Sydney Opera House

[MLY75415]

This was my first major design using AD for the main design and AF for the mesh warp to achieve the roof panel curves. Although I used a photograph as a template, this was done intentionally as the object of the whole exercise was to learn the processes involved with these fantastic programmes.

Hope you do not take offence at my using a photograph as a template.

[MattP]

Really nicely done! Very detailed and the angles and shapes of the roof look just right - which is a pretty tall order for something so complicated!

[MEB]

Hi MLY75415,

Welcome to Affinity Forums

Fantastic work. Great detail and overall style. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Wikinger]

13 hours ago, MLY75415 said:

C'était ma première conception principale en utilisant AD...........  

.............J'espère que vous ne vous offusquez pas d'utiliser une photo comme modèle.

 

Good morning. 

An excellent first successful exercise. Using a photo as a model is a very good idea.

This makes it possible to find the exact proportions.

Good continuation.

[GarryP]

Very nice work. This must have taken a very long time.

The only slightly negative thing I would mention is that the reflection looks a bit odd to me, for two reasons:
(a) I would have expected the objects - lights etc. - in the refection to line-up with the corresponding objects above the water (maybe I've got this wrong in certain circumstances but no image that I've found shows the same distortion);
(b) The moon is missing (I'm not sure whether the stars would also be reflected well enough to see them).

Ignoring those tiny issues - and neither is a "deal breaker" - it's great stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing more.

As for using a photo as a template: Why not? If you can use something to make life easier for yourself then use it. If artists like Vermeer can use things like camera obscura - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura - to help them paint then I don't see a problem with people doing something similar. Drawing using a photo as a template is no different to that for me.

[MLY75415]

10 hours ago, GarryP said:

Very nice work. This must have taken a very long time.

The only slightly negative thing I would mention is that the reflection looks a bit odd to me, for two reasons:
(a) I would have expected the objects - lights etc. - in the refection to line-up with the corresponding objects above the water (maybe I've got this wrong in certain circumstances but no image that I've found shows the same distortion);
(b) The moon is missing (I'm not sure whether the stars would also be reflected well enough to see them).

Ignoring those tiny issues - and neither is a "deal breaker" - it's great stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing more.

As for using a photo as a template: Why not? If you can use something to make life easier for yourself then use it. If artists like Vermeer can use things like camera obscura - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura - to help them paint then I don't see a problem with people doing something similar. Drawing using a photo as a template is no different to that for me.

GarryP, thanks for your comments - greatly appreciated.

The pic took approx 40 hours with repeated redraw and erase, you are correct about the reflection - I think in my haste to complete the project I did not review the completed project as I should have done. Further to your comments I went back this morning to the project and re-worked the reflection, I tried inserting the stars as reflections in the water but for me they did not look correct. I have attached the re-worked pic, once again thanks for your constructive comments.

[Alfred]

I liked the first version well enough, but the reworking is particularly good. 

 

[GarryP]

You're welcome MLY75415.

40 hours is a heck of a lot of time to put into one illustration but the final result is very much worth it.
Adding the detail of the tiles in the shells alone would have driven me to distraction so I appreciate the time that's been put into it.

Please don't think that I'm being too picky here but, inspired by your illustration, I decided to have a closer look at pictures of buildings reflected in water at night - just out of curiosity - and have come up with a few points that I hadn't really noticed before.

With these examples (from an image search of "building reflection night") as a guide:
https://wallpaperscraft.com/download/lights_night_river_reflection_shine_building_59228/1920x1080
https://wallpaperscraft.com/download/city_night_building_river_light_38249/2560x1600
https://www.eyeem.com/blog/10-tips-to-shooting-photos-at-night-with-your-phone/
https://www.123rf.com/photo_15550954_night-scenes-of-city-building-at-night.html

1. Reflected light sometimes makes a long "streak" towards the viewer, but not always;
2. The length of the reflection seems to be related to the brightness of the light (brighter light, longer reflection), the distance from the viewer/water (further away, shorter reflection), and the water surface conditions (stiller water, shorter reflection);
3. The place that the reflection starts from has some relation to the viewer's position relative to the thing being reflected (in the first example, the reflection sometimes starts at the water's edge, but sometimes there is a "double reflection" that I don't understand yet);
4. Sometimes the reflection can look taller than the original object (last image), but not always.

I'm sure I've missed a lot, and I don't quite understand the science behind these things. I've probably seen these before but I haven't really looked at them properly to try and understand what is really going on.

Anyway, I haven't said any of this to further criticise your lovely illustration, I just thought that some people reading this might find it interesting.