N0ph0s	"Space Images" Fri October 2, 2009 at 8:53 pm While I do like the occasinal ground view of your space images, I would say I like the space view of the object itself far better. I prefer your space images there are a lot of them that are a single object/event and I find that calming. there isn't a lot going on to drag my eyes away from the focal point and I like that.
GeoMan	"Planetscapes" July 5, 2009 I think it is a matter of both scale and story. I think the genesis of a cosmic body can be seen by itself, and in fact, maybe ought to be. Thinking about something like that can give you a sense of awe by itself. The planetscapes decrease the scale and make you wonder about a story. Why is the person here, how'd they get there, etc.... It leaves something for the rest of us to fill in for ourselves. At any rate, leaving an object in space is certainly not cheating; I think it depends on what feeling you are trying to convey.
Ingo	"Planetscapes" July 5, 2009 I have to be honest. When I read this I thought, "Yeah, it is kinda plain to just put planets and nebulae somewhere in space. Plus, how many of those can you really make without creating the same thing over and over?" And, then I thought about it again and realized that you have created unique planetscapes many, many times. Each of them is completely different and awesome. Don't feel that you're cheating us by creating just a planetscape. Personally, I think that if you feel that you need to make a change, that's your decision but please don't think that we are dissatisfied. You're the artist and need to do what you think is right. Keep up the great work and I hope you get to feeling better very soon.
Logical	"Planetscapes" June 30, 2009 I think it all depends on the situation. Sometimes a setup will be better as a ground view, but other times simply seeing it out in space is the best option. Don't feel like it's cheating to just put planets/nebulae out in space without the ground view. Sometimes that kind is more practical as a desktop for the simple reason that the edges of the screen (where desktop icons tend to be situated) are less busy, and the main action is closer to the center. I think it all depends on the situation, and you're certainly a far better judge of that than we are. :)
Yanthor	"A Planetscape-like Idea" June 25, 2009 Ryan, I was thinking about planetscapes and I envisioned a wallpaper that you might like to make. If not, fine, I just thought I'd throw the idea out there. Maybe it will inspire something completely different. :-) Here it is: A planetscape view entirely of water. A meteor is in the process of striking the water, and a huge tsunami is rushing toward the viewer. Neat, huh? Probably super hard to do...but I had to share the idea. :-)
Genj	"Planetscapes" June 24, 2009 I'm really digging the ground view planetscapes. It ties the entire theme together and gives it what it needs to take the scene into the realm of the fantastic.
Lireoec	"Happy Birthday" June 24, 2009 Woot, another year huh? The friendly black and white layout is still around though. It's amazing how much you've improved and it's great to see this website grow. When it comes to planetscapes, I prefer the contrast of the darkness of space and the beauty of the texture of the planets. I wouldn't call it 'cheating'. Ultimately, it's how you want your audience to view the feature and what you want to convey. For example, to really highlight interaction between stars, planets et cetera, I would use a 'space view'. But if you want the audience to view the scene from a more, say 'familiar' perspective or if you want to compare then use the 'ground view'. Well, I hope you got something out of that. Thank you. Good luck.
Yanthor	"Viewing Phenomena From Space" June 23, 2009 Space phenomena as viewed from a planet is beautiful, as is the same phenomena as viewed from space. I can understand how it could feel like cheating to you--too easy. But I encourage you to do the best artistic thing whether it is easy or hard--and whether the resulting work is simple or complex. I enjoy the simple grandeur of space views so much, I would vote for you making both. Then if you feel compelled to put one in the pickle jar rather than have it in the official gallery that's fine. :-) But if they're both gorgeous, I think you should put them in the main gallery. :-) And Ryan, thanks again for all your beautiful artwork. My lifetime membership was the best purchase I've ever made!
Doc	"Concerning Planetscapes" June 13, 2009 Personnally, I generally prefer the nebula type ones without a planet foreground, it sort of feels more "realistic" - like the images from deep space telescopes, but in the end it really depends on the image and what the artist (Ryan) wants to convey. I think some of the 'grander' big space images benefit from no foreground - your attention is focused on the grandure of colours and light.
Jenanne	"Planetscapes and Belated Birthday" June 4, 2009 Happy belated birthday to Jason! The pic is priceless -- wonderful cake. Yum. As to the planetscapes -- I know I'm chiming in a bit late, but IMHO it is NOT CHEATING (!) to feature a space object or event by itself. Many of my very favorites (Cosmos, Hidden Forces, Starbirth 2008, Roche Limit 2004, Celestrom, Phraxis, Coalescence) are stand-alones, and to put a foreground in front of them would (IMHO) ruin them. An example of this is Crucible, which was great on its own, but greatly diminished when the lava bed was put in front of it in the Picklejar version. Another example is Pantheon. Others, like Borealis 2006, The Astronomer, Tropical Moon 2007, Niflheim, and Moonshadow do indeed benefit from their foregrounds. It goes without saying that of course it depends on what you put there. Some, like The Overseer and Planitia, have wonderfully creative foregrounds that add so much to the image. Other foregrounds just add a pleasing frame that complements the scene in the background. On rare occasions, the foreground does go overboard, like in A New Dawn. The rocky frame hides too much of the fantastic scene behind. I found myself actually envying the tiny person since he/she/it must have had a much better view of the panorama than I did. ;) On that topic (which is really off the topic, but what the frak), a number of the images with foregrounds also include tiny people to show scope. I'm not a fan of tiny people in this context as I feel they take away much more than they add -- I feel like I'm intruding on their solitude, which distracts me from the beauty of the images themselves. If you need something to show scope, personally I'd prefer some other object -- animal, building, tree -- anything but people. You did so very nicely in Beginning of the End. I know others disagree on the issue of the tiny dudes, however. Just MHO. Your planetscapes tend to be my favorites, which is why I have so much to say about them. I hope you'll keep doing both kinds, as the mood takes you. Thank you for allowing us into your worlds!
Riju	"First Comment + Answer" May 31, 2009 First of all, I am a new DB subscriber, but I had been freeloading off the free gallery for some time, and I told myself I would get a subscription when I got the money, and I finally got a lifetime subscription when the price went down. Great work, Ryan - no wallpapers except yours will ever adorn my desktop. Second, I think that both ground and by itself work. As someone else states, with ground the viewer feels connected, or at the very least grounded in the reality of a world somewhere with this scene. It's safer, closer to home - people who have this as their wallpaper will feel like they are looking at a picturesque scene out their window. With the space object by itself, which I love - Roche Limit being one of my all time favorites - the viewer feels more distant, not from the object but from home. It's like traveling, living in a hotel. One feels like he is flying through space. A tourist, if you will. For you, you should put whatever is in you to put. Each design has its own virtues, and if you are satisfied with the product, I'm sure we will be.
Blurr	"You know" May 31, 2009 I think both would look great, and you should do a little of each!
Skulldude	"Impact vs. Majesty" May 31, 2009 I enjoy both perspectives because (for me, at least) they each engender their own emotional foundation. I think the ground view heightens the impact of the image. As others have noted, the viewer feels connected to the scene as a ground level observer. The contrast between the familiarity of the ground beneath my feet and my surroundings and the amazing spectacle in the sky serves to make the emotional impact of the scene far stronger. [Niflheim, The Astromomer] In the space views however, [Pantheon, Crucible] the viewer's sense of connection to the scene is reduced considerably. Absent the distractions of the familiar, my emotions are tabula rasa -- open to the full assault on my senses of the majesty of the scene, laid over a backdrop of the scope and grandeur of the entire universe itself. This rarely fails to take my breath away. Of course, that's just my opinion -- I could be wrong.
Walo	"Follow your feelings!" May 31, 2009 I think both approaches are valid. It just depends on what you want your image to "feel" like.
Patrick	"Viewed from outer space " May 30, 2009 I like the planet-scapes because they are something that wouldn't choose if the choice wasn't offered. What I mean by that is to say I like the surprise and the new experience that you provide with them. However, I don't like them viewing them from the ground. There tends to be a observer, a tree or another hint that all is normal on the ground but up above a massive planet is undergoing tremendous cataclysms. Maybe it is the scientist in me but whenever I see one of these big planet in the sky images I immediately lose that sense of verisimilitude that most of your pictures give me. Although fantasy art involves fantastical images I personally like the ones that help me escape, and stimulate my imagination. Big moons or plants in the sky aren't good conditions for life. Now it could be that what is seen above is in another plane. And it could be that my mind just can't make the link. Certainly other viewers really enjoy them. The decision rests with you. As viewers we have our opinions, and I'm sure we all enjoy a respectful debate about the merits of the latest image. As an artist, I'm sure there is great joy in producing a picture that satisfies many but there is also equal joy in producing an image that satisfies you. The point is never to paint the perfect picture but to enjoy striving towards that goal. Congratulations for your son's third birthday.
Kevin	"Planetscapes" May 29, 2009 Ryan, As the artist, only you can really decide. I personally really enjoy the planetscapes and at least encourage you to include them on their own from time to time. In my opinion, sometimes simpler is better. It's not a matter of 'cheating'. A planetscape with nothing else can be quite compelling. A number of the ones you have done are among the images that keep coming back to be my wallpaper. When a planetscape is incorporated into a ground based image, it loses some of it's impact while the image gains other qualities. Art, like life, is all about compromise. Keep doing what you think is best, it's served you well up to this point. And happy birthday to Jason. It's hard to believe he's already 3.
BIBLEfreak	"Seems Like Cheating?" May 29, 2009 I have dabbled in this art, but you have begun to master and tame it with a keen wit and detailed insight. You feel like its cheating, because, as your quote says, there is always something more to add. "Art is never finished, only abandoned." -- Leonardo da Vinci While part of you is invested in the art, your absent in the visual focus. Yet you are seeing this as the creator of it. Of those creating this kind of art, you are one of the most gifted. It's your heart telling you to challenge yourself that makes you feel this way. I believe in your creative ability and love almost anything you do. The idea of doing the night and day views, its you challenging yourself. I really like your planetscapes, and I signed on as a lifetime member just recently. I hope God allows you to continue to grow in your creative insights, and never leaves you without inspiration! we cannot see the flaws only the creator can.
Dave	"variety" May 29, 2009 Personally, I rather prefer the 'space' view, but I think part of what makes the art so appealing is the variety; it isn't always on the ground, and it isn't always in space.
Maelin	"Both!" May 28, 2009 I like them both and personally I think it would be better to keep them mixed. Making the decision on a case-by-case basis seems like the best course to me, some space scenes just might not work with a terrestrial foreground, others might work better with one. Variety is the spice of life!
Dennis	"Interesting question" May 28, 2009 I think I am solidly in the BOTH column, although I prefer some landscape for my desktop. Thetis Moon is my personal fave. I bought it as a mousepad from Zazzle. As a writer and a SciFi fan, I like to feel as if I were standing on a world looking at a sky that we can never see from Earth. Seeing things from space is cool too, don't get me wrong, but sometimes it's hard to put a scale to it. Seeing what appears to be a tree blocking part of the beautiful heavenly body adds to the image. Ok, maybe I am leaning one way... so, not so solid. ;)
Jonathan L	"Space object alone. :)" May 28, 2009 I strongly prefer the feeling of being IN space taking a look at the object, one of my all-time favourite pieces that you have designed is Singularity -- for that reason. :) It just feels... more... exciting, if you will. :)
RoninStorm	"Agreeing with T-Rev" May 27, 2009 Basically I agree with T-Rev on planetscapes in that I prefer them to leave me feeling like I'm in space not looking up. If you will, I can look up any time but it seems pretty unlikely that I'll actually -be- in space and so these ones where it's an astral phenomenon or a planet or star or nebula or whatever allow my mind to wander further afield. And exactly as he says, it need not just be a planet. I'm put in mind of a moon with an orbiting facility (think small space station or something), really tiny against the cratered backdrop. Or a shot along the axis of the dust and ice rings of a huge outer system planet. Stuff with volume, lots and lots of space. Or at least that's what works for me.
SethR	"Planetscapes" May 27, 2009 I prefer the in space ones. In general I like darker backgrounds too, so this is part of my preference. My personal all time favorite is still Majesty. That said, all of your work is great and I always look at each, even if I don't use it as wallpaper
Aeolwind	"Preference" May 27, 2009 I tend to like your planet scapes and abstracts above many of your works. Those tend to hang around for longer on my desktop comparitively. Others, like Citadel grab hold tightly & even prompted me to network name my laptop accordingly. My desktop was dominated for a long time by Overseer here at work, which is probably my favorite of all time. So, I really wouldn't call them cheating. I view most of your images as telling a story. It just so happens that some of those stories don't involve the ground. )
Nelson	"Keep your plurality!" May 27, 2009 I think it would be best to continue making both sorts of planetscapes. Every scene has its own demands! Whether I like a work isn't determined by "planets alone or not", but by the overall impression. Sometimes a picture is uncomplete without foreground, e.g. Beginning of the end, Overseer, Astronomer, Borealis, Thetismoon, Niflheim, and sometimes there is no use to it, like in Crucidible planet, Roche2004, Phraxis. I like the diversity of your art and would appreciate it when you keep making planetscapes with and without foreground.
bart	"Distortion" May 27, 2009 Since I'm a tri screen glory user, the ground scenes where there is perspective distortion towards the sides gets to me, and I can't leave them on my desktop for very long. Some of your space scenes have it too but others don't -- I'm guessing it depends which tools you use. Anyway, because of this I tend to prefer your space scenes and abstracts. (Speaking of, how about Tendrils tri-screen? And The Comb wouldn't go amiss.)
Daanoz	"Ground level approach" May 27, 2009 I would definitly say ground level approach, you just get so much more to look at. Everytime you look at those you see something new. Great!
G	"Planetscapes" May 26, 2009 I like both to be honest, though it depends on the subject. For example, "Beginning of the End" works well, as does "Tropical Moon" and "Planitia". However, I don't like "Niflheim" and the pickle jar version of "Crucible". "Cosmogony" remains one of my all time favorite - I love the colors. Hopefully you will do another lone planetscape soon :-)
T-Rev	"Gonna go with the "other" option" May 26, 2009 Grats to your son, 3rd birthdays are big events. As far as the planetscapes question goes: I for one like your "in-space-looking-at-a-lone-planet" kind of pictures (but abstracts are still my favorites). I like seeing debris, and dust, solar flares, stars, asteroids, etc... Something very cool about all of it. I also like the idea of doing something like you would see looking at the Milky Way from afar. Nothing in sharp definition, but like a huge spread of stars. Just my $0.02. Keep up the fantastic work, and congrats again to the birthday boy!
Devin	"Planetscapes and Amesome Birthday Cakes!" May 26, 2009 Definitely ground level planetscapes! I think planetscapes are best when they have perspective to them (ie. viewed from somewhere) and are integrated as part of a scene. Also, when looking at one from ground level it seems more like I am actually viewing it, rather than a looking at a picture. Of course that being said, I still enjoy the occasional lone planetscape. Happy Birthday Jason! What a lucky kid, Cake gets a 10/10!
Owen	"Planetscape" May 26, 2009 I like both. I think ones with foreground imagery are harder to get "right," at least to my tastes. Part of the reason I like planetscapes in general is the fact that, because there are few foreground objects, I don't notice any lack of photorealism. By adding foreground objects, one has to be careful that they don't break the visual immersion by being obviously less photorealistic than the background. Beginning of the End is a great example of getting this right. The foreground elements complement the background very well, without breaking the visual immersion. Niflheim is another great example.

content © 1997-2009, Ryan Bliss, all rights reserved "we are the music-makers and we are the dreamers of dreams" -- O'Shaughnessy