My hillshade study focuses on the Gore Mountain Range, which is a range in western Colorado. In six panels, I compare different degrees and methods of shading. There are three pairs of plates. On the left side I have the raw layer that represents the addition that is then overlaid with the complete hillshade on the right. As the plates move in pairs top to bottom, they demonstrate different shading techniques using color.
I started with the basic aerial perspective at the top, and then added cool shadows, warm highlights, and blue valleys. The final plate shows all of the above, with the addition of Imhof’s color gradient. I chose to focus on these elements because the individual plates looked complete enough to be final products to my untrained eye at the beginning of this process As I learned more techniques and tried to emulate other work, however, I realized that I could push the hillshades and add a lot more. There are so many variations and subtleties possibly in every step of the process, that it was overwhelming at times to understand that there might not be a “right” answer. Being able to create multiple plates allowed for comparison and a final product that contained stages of the choices I was making during the process.
When comparing the first pair of plates, plate 1 and 2, it is clear what a big change the aerial perspective effect makes in terms of simplifying the hillshade and making it clear what is important to look at. Though subtle in theory, adding blue shadows and warm highlights resulting in plate 4 makes a large difference. These slight tints of selective hue, along with adding a blue shade to the lower elevations, really make the mountain features pop and result in an image that I was really happy with. Adding one of Imhof’s hypsometric tints resulting in plate 6 added another dimension to the hillshade. Compared to plate 4, plate 6 has more contrast and is in my opinion more noisy and distracting, even after cranking down the saturation of Imhof’s colors. My favorite plate is #4, because I believe is is a happy medium between the colorful contrast of #6, and the neutral wash of #2.
My study highlights the importance of creating an effective visual hierarchy, even when it comes to hillshades. As a general design principle, there needs to be a happy medium of noise and contrast. Plate #2 lacks depth and appears flatter than #4, and plate #6 might be a bit noisy with too many shadows and colors. I also think this study highlights the importance of using good examples as references in this process. Although I did not reach the simplicity and clarity of these examples, I was referencing the maps titled basel and venezuela from reliefshading.com. At the end of the day, the hillshade process is art, and is greatly aided by careful observation and application of technique done well.
After this process, I would be very interested in seeing what it takes to create a hillshade that is simple enough to support text and linework overlaid. In many of the example maps with linework and labels, the hillshade was so faint that it was just a suggestion of physical features. I will be interested to see how the creation of a basemap hillshade like this is different from a hillshade that is in itself the work of art, like some of Imhof’s hillshade paintings.