginalnames for the feature!
I very much appreciate it!
I usually make it a point to thank everyone individually, because I never take interest in my work - by anyone - for granted, but in this case it's just too much! Every single comment and 
The beginning of colonization efforts somewhere at the outer rim of our known universe. The ship designs are based in part on real NASA concepts, just as the Helios colony vessel.
COMPOSITION: Textured environment (starfield) and digital painting (planets, nebulae), composed in Photoshop. My work. Scene and lighting setup in Lightwave with final composition of all elements in Photoshop (including all FX).
MESHED: Helios Colony Vessel & Ark Ship by Jason Tinsley, Heavy Shuttle & X33 Shuttle by Kenny Mitchell.
Original size: 4500x1600.
Comments and critique welcome.
Thank you very much to TreeClimber for the valuable WIP input and suggestions! 
Related content
Comments: 301
I believe I'd disagree - the blue tint of the atmosphere is due to the water content on the planet, reflecting the light from the sun. The only way that a planet would have a more purple-ish or even less-saturated hue, is if the sun itself was burning a different colour (blue sun or red sun).
If you were to look at photos from orbit of Earth, the atmosphere is plenty blue, the only time it appeared grayish or of any different hue, was due to old technology or lense flair from the sun peaking around the planet's body.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The color I am talking about is not on overall shift. It is a small visual shift in the color transition band from blue to shadow. I don't need to to refer to EARTH as this is s color spectrum shift in color band wave length.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see what you're saying, but it still wouldn't apply here; to have the colour shift in the spectrum, you need to have light passing through at an angle to which it would cause this effect - if you do your research, you'd see that the purple spectrum is really only visible with high intensity in light reflection, and as can see here, there isn't - much like rainbows do not always show certain parts of the spectrum due to too much or too little of the moisture in the air.
Your thoughts would work fine if there was the sun 'rising' to the side of the planet with a high percentage of humidity, but as noticeably visible here, its not even early morning or even mid-day for most of this side of the planet.
Why wouldn't you need to refer to Earth? Are you aware of any other blue-oceanic planets to which we have atmospheric reference photos for?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
refer to the original comment. what does it say? as a matter of fact on both what does it say?
ATTRACTIVE ARTISTIC LICENSE...
This means what? You are talking about a real approach I am talking about the sense of aesthetic beauty. The visual result is who people see the image. No one care light goes where and how.. You think people cares? people care how the image looks in color, saturation and contrasts as long as is it not far from the truth. Star was, star T all push the artistic license to some degree. They care about how it looks. star T might be more realistic in facts but still pushed. The is art not engineering We as artists take the visual info and apply it to fantasy setting blending real and unreal together. I care about how color from the warm side shifts as it becomes cooler. where the band of atmosphere is where it meets shadow or space there often appears violet, since tonally is is darker. color behave this way warm to cool. cyan, brillant blue, ultramarine etc then goes violet and so on in a cool setting such as this. Just like how you see landscape in the distance.. it take on less contrasts, cooler and lean towards the blue side of shadows.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I think it quite positive when art of any kind sparks some controversy, however, after reading all the comments, I would like to respond to one of your statements;
"(...) No one care light goes where and how.. You think people cares? (...) The is art not engineering We as artists take the visual info and apply it to fantasy setting blending real and unreal together. [sic] (...)"
I could not consider myself an artist based on this statement. The designs used in this image are based on real concept designs and although they're not currently in use, or even being built yet, if I use something that is based on current day engineering, then I have to keep it as realistic as possible. While, granted, there can be a certain amount of artistic freedom if the artist so chooses, I was always a fan of photorealism.
Colors can vary, of course, and different people have certainly different ideas about what can be considered beautiful, but I spend a lot of time and interest reading about science, especially astronomy and NASA. That also goes for photography from Earth, Mars, Luna and all other space photography. Those images are not only an inspiration, but a reference.
In pure science-fiction based artworks there is a much wider range of colors and ideas that can be used, but when I'm trying to blend realistic technology, something that could be possible nowadays, with a bit of fiction, I have to go with realistic concepts. Atmosphere has the color it has based on the amount of moisture and filtering light disperses 'blue' far more than any other colors which is why our sky is mainly blue. I also think it matters a great deal which direction light is coming from, because that also influences the intensity; especially in space where, due to very limited light, you have stark light and shadow contrasts.
Color balance and lighting are the two parts I spend the most time on with any piece and getting those working together is very important. I generally appreciate all suggestions, but I often tend to desaturate images, because it is more realistic. Nature is vibrant, but only to a degree. I only showcase artwork where I have achieved exactly what I wanted to achieve. I hope that makes sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course as I said originally I knew based on all the collective images you lean towards photo realism. That was my primary
comment. But then I said it can be pushed more for attractiveness.
If you were to state all that you said up there, then the intent was clear. What i said was another option or variation of the same image done in another way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You truly are entertaining me - noticed your sentence structures, grammar and spelling all seem to slide downhill when you get frustrated...maybe you can't handle a female knowing something you didn't (and probably never will, as you can't seem to accept any new information in that closed mind of your's)
To clarify, he IS wanting realism. This is why he spends time on the details, really working his talents into what he creates - THAT is the reason you commented on it in the first place.
Since you have the mind set, to send a note to me, rather than saying such ridiculous things in public visibility, were you worried I'd be too afraid or hurt to handle it in a public space? Maybe you were actually worried you'd come across as a self-centered pig?
"You don't have much art experience to understand drawing let alone painting.. this is all too advance for you. You need to get more visual library of how color behaves then you might understand."
Have you ever tried to understand or know a person before passing judgement?
Have you ever considered that my works aren't in colour because it isn't the medium I'm focused on at this time?
What makes you presume you are 'too advanced for me'?
What happened in your life, that caused you to believe you are SO GOOD, that you can pull a woman aside and try to knock her down?
Please, enlighten me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
for you i don't even obther to waste my time correcting grammatical errors my intent was to get the message to you. so don't even talk about that. Yes i noticed no caps on the proper places and obther. ask me do I care?
I know if i took the time i can correct all those. I don't need to. read teh otehr comment and you see I can.
Addressing the point of, attacking a female..i didn't even know you are a female.. but now i know big deal! the comment is still valid. next...
Now I am going to type and correct my sentences clearly for you miss teacher. Oh teach me.. I will address every point then offer my rebuttal.
First, yes he is realistic by nature. We can all see that. Hopefully even for someone such as yourself. You just need to look at his gallery and the photo-real consistency are prevalent. But read, and you will see I meant it was an option. In addition to that, I said clearly there are no errors to his work as far as photo-real, only another variation thereof for aesthetic beauty, understand?
Next point, afraid? More like convenience silly. I was on your page and clearly saw that you don't have your foundation in drawing down yet to understand. I wanted to investigate your background to see if you can see and comprehend my rebuttal.
As for passing judgement, the comment is for him not you. Only he can say thanks or no thanks, then and only then I say great. Even so, It was a conversation of other possibility and not 'HEY IT NEEDS MORE THIS AND THAT".
Who is taking to you? with your "I think this and that" you talked to me so I countered.
You said,
"Have you ever considered that my works aren't in colour because it isn't the medium I'm focused on at this time?" You, yes you, can't handle color if you wanted to. I can tell you right now color is a complex subject if you can't handle drawing such as proportions, rendering and value control, I can imagine what you would do with color. It will be a disaster beyond comprehension.
Drop the negative sideline sister, revert to the previous comment, I wasn't even aware of your sex. Yes this is for all to see. Happy now? Now that you are enlighten, be calm, don't cry. It will be alright. Practice some more in the dark corner.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that you went to my page, and supposedly looked around, you SHOULD have noticed I'm a female - that being said, your "rebuttals" are more a sad set of attacks with no merit.
My initial reply to you, was in the undertone of a conversation, a sharing of opinion, but I can clearly see now, you can't handle a difference of opinion, or fact sharing, that would prove you wrong. I'm not going to sit here and attempt to prove myself to someone who cannot handle facts set in front of their face as a reality - there's no point, you will never see it, you are too stuck in your own world of misconceptions.
If your original comment was meant to be an option, or an idea of alteration, you should SAY SO. The words you chose to use in that initial comment, were simply saying 'cool, but not good enough.'
Convenience, to note me...rather than leave a comment on the front page, to which, requires a scroll wheel vs a cursor move and a click, plus a title...uh huh.
You did not state, ANYWHERE that there were no errors. Not ONCE did you claim that - you simply said you loved it, but it could use more THIS AND THAT (as you so eloquently put it)
If you believe I cannot handle colour, proportions or depth, you really haven't looked at a damn thing I've done - but I'm ok with that, it tells me just how little you actually pay attention to something that wasn't your production.
To note, you didn't 'waste your time' correcting your spelling, grammar or sentence structure when replying to Overseer either, so where's your logic in that?
The whole last supposed paragraph of 'corrected' sentences (still poorly done), is just a pure visual representation of your personality: sexist, pompous and arrogant, I do hope you enjoy your wonderful life of pinup girls and hopes of finding that 'curvy, meaty woman' ...if you can ever find one that can tolerate you, bless her patience...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
LOL I have a wacom pen.. click on the page that says note is faster since I am on the page. If I knew you were a girl
I would address that silly troll. Take your meds and sleep. click 3x and say I will be loved, I will not hate men, men are good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A MAN is good, YOU are a child...and you're proving it over and over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know you.. I KNOW YOU.. lol you sound like the x girlfriend from the planet'CRAZY". There are men and women and then you a third class called crazy pms trolls.lol Did you take you meds or you are just like this often? You must be the men haters, When you assumed I attacked you for being a girl. ahh huh, let out the monkey beast in you! okay I take it for my fellow brothers. yeaaaaa I will. So the monkey fineart girl can be more like the sexy full girls you want to be! Take it out of your system so you be more kind to men.
I lay my hand on your forehead and say" be out demon, be out of this girl!! I command Thy out demon!!!!!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So flustered you can't even keep your comments in one box?
Besides, I like my demon, it senses narrow-minded people such as yourself, and brings me amusement.
You called me emotional, because I'm a girl - if I'm the emotional one, why am I laughing at you, while you keep trying to come at me with these bitter, ranting, pathetic attempts at trying to bring me down?
Of course I'm trolling on you, there's nothing else to be done, you're not worth getting frustrated, flustered, or as you sad-sack of egotism once put it, 'cry and return to my dark corner' - which, by that statement alone, tells me you know nothing of a true woman, as you only want girls.
(That ex-girlfriend of your's was quite smart to rid herself of you)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You back again for another beating?
oh stop with your assumptions. You don't even know the cause.
You read too much on to things because the demon in you keeps telling you more ideas. I can preform another exorcist on you if you like free of charge. You need to learn to be like your man calm and cool. I will not block you because You amuse me. Now step aside women as I begin my day in productive in game design.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh give it up. You've lost. Move on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
so awesome, the scope of the image is epic, the kind of thing I'd love to see in a movie!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. Yes, I would certainly not mind a scientifically (somewhat) accurate movie about future space exploration endeavors!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very cool peice 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No need to ask, go right ahead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shouldn't the star on the left look more like the one on the right and vice versa?(the big twinkly ones). since the twinkling if stars is caused by the atmosphere shouldn't the one "closer"/more in the atmosphere be twinkling more? I apologise if I have this wrong~
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You are correct in that, stars do twinkle due to the moisture in the atmosphere moving between the viewer and the light that is visible; but in this perspective, the view point is from above the atmosphere, so there isn't any moisture to deter/alter one star's glimmer from the other.
There may have be a several-thousand mile away asteroid belt that has caused one star's glimmer to be less intense, or the 'less twinkly' star could simply be smaller in diameter, and therefor not producing as much light - or in flip, the star on the left could be much larger, but so much further away, that its glimmer isn't as bright...could even argue that one star is simply burning at a much cooler state than the other, causing less light be be formed.
There are many factors that could cause one star's brightness to be more or less intense than another's - were all stars/suns the same size in diameter and burn at the same temperature/intensity, your thought would be correct even outside the atmosphere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, it always depends on the view point. I guess it would depend on how close those stars really are. Given that any glowing star we can see with bare eyes (for the most part) is a sun, it couldn't be too close to a life supporting world. So I guess it's more an angle thing (in the sense of direction of looking at the star). I don't think you're wrong at all, the stars just aren't close enough, or rather you're not enough in the atmosphere to notice it. If I've picked what you said up wrong, please feel free to elaborate further.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ill try to say what i mean but itd be eaiser to explain with a picture~but i dunno how to do that so ill try saying it ^^
Thw twinkileing effect is a product of the atmospheres disturbance, on the surface the amount of twinkle applied to a star is constant as the atmosphere is a constant thickness~the only factors that matter are the stars size and relevant brightness (except in cephied variables or during supernovae)~in the picture the star on the left should have more twinkle as there is much more atmosphere between the viewer and it, and the other should not have as much as it does as there would be barely any atmosphere between the viewer and it~ let me know if ive lost you
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you.
I think I perfectly understand what you're trying to say now, however, the viewer is above the atmosphere in this image. You're essentially a little bit above the ships looking slightly at a down angle, so there is not atmosphere that would distort the sparkling of the stars other than the angle at which you're looking towards them. I've not really considered distances, but the start on the left would be farther away based on the viewer than the star in the middle. So, although there is in theory more distance (and more planet/atmosphere) from the viewer to the stars, since the viewer is not inside the atmosphere, it wouldn't matter.
Does that make sense?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It does now ^//^ i think the angle tricked me a little ^//^ sorry for the confusion~though if there is no atmosphere why are they twinkleing ;D
Still awesome though ;D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, there are different kinds of stars. "Twinkling", or glare streaks are not only caused by atmospheric distortion. It could be that they're pulsars, it could be the camera lens (virtual or otherwise), it could be light breaking in objects in front of the stars, but due to size and distance they're not visible etc. Many reasons.
Plus, space is, after all, not emtpy. There are billions of dust particles, dark matter and tons of other things floating around that would influence how light is dispersed. With, or without an atmosphere.
Have a look for example at the Hubble Site and its pictures. Here's a particularly nice example: [link]
Hubble's not in Earth's atmosphere and there is no planet or atmosphere to be seen in this star cluster, yet, there are light streaks. And since it's a photo, you'll see, it's possible.
Thanks for the comments though; I enjoy thinking about things and making sure I got stuff accurate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True~And by pulsars are you talking about cepheid variabe stars?
So true, and those dust clouds form sone of the most beautiful nebulae, like the large and small mallengentic clouds ^^
And good point~and it is a good picture ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, yes, cepheids are one possibility; I was more referring to a rotating neutron star which would emit visible rays of electro magnetic radiation etc.
Sorry for the delayed reply, been a busy week.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No prob ^^
And those never even occurred to me, but that us true~
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice! Really captured sci-fi feeling!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you! I'm glad you think so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
HOLY CRAP THIS IS AMAZING!!!!!1 can i use this as my desktop plz?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. Sure, be my guest!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>