Hello and thank you for taking the time to read this, any help and/or advice would be massively appreciated.

Firstly, I'm pretty crap with Inkscape and as it happens forums as well, so sorry if this post is wrong in some way.

I've been struggling with my limited ability to make a fantasy-ish landscape based on a few tutorials I found on the internet. I'm trying to create an effect that looks like the inconsistency of a grassy meadow as the scene stretches off into the distance. As I'm pretty crappy with Inkscape, I'm trying to use the 3D Wood filter to do this but the effect of the filter isn't visible in the exported bitmap.

In Inkscape it looks like this:

http://tinypic.com/r/969j4h/5

Yet when I export it as a bitmap it seems to lose the filter:

http://tinypic.com/r/2uzfe5j/5

I'm using Inkscape 0.47 that I installed years ago (I think possibly even in 2010 if this version was released then), I've also searched around the web and this forum (not exhaustively but I have tried to find a solution to this problem).

Does anyone know where I'm going wrong or know another or better way to achieve a similar or better effect?

Thanks,


Jonathan

As I'm new to forums I don't know if I should delete this as I've fixed the problem but to be completely honest, I'm a bit of in idiot.

I read some FAQ's, read the manual, did a few searches for a specific match to the problem I was having but I didn't stumble across these FAQ's until after I had posted:

http://www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2037

I delete my preferences preferences.xml file and it worked.

I'm really sorry to have committed such a faux pas with my very first post . Sorry again.

Hello there,
no problem.

Just a tip on that scenery: to add distance to the image, usually the most far things are the lightest, the objects in the front are the darkest.

Hey Lazur,

Thanks for the advice, I'll give and I'll give it a try to see if I like it. I read something similar in a comment on something posted by fl64.

As I've got no experience doing stuff like this I was sort of referencing other peoples (much better) work:

http://i39.tinypic.com/i5ri9s.jpg

and

http://i39.tinypic.com/axkvar.jpg

Also, I haven't included the Sun in those images, but in it will have set largely below the mountains on the left. I'm probably wrong, but I was working off the assumption that light from the Sun would be peeking over/around the mountains and flooding into the valley, but the side facing away from the Sun would be in shadow, as would the slightly larger hill infront/behind it. I hope that's right but I'm thinking about light spilling through the gaps in buildings creating silhouettes and pools of light.

I kind of also wanted to make sure peoples attention is on the valley and thought that making the background dark and uninteresting might accomplish this.

As you can see, I'm not sure about how to achieve certain effects or even basic composition of an image so I'll definitely try making the mountains lighter and see if I prefer the look and any more advice is most definitely welcome.

Don't know if you could get along,
here is a quick example of adding some "dramatic perspective" just by the tone levels of the shapes.


Also using about the golden ratio in the composition results in more appealing design to the eyes.

Firstly, Wow.

Secondly, thank you taking the time to reply and especially to illustrate it so well.

And thirdly, Wow.

It really does create a dramatic perspective and in future I will definitely bare that in mind and try to incorporate it. I tried to lightening the mountains in the background and it had the effect of reducing their impact, I'm not entirely sure how to explain it but it made that horizontal region seem wishy-washy as the sky lightens towards the horizon.

I'm wondering if it's because there's a lack of substance to the picture as a whole or whether it is because I'm not changing the tone levels and so the scene seems flat? It's probably both and my lack of artistic ability.

I've heard of the golden ratio, and perhaps I'm being weird here, some part of me wants to break out a ruler and start measuring distances so I've always tried to avoid getting my head around it to much, but as you've mentioned it should I assume that something is violating it rather prominently?

Working with lightness values first will make it much easier to add distance.
On the image you made the orange and yellow parts in the front only differ in hue value, wich is very rare in real, thus it doesn't give the feel.
My example image was about the tone levels, how they would work, and partly the composition.
Mostly on the first one: what is in the distance, is lighter, what is in the front, is the darkest.
Other than that, the distance adds the farer the landscape is, the more it variates in shapes, but with the less vertical distance changes on screen.


On the composition, it maybe wasn't clear enough -and I didn't like those clouds that much, so removed them this time:


Stating the obvious: landscapes usually have a landscape format.
More than that, the image has a golden ratio between it's width and height, making it look more appealing.
Also, the horizon is the main element of the landscapes, so as a design element, it is important to place it in right position.
The sky implies infinite distance, so it will increase the drama if it gets more place.
To be more appealing to the eye, it can be positioned within the golden ratio.
Same with any vertical-like element, they get more focus that way.
Some framing can usually get more focus to the basic composition.
It doesn't have to be a literal frame, it can be some graphical elements on the foreground.

You can use a ruler if you want but that's not the point.
It's just focusing more on the parts you would like.
You had your road crossing in the centre of the image, which made it too static.