Feedback appreciated! Rocky Ground Material v1 (Phonescan Method)

adamrice117

Hey everyone, I'm looking for feedback about my Artstation post / Gumroad first post / Fab first post, free download.

Here is the link to the page:
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/rlqQzO

It's a photogrammetry scan I made using my phone and then the traditional software. Please let me know what you think. 0 reactions on Artstation is always a bummer... I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Thank you!

Rocky Ground Material v1 (Phonescan Method). 

Benjammin

Hey, looks pretty good:
One of the tools listed is 'Gigapixel AI' so I don't know how much of this is actually your work. I see you intend to add breakdown/process shots, so that's good. 
I recommend doing an image showing it tiled. Lots of photogrammetry based materials look amazing until they start repeating. You've also got several images that are basically identical. I spent a couple minutes scrolling up and down trying to figure out the difference besides lighting angle.
Its possible that people are turned off by the use of an AI tool, but also artstation is saturated with cool looking stone materials. 

adamrice117

Oh wow, that's great feedback - thank you! Makes total sense. I'd love to address and update the post based on those notes.

And good catch, I actually only really used a Photoshop AI tool (Generative Fill) here and there to help make it seamless. Gigapixel and Upscayl were NOT used at all actually. That was probably a remainder from my setup when I originally created the post. Very important, as using AI tools right now is still questionable.

sarayel

Gigapixel 

Benjammin said:

Hey, looks pretty good:
One of the tools listed is 'Gigapixel AI' so I don't know how much of this is actually your work. 

Gigapixel is only upscaling. so from 2k he get 4k photo for the source for scans that's all. Not to be overly jumpy on anything AI. But i get that people see AI and associate zero value to it

adamrice117

I completely understand. That's actually how I began testing, but after bad results I reverted back to a more human, traditional approach (gladly), and so I only used Generative Fill tool in Photoshop for small areas here and there. Less than 5% of the art was made using AI. I just made updates to the post so you can check out the changes there! Thank you for your notes

adamrice117

Original photo I took of the ground on my trip to Brazil is included there too. Hopefully that clears things up from where I started from. This began as AI testing but turned back into a traditional photogrammetry scan edit after I did not like the results from AI or using it in general

sarayel

Generative Fill is AI as well. its machine learning algo. an old one but still

adamrice117

sarayel said:

Generative Fill is AI as well. its machine learning algo. an old one but still

Yes, that's right. In my industry job and from other artists I know, using AI in production is becoming more prevalent, for better or worse. My personal opinion is it can be abused, absolutely - but it's not going away and this was a test to see if I could use it minimally and effectively in small doses. To bridge the gap between artmaking and saving time. I hope viewers can understand the necessity of testing methods like this! My approach is to not be so doom-and-gloom about it, but I totally understand the negativity and issues with using it.

sarayel

People are now a bit to mad even tho they used for years didn't even knowing they were using ML algos Fine by me anyway. Cool texture

adamrice117

sarayel said:

People are now a bit to mad even tho they used for years didn't even knowing they were using ML algos Fine by me anyway. Cool texture

Yes! Exactly, sarayel. Thank you!! and thanks for your thoughts