I've uploaded my fair share of TG imagery, I try to keep them somewhat realistic but also add some kind of an otherworldy feel to them as well, I think if you try too hard to get realistic using terragen you will be very unsatisfied. But honestly, I just cant figure out what people like. I uploaded 2 images recently Where the river flows and Crater Lake. The first is very simple, created a large body of water, added land to one corner, placed the camera, adjusted the sun pos and clicked render. Then just softened and darkened land in photoshop. Took half an hr at the most. The second started with alot of molding to get the land how I wanted it around the river, followed by positioning the sun and messing with its light, then generating about 100 differnt cloudscapes to get it just right, and adding fog and atmospheric glows and etc. Then alot of manipulation in photoshop which I wont get to. The point is the second was more time consuming because I figured this was more of an attractive type of render. When I look at the two comparitively Crater Lake seems drastically more appealing than Where the River Flows. Yet, the ocean render was significantly more successful more than the mountain scene.

I like to play with the terragen photoshop combo because terragen is obviously fairly easy to use, I know the software well and it creates decent landscapes. And mainly because I think the computer landscapes make very good desktops, possibly even more so than photography which is my passion. I want to make more of these kinds of desktops but honestly I cant figure out what people want to look at.

What kinds of renders do you all like to look at? What are your favorite scenes or elements of scenes that you've seen? Any assistance on what you like or would like would be helpful.

The Nest by Samatar has always been a favourite of the terragens for me. It is unique. I find that the better TG images are the ones that don't include land in the foreground. Distant land always looks more realistic with water in the foreground.

For me, I either like them all the way on a fantasy level or as close to real as possible. There's an "in-between" that it seems many TG's have that I don't care for. Seem too choppy to me. Personal taste only.

good call darryll, I don't think rendering of fully convincing close up land will be available until the release of terragen 2, where we will then be able to render images such as this: Example of Procedural Forground Detail using TGD

Although, they are supposed to be releasing a patch for TG v0.9 that uses elements of TGD around...umm...now?

I also noticed people seem to like the soft painted clouds versus terragens attempt at large billowing clouds.

I must say I prefer the first one (as it appears most people did). As you say it is simple, but I think the colors are more visually appealing and it just works better as a desktop. Being more realistic isn't always an advantage... you could take a photo of a mountain and of course that is going to be more "realistic" than any terragen image, but that doesn't mean it's going to look better or be more popular.

I disagree...my vote on computer generated images is always based on how real it looks. I view motion pictures the same. If the effects are cheezy looking it ruins the movie:-)

What I mean is, just being realistic isn't enough. It has to be visually appealing as well.

I'd say with TG you either have to go completely real or completely fantasy. While you worked harder on the second, the first is mainly water (which TG does excellently) with the land far enough away that it seems real (not to mention the excellent coloring). In the second, you did an amazing job, but the clouds immediately grab my eye as fake. The point reflection in the water (through the clouds and fog) seems out of place as well.

My point about complete fantasy is just that things like some of moodflow's works are dramatic simply because of their unreality, things you know can't happen, but look like they could in the image. Kind of like what Darryl said about special effects, you need to not realize it's not real.

Don't imagine that you are going to be able to make images like those in TG though...

Not to change the subject or anything but how did that problem you were having with Terragen and the bundled software ever turn out?

it worked out ok, it must have been adware on my computer, but I have no idea how it was linked to terragen. I cleaned my system and the prob dissapeared. I see what you guys are saying, the clouds bothered me alot in the second image as well. I'm considering using overmanipulated photographs for cloudscapes rather than using the clouds from within terragen. Althought the softer and large clouds terragen seems to render fine, but that wouldnt have fit well atall in that image. I had the same cloud issue in the silent night render I did a long time ago.
I go half way on the voting. If I see a great fantasy image thats completely unrealistic i'll vote it high. If I see a image that is completely convincing and I am fooled, I'll probably vote it higher even if content may need some work.
Moodflow uses a combination of software in his images. Mostly bryce which is apperant in his imagery. I struggle with bryce because of the untradtional environment for modelling. I learned autocad and solidworks in college, so I more easily pick up software like lightwave, or maya, or even 3ds. But bryce is very unorthidox in its layout, and functions and most of all the way it handles textures. I struggle with the software alot. But at the same time, as far as landscapes go, its alot easier to create these fabolous infinite landscape scenes in bryce than in any other modelling software. While other software is better for creating convincing objects. (although maya has the capability of creating infinite landscapes, its much more complicated and not to mention expensive) Maybe I'll play with it some more.
I dont think terragen should be compared with 3d modelling software thought. Its a completely different idea, and hence yields completely different results.

There is no question that Terragen is capable of incredible results. Just take a look at the samples on the TG homepage for proof. You would have to be prepared to dedicate an enourmous amount of time and energy to it to get results like that though.

My comment wasn't directed entirely at terragen I suppose, just that any rendering should "suspend disbelief". I'm not knocking terragen, just saying that it can create some elements which are immediately recognizable as CG. I also agree with you Anthony about the Bryce interface, it's one of the reasons I never really got too interested in it.

yeah I get you, I was more reffering to Sam's comment "I dont think you are going to be able to make images like those in terragen." He is pretty much right.
I think I have created an image that follows most of whats been said here, I'll upload it today.

check it out if u will.

commence const. criticism:

it's the frames

huh?

how bout it
realism? tieneke says it lacks a subject and the sun reflections are of innaccurate strength (should be stronger). what do you guys think
its intended to become a print to remind my dad of home in myrtle beach, the full size is 6400x4800

I looks great;-) I saw it in the new images and never viewed it becuase I thought it was a run of the mill photograph of a beach at sunset. It has changed its rank now that I realize that it is computer generated. There is a slight band of color in the clouds otherwise, perfect;-)

hehe, sounds like a compliment :)
thanks, i will check the sky, maybe there are compression lines in the clouds?

Of course it is a compliment;-)

cool, ya, those are lines caused by converting to jpeg, I checked that image against the tiff version and there are no lines in the clouds. hmm I guess I will have to readd the softness filters to the tiff image and use that for print. Thanks for the good eyes.

Thank you for the explanation...I did not know the reason that happened.

Just out of curiosity, how does one get the dinky little images out of Terragen to look all big and nice? Am I missing some way to render at a larger size???

yes, under render settings in the main render control window

The largest it will allow is 1280 x 960, not exactly huge. Is there a way to squeeze more out of it? If not, how does one gracefully enlarge without pixelating? I have tried a mild blur, and I am wondering if that is the way to go.

retail version is unlimited which i use, free version is 1280x960.
enlarging from 1280 to 1600 wont be much of an issue, if any, prolly wont even need blurring. rendering unlike photography, is clean. (noise causes most of the pixelation you see when enlarging a photograph).
but if you want to do alot of print work with terragen, suggest purchasing the software.

Good advice. Now to steal some cash... ;-) I slightly blur them already just to soften them up a bit, they can appear too sharp (in the sense of inaccurate and un-lifelike textures). Is there a way to save it as a jpeg straight from the program instead of converting it elsewhere?

nope, saves at bitmap. less u find some kinna plugin for jpeg