This a park that I volunteered to draw. The drawing is intended to show the general layout of the park and is not intended to be photo realism as you can see.
The idea was to layout "what is" so we know what is not. This will give us an idea of what parts of the park might be available for herb or flower beds for example and what direction is south etc.
There will be a second drawing (at some point) of the how the park could be changed to be more functional, beautiful and more of a resource during events, or even disasters.




This is a link to some info about the park, some of the goals and a larger version of the drawing:
http://www.vitalbodies.net/site/lifestyle-diy/lifestyle/344-byrd-memorial-park-dunes-city-oregon.html

Be aware that there may be others that might want to draw their own yard or land so even general info is welcome.

Rather than the classic blue print type drawing, I wanted to add some color and depth and Inkscape of course does not disappoint.
I have never done this before so it is all new.
I measured the park in two directions and used Google Earth and the Acme mapper for visual help.
I used the Plat maps as a gross reference, to help visualize known property borders and to enhance the drawing.
I took photos from the inside and outside of the park to help place the the plants.
I will have to go back and fine the exact placement of each tree and shrub yet for the most part they are all there and pretty close.

The idea at this point in the drawing phase is to make the drawing appealing and also have the drawing be one of the more stand out landscape drawings you might happen upon.
Since anything that is likely to be done to the park will be volunteer based it is helpful if the drawing is inviting or perhaps inspiring if that is possible.
All ideas, comments and suggestion are welcome...

maybe the bigger trees don't overlap as much as that? The fir trees also could do with a bit more highlight as per the other trees?
very nice style.

What do you mean by overlap? Do you mean be so close to each other?
I struggled with the highlight for a while. It would go from looking like a highlight to looking like the tree was glowing or lit inside.
I was not sure my computer could create sometime this huge as the drawing life size.
In fact, I ran out of zoom levels to zoom out all the way and did not know how to change that without having to scale the drawing and calculate (convert) each and every measurement I take.
I was hoping to get the whole outer perimeter of the tree (not the shadow) sort of dark and have the highlight on one side (the south side from the sun) but to do so (it seems) requires something more than a simple radiant gradient that is off center.
Any ideas what might give the fir a lit from the south cone type look?

I like the idea behind it and the overall composition. (:
Just one thing.. I would totally delete the shadow ( or glow ?) behind the N!

RM. wrote:I like the idea behind it and the overall composition. (:
Just one thing.. I would totally delete the shadow ( or glow ?) behind the N!

Thanks for commenting and all comments are welcome.
I put the shadow under the N (for North) as the Sun (for South) is casting a shadow in the direction of choice which is mid-day sun.
It is a reminder of the importance of the direction of sun, and even more so the shade - which really matters here.

Why did you not like it? Was it poorly executed?
And... what do you think about shadows in general? I have been going with a gray (meaning xx red xx blue and xx green all matching) and often about 3 for blur and 70 for transparent as a starting point.
Even still, I have seen odd color effects on some backgrounds?
Now I can fine tune something to the exact degree but for this type of drawing I am hoping to not draw every single tree or bush in exactitude...
If possible, and even that is questionable - it takes what it takes...

I made a second attempt on the fir trees as you can see in the drawing at the top of the thread.
The next step would be to ungroup them (each tree) and layer the branches but I hesitate until the trees are finally (measured out with a tape measure on site then in drawing) placed.
What is both interesting and challenging is all the green on green and how you adjust one green on one part of one tree it seemingly effects all greens all over and even the shadows.
It does not, but to the eye it seems to.

The fir tree. How to make it really work in terms of lighting?
The original is the lower left. The upper left was the next attempt then the upper right.
All use a radial gradient or gradients.
The upper trees are indeed brighter on the south side but do they actually seem to convince the eye they are lit from the south side?
I would still give the answer as a possibly maybe.

Ah, very nice!
I would love to do a project like this. You may have inspired me
I didn't see the original, so don't know how much it might have changed already. From your last reply, I do like your 3rd attempt on the fir, and think it is the best so far. I love the general shape, where you have the kind of pointy way of depicting the branches. I think that's really effective.

As a "tree person" (Bachelor's in Forestry) 2 things strike me right away. One is that the trees all look very similar in color and composition, even though by their labels, I know they are very different trees. The other is that they all look about the same height, which again, I know they probably aren't. I would suggest much more variety in shades of green....unless that's part of "your style" to have a blast of green. Like I might make the fir (Douglas Fir?) lean a little more towards blue-green. Not a lot, but just enough to depict firs' true color, which is not really a bright kind of green (except on fresh spring growth at the tips maybe) (unless they're White Fir...omg, college was 30 years ago ...maybe I'm thinking of Frasier Fir). I think I might try deepening the color as well, but it's hard to say without actually doing it. It may be that just changing it a little bit more towards blue-green will do the trick? You could also vary the shades of green among the fir, for a really natural depiction, although I realize that's not how landscape architects usually do it.

Still on the fir, and using that group of 3 towards the lower right as an example... In reality, you probably don't have the entire crown of one that lies above the top tip of the next one (and that one's entire crown above the 3rd). I would suggest unioning the lower level/layers of foliage of all 3 trees, and maybe even the 2nd level/layer. And then keep the unique upper level/layers, which may well be touching each other. I think that might give the appearance of the fir growing close together with braches entwined, rather than one on top of another. It looks actually like a grove of fir. And I can't see it clearly, but it looks like there's a fir in the middle there too. Is that grayish color just dirt, where the grass won't grow because there's so much shade?

And finally, I think you could use the cast shadows to further emphasize the height of the fir, and the differences in height. Even though it's mid-day, and the shadows are very short, they would still be different lengths. ....unless they are all about the same height?

One of the few trees with which I am not very familiar, is the Filbert. So I don't have an instant mental image of the leaf color, or general habit. But I see from the photo on the webpage you linked to, that it looks like fairly a short, wide shape, with not super dense foliage. I wonder if there might be a way to....I don't know, depict the difference between the density of the fir foliage, and lighter less dense filbert? Like maybe add some Noise to the filberts or something? Or at least change the color to a little more towards grayish green (at least that's the impression I get from the photo).

And also the same tip about them being side by side instead of one on top of the next. I wonder if you could union the foliage, and have the branches and radial gradient still individual? It's hard to tell from the photo, but do they really come to a point at the top like the firs, or are they more flat topped (like a dogwood)? My impression from the photo is that they are more flat topped, but I'm not sure how to go about depicting that. I do think it would help to give them a more flat topped appearance, I'm just not sure how to do it....

I like how you've depicted the branches of the deciduous trees, by the way. It's also very effective. I can't quite tell if the branches have a gradient? I'm not sure if this would work, but you know how the branching habit of the filbert is different from that of the cherry? The cherry has the strong central trunk with smaller branches, and tapering towards to the tips, just like in your image. But the filberts don't have a strong central trunk, and in fact one of them looks to have multiple stems (trunks) and there's not a lot of taper. I was just wondering if there might be a way give such an appearance. Maybe the shape of the branches....like if they didn't go out to a point, but were more rounded? Or maybe if they didn't meet in the center? Or using a reverse gradient (more transparent towards the middle -- opposite of the cherry).

Ok, and the smaller, darker ones with red spots and one with yellow -- are those flowering shrubs? I can't read their labels because they are so small. Depending what kind of shrub they are, perhaps a different shade of green might help? Or not I CAN read a couple of Bay Laurels though. I'm not very familar with those either, but for some reason, I'm thinking they have very dark green leaves....but not sure at all.

And I think a lighter green, and maybe more towards yellowish green for the grass, would help to make the trees pop, and hopefully help give them more height.

And one last comment. Is there going to be a legend for the plants? I'm wondering if you used several different shades of green, if you could use a legend, and not have the text labels. Not that I think the text labels detract from the image, not at all. I'm just thinking more like a map, I guess. But anyway, just a thought.

Ok, gotta rush away. But I may have more thoughts later. What a fun project though! And congrats on the nice work so far

All best.

Saying all the greens are too close in color/shade is great suggestion for this drawing. That general suggestion (and all the specific ones) should go a long ways towards make this drawing better. Having read what you wrote, (that they are to close in color tone) it is hard to think I missed that in the first place. I experienced it however, by having a hard time adjusting one green and having them all seem to change.

On the web site you can click on the drawing and see a much larger one and i hope to have a second drawing that make the trees semi transparent so the shrubs (rhody, huckleberry etc) show up.

There are rhododendrons that have different color flowers.

Note the power lines in the drawing. There owners, the power company caused those poor filberts to get chopped (like as in crew cut) way back. And yes they are multi-trunk and lighter leaf color.

I would say the drawing has "a style" but the style is still a work in process also. As you may know, the classic landscape drawing is done with templates that are traced with a pen. So all the trees of a certain kind end up looking the same more or less - cookie cutter style. This drawing started off with that concept (really to just look like a landscape drawing of some kind or another) but can change and adapt as needed, as it is no longer the classic drawing of old or new.

One of the bigger challenges for me is the monolithic size of what I am drawing and starting off with no real set starting point like the outline of the park. The park does not even come close to matching the PLAT and appears to have evolved based upon driving habits or something. That has made placing trees tricky. I think to do this right, I would need a transit or something to measure what direction (10 degrees east) something is from some known point.

The shadows matter, and do show up in the satellite image so that should help also.
I will ponder each suggestion more tonight or the next few nights and comment more as time allows as I have only touched upon all that you said/wrote briefly.

If you draw a park or your land or what/where ever I hope we get to see it. : )

If you saw picture(s) of the trees could you identify some of them?

It makes sense now, still, it doesn't look like a shadow for me, it seems blurred. Maybe a longer shadow would work better? Also some shadows look like they are glowing, Instead of grey, you should try full black + opacity.

Oh, that IS much larger, lol.
You know, on the surface, when you learn about vector graphics, and that you can scale images without loss, you think "great" and "this will be very useful, and save a lot of work". But in reality, the image doesn't necessarily look the same scaled, even though there technically is no loss. Especially with a large degree of scaling, and especially with very small/tiny images, like avatars, smileys, buttons, etc.

If you draw a park or your land or what/where ever I hope we get to see it.

Oh, I don't have anything specific in mind. But I am inspired, and hope something fun comes to mind! I've been wanting to do a series of leaves of all different kinds of trees, but this would be different. Maybe I could Google Earth my apartment building (107 year old house converted to 6 apartements, with mature trees, shrubs, along with a couple of ivy covered walls and fence). OH!! Or my favorite park -- omg, I'm on it, lol. But first, I need to get a current version of GE, lol.

If you saw picture(s) of the trees could you identify some of them?

Possibly I actually studied forestry in Kentucky, and at that time, could identify every native tree and shrub in that and surrounding regions. I could even identify conifers by the cone alone! Ironically I've lived in Colorado ever since then, but I've picked up a lot about Rocky Mtn flora too. But as I said, after 30 years I've forgotten so much. Plus I was never familiar with Oregon (although I have fond memories of a road trip that took me through Washington, Crater Lake, and south to Yosemite ). If there were like a close-up of a leaf (or small branch if it's a conifer), along with a shot of the whole tree (so I can see the branching habit), and maybe even a close-up of the bark (if it's old enough to have developed a mature bark)(like 15 to 20 years +). Even with all that, it's probably a long shot to be honest. But I'd be glad to try. I have some tree id books I could consult (although now that I think of it, they're probably for trees in the eastern US). On the other hand, now I have something I didn't have back in college -- the internet!! Well anyway, I'd be glad to try ...but no guarantees

Or actually, this is a better idea. You could call a local arborist. You might find one that would give a free consultation, although you might have to deal with a sales pitch for pruning or pest control. Haha, tell them you need to fix the mess made by the phone company and let them give you an estimate. Then you could ask them to id the trees while they're there. Just a thought

Gotta make dinner so this is all for the moment. More soon.

The latest...
Only had a short time to work on this. I added detail to the conifers and changed some colors and shadows. Did not get the shadow of the N yet...

The brown is where grass will not grow (to shady) or is warn from the tire swing.
Did not get any images as yet.
Updated the tree drawing above and added a 5th tree attempt.

Oh wow, definitely nice improvements!

So the previously labelled firs might actually be spruce (I'm guessing by the new shape). Or, spruce and Douglas fir can look much the same.
Oh, I thought in the first version, that each tree represented an actual tree, but in this 2nd one, there are fewer conifers. From an artistic perspective, I really liked those 3 towards the lower right of the grove. I don't know why, they just caught my attention. But in this version, the conifers look more natural. That 'one on top of the other' effect is much improved.

The only comment I could say now is regarding the shadows. And using the shadows on the filberts as an example -- instead of using gray, try using a partially transparent black. I know to me it sounds like it woudn't make much difference, but in my own work, I've found it very effective. OR, even use a very dark green.

Oh, very nice work!
I'm definitely inspired, and off now to download the current version of Google Earth

EDIT
Just wanted to show you what I'm thinking about for a similar project. The problem I ran into, was when I realized what a very small park yours is. There are no parks of a similar size that I know about, where I live. Although I'm sure some exist, I don't have any connection to them. So I chose an interesting portion of my favorite park, which in total takes up 34 square city blocks, including 2 lakes. My area of interest probably covers about 2 blocks:



The light green square is for lawn bowling, and not open to public. Then just north and west is an English-style hedge garden. The flowers are too small to see, unfortunately, but those geometrical shapes are actually hedges. Then the little "boardwalk" on the lake. The pavement along the right is only for bikes and peds. There's very little access for motor vehicles, but the upper pavement, as you can see the cars parked there. I just like the variety of interesting textures, shapes, trees, etc.

If I can find my grandparents' old farm in Virginia, I may do that instead. Thus far, though, I can't seem to find it. Anyway, I'm not planning to hijack your topic here, but just wanted to share my park

I think we have cedar trees mostly but there are more than one kind of conifers in the park.
My calling the tree a fir tree was a gross generalization. I should have put conifer. The tree is meant to be a very generic starting point to vary from.
I have been waiting on a survey to more accurate points to measure from so I can place the tree more accurately on the drawing and then draw them better.

The trees started out as all the trees places as accurately as I could by using photos. Then they we moved to better match satellite images. Then the conifers got redrawn and the park change shape a bit to better match Google Earth. With Google Earth you can rotate around the park and change the angle you are looking at the park as it is some what 3D. Without really identifying what kind of tree each tree is and making notes on the general height they can seem to all blend into each other in my park. The trees in this park were planted way to close together also which also creates a challenge.

The park you are considering should be easier than the one I am doing. It seems so formal and nicely laid out rather than a bit over crowded.
Each tree has distinction. Although there is much more detail and things to draw.

You will find that you will have to decide somewhat up front, to what level of detail and also realism you want to attempt.
Even then, you can ponder the same choices in terms of the layout of the park and also the elements of the park.

My initial attempt was to have fairly high accuracy on the layout and lower on the elements.
You might be able to down load the PLAT map of the park as a starting point.
I layered a PLAT, two satellite images and played with the transparency of the layers to help draw the park. Often you can find different years or version of the satellite maps.

Scale is another choice you will have to make also.

This thread is to share and your input is very welcome...

looking great. the changed appearance of the firs and modified composition, helped to make them stand out more. and not looking like one overlaps next, which overlaps next..staircase effect.
when you copy an object with a gradient, both refer to same gradient. unless you duplicate the gradient on the copy also. that's if you're wanting differing gradients.
i still like this style. it's quite unique. that's probably what i struggle the most with in making any drawing etc...usually arrives at it's own style; rather something i chose.

maybe the suggestion about color choice would further enchance this illustration? if u set up the objects nicely so you can easily change color of whole tree...it makes for easier adjustment of colors, especially if you were to later adjust the illustration for autumn etc. will this ever become an animated illustration showing shade etc through the seasons?

Yes the color. Looked fine at first (in the heat of the moment) then I started to really look at the colors and wow, they are like glowing bright - to bright. I might use GIMP to help me select colors using the dropper tool over a satellite image. The trees are duplicated rather than copied but that is something to really consider changing for some of the trees. Not entirely sure how I would set up the conifer trees to change the whole color but that would be save a lot of time. I had not considered an animated illustration although that is an interesting idea. I am pondering a before/now and after/future for a park upgrade.

VitalBodies wrote:The park you are considering should be easier than the one I am doing. It seems so formal and nicely laid out rather than a bit over crowded.
Each tree has distinction. Although there is much more detail and things to draw.

Well that's perhap a more formal area in the park, which as I said, is very much larger. I chose that section because of the formaility, to make it easier to draw. Many of the conifers are distinct, but I think the really big challenge will be the deciduous -- mostly Siberian, but a few American elms, also cottonwood, and many others that are new since the last time I visited the park (what I call "lollipop trees" -- horticultural varieties that are bred to never exceed 40 or 50 feet in height -- which I think is a crime to nature -- we should never genetical alter nature -- but that ship sailed before anyone ever knew it was really happening). (sorry for the soapbox rant there ) I think part of the distinction among trees, and perceived formality, is because I simply could not choose as small an area as your park covers. I'm zoomed out quite a bit compared to yours. If I had chosen so small an area, with similar flora, the trees might be just as jumbled and intemingled as yours. And also, I found nearing the elevation of your drawing, GE started to blur out. I'm sure that makes it more difficult for you.

Meanwhile, I think I found my grandparents' farm in Virginia. The aerial photo was taken in the winter though, so I'm trying to find a summertime view. I'm gonna get NASA WorldWind as well -- lots more satellites to choose from

You might try AcmeMapper if you have not. I am interested to try worldwind!

Thanks for the tip. I did manage to find the lat/long values, but it's such a rural area, there's no color image. Oh well. And it turns out NASA WW has a bit of a learning curve. I could jump right into GE. But with WW, you have to install add-ons and plug-ins (which apparently there's a difference but no one can explain it) to get any functionality. I'm stuck just trying to mark places so I can return easily. The recommended add-on/plug-in's website is extinct....still working on that. Anyway, thanks!

In Linux:
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/
Go to the download area...
Extract the download to a known location.
Open the terminal.
Cd to the known location.
Copy and then Edit > paste the code from the Readme.txt into the terminal.
Push the enter key - at your own risk, worked for me....
Go to this page in Firefox:
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/demos/
Right click > open in a new tab > the first demo on that page > say yes to "run the whatever" questions - did that get it started or had you do not already?

I got the program running at least. The next step is to turn layers on and off and see if this helps. Otherwise not sure what the next step is unless you just wrote it.
USDA NAIP got me a fairly close view I had to turn off i-cube landsat.
So far this is not better than Google Earth but I hardly know this program.

just thought i'd mention that you can use the dropper tool in inkscape to select color straight from a imported image. zoom in to make more precise selection. you can delete the photo object later.
i used google street view picture of my house and took a snapshot. cropped it and imported into inkscape as a reference to using inkscape tools to draw a vector equivalent. used the dropper tool to assign the colors. ended up with a very rough but usable svg where i could play with changing the windows to different sizes and number of. i only used flat colors, which are representative of the general colors of the house. not very nice looking aesthetically speaking.
if you're going to use gimp anyway...might as well try the option of reducing colors (temporarily) in the image, to say 32. it should produce fairly usable colors for your pallette.
good luck with further development of the park. looks excellent.

I didn't install the Java version of WW, because it says it's for developers. I just got the regular version 1.4. I'm sorry if I was unclear, VB. I do have WW running. But you have to install the add-ons and plug-ins to do much more than just look around. All I want to do is mark the place when I find it.

USDA NAIP? Is that a plug-in/add-on? Oh, ok, USDA NAIP is another earth imaging program. I will investigate further. Thanks

chriswww wrote:just thought i'd mention that you can use the dropper tool in inkscape to select color straight from a imported image. zoom in to make more precise selection. you can delete the photo object later.
i used google street view picture of my house and took a snapshot. cropped it and imported into inkscape as a reference to using inkscape tools to draw a vector equivalent. used the dropper tool to assign the colors. ended up with a very rough but usable svg where i could play with changing the windows to different sizes and number of. i only used flat colors, which are representative of the general colors of the house. not very nice looking aesthetically speaking.
if you're going to use gimp anyway...might as well try the option of reducing colors (temporarily) in the image, to say 32. it should produce fairly usable colors for your pallette.
good luck with further development of the park. looks excellent.

Well duh, and ya I should have thought of that, and ya, I knew at some point. Nice suggestion! I actually have an image of the park in the drawing...

I did our house in Inkscape also. One thing to consider is doing a SAVE AS and then make your house NOT any colors but gray scale. It is interesting to not be distracted with color at all and go only by tone. Then from there convert that knowledge to color.