As per suggestion by ~puffinrailsociety, here now the U.S.S. CONSTELLATION • NCC-1017, but as she would likely appear in the JJ Trek universe. So, here she is amongst an asteroid field. You never know where a Planetkiller might be lurking...
Call it my interpretation of the ship; I'm also not a huge fan of JJ Abrams' Star Trek reinvention in connection with the rest of Star Trek, but I think it's not bad in its own right; IF you keep them separate.
COMPOSITION: Starfield was rendered and then composited with the nebula painting I made from scratch in Photoshop. The star at the bottom was also painted in. The remaining elements were rendered in Lightwave with post work in Photoshop.
MESHES:JJ Constitution class by Aaron Smith (with texture modifications by me), Sun & asteroids by me.
My artworks are not endorsed, sponsored, or affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. or the "Star Trek" franchise. The Star Trek trademarks, logos, and related names are owned by CBS Studios Inc., and are used under "fair use" guidelines.
One of the first things that caught my eye was the use of Indirect lighting comming from the lights on the ship. The light that is illuminating the NCC-1017 inscription on the underside of the hull is a notable example. Also, I noticed that the pannel lines on the underneath of the ship's hull are all circular in their curves which adds another level of visual authenticity. The two suns illuminating the bottom right and top left of the ship is another thing that I enjoy about this image as the light is just bright enough to keep parts of the ship in the dark and not overly washing it out. In a way, it adds a bit of mystery. Another visual detail are the two large asteroids on the bottom sides of the image where you can see the rough texture being affected by the light from the two starts.
Overall, this is an excellent piece and even though I've seen similar works here on dA there's not that many out there that display this level of professionalism.
Lighting is always something that's difficult. It takes a lot of balancing. I think the reason most movies show ships brighter as they would be is, because they need the details to show properly. In a still image I have much more time to balance everything so that details will show, while shadows get their fair share, too. In a movie you don't have that many options while ships zoom past. Plus, the more lighting you add (especially volumetric lighting), the longer the render takes and I guess most movies are on a tight time budget. :shrugs:
I actually added a blue-ish light coming from the opposite direction, to show more details in the dark. If I turned that up, the shadows would disappear pretty quickly.
Thank you! Believe me, I'm with you on the mixed feelings! I can only handle JJ Abrams' movie by treating it completely separate from the rest of the Star Trek franchise. In its own right, it's not bad at all.
Someone asked me to create a picture using the JJ Constitution class (using the U.S.S. Constellation's registry - the one that got busted in the TOS Doomsday Machine episode); hence the asteroid field and title.
Well, that's fair enough, but you're not revitalizing something, by completed changed all the established facts. There would be plenty of ways to revitalize them; there are plenty of ships that we have heard of over the years and of which we never saw a story. Why not follow the path of a Klingon crew instead for a change. What about Titan? There are so many options... no need to completely mess everything up. But hey, it'd done.
As for the shadows; they were rendered based on the light sources in the picture. The main lights are coming from the two stars and based on that the shadows are created on the mesh. The only other light is a dim, blue light coming from the starboard stern; as a filler. So, not sure why the shadows wouldn't make sense. You're welcome to elaborate more if you like?
The star down the bottom is very intense in means of light, and the directions of the shadows dont reinforce this, mainly the rim light across the ship - its very misleading. If you were to move the star more to the right on the scene, it would make more sense (to me anyway).