Could you please elaborate? I interpret this in two ways and wondered which, or both, applied.
1. The mountain and grass are rendered more 3d than the rest of the image.
or
2. The mountain and grass 3d rendering provides too much depth for their atmospherical positioning.
They are fairly similar but was interested in your thoughts. I have lightened the top of the mountain to help push it further away and make it feel taller.
There was no 3D or photobashing used for the image at that point, literally painted on top of the previous image. However, I was testing a new painting technique that I've never used before, sourced from a course by Hardy Fowler. This uses custom shapes created from textures that allow quick masks that can be painted on top.
(Hardy has a youtube channel if anyone is interested https://www.youtube.com/@fowlerillus)
There is a small amount of photo texturing in the following post, which was used mainly to help as a guide and pull colours. Most of the vast majority of the image has been painted with a basic brush and the lasso tool. The lasso tool helps a lot with getting those rocky edges.
The detailed render is mostly done at this point. I think after I've worked on the other environments I'll revisit and check for consistency across all of them.
Interested in any further feedback or thoughts all!
