Not sure that the effect on the figure is needed - more obvious in the hires. Also I get the feeling that the light source is a lot higher and on the other side so maybe flip the figure? Your call. GL Reply »

Reply:

animmax..hehehe..you are very right.. why do you think I put the figure half in shade and light?.. after a while I didn't want to deal with it anymore.. (almost chucked the whole thing thinking about all the hassle that poor guy with the giant stone hand in the water had) as to flipping it..I did that about nine times and just gave up.. I just like the image so much I didn't want to chuck it (the other image was a play on picasso, and I don't think peeps are ready to see a mother and baby with eyeballs where their ears should be)

EDIT.. have to admit I hit the texture on the statue very close to the texture of the tree and I didn't borrow from the tree at all..hehehe.. I'm very proud of that LOL Reply »

Reply:

I have junked a lot of entries for the very same reason.. Reply »

Reply:

Why texture only on the figure? Edges of reflection need to be rippled along with water surface and blurred. Reply »

Reply:

there cmyk.. I put that ripple blur darkening color on the water.. and I matched it against the tree collars as best I could.. Reply »

Reply:

Yup, looks better! Reply »

Reply:

good Reply »

Reply:

nice good luck Reply »

Reply:

gl Reply »

Reply:

Looks pretty nice with those colors. Maybe I'd expect some ripple effect for the reflection of the statue in the water. Compare also to the tree on the right side. It's reflection is way lighter cause it looks like it's in the light (background is covered by shade), maybe you can make the statue's reflection also a bit lighter at the top of the head(so down in the image ). Good luck! Reply »

Reply:

What a find that would be. Reply »

Reply: