Funny you would say that because I was just thinking before I signed on just now that the more I look at it and change it the worse it looks to me. I even tried redoing those trees on the far left but they looked worse so went back to where it was. Misunderstood about the land, thought you were saying to connect it to the far horizon.

Now that looks like a place I could throw down a blanket and watch the clouds.

Ah....that's getting close...

The issue with 3D 'art' is it's actually 2D 'artifice'.

The intent is to fool the eye into accepting/believing the image has a third dimension [maybe even a fourth - a sense of life/movement].

Part of it is 'easy' in that provided the elements are 'familiar' to the viewer within the image their representation is understood...eg ...distant mountains.

But,

Sometimes the eye needs 'help' in your case the grass/foreground lacked a sense of depth that related in perspective with the horizon delineated by the background shoreline/mountains.....something that can be reinforced with a tree/trees in that new background area....with their size reduced in accordance with that perspective.

Don't forget, tho....if the treetops are lower than that horizon they're in a valley [or you're bloody tall]...

i still think the picture is far too busy, (no breathing space)  out of prospective and the focal point is overshadowed by too many dominate features....

with trees that are cut off and do nothing to help the picture.

Ive helped as much as I can with this, not only by talking the talk, but by walking it and showing you a technical example of what you should be

aiming for....but........

 ive got a wb to make....so good luck frankie. xx

I put one tree and one bush. If I add anything else to that corner it will become a blob! I changed the water up a little also.

I am sorry I am not going in your direction but by the time I got your perspective I was too far into what I had done to completely do an about face. It started out as simple but I guess was too simple and progressed from there. I appreciate you taking the time to give me your opinion.

I have taught people the process of 'design'....that's Architectural design.

First rule I have is never use pencil...it's too easy to rub out...and lose the value of historical, evolutionary thought.

Ink.

Indelible and permanent record of your thought processes that lead to the 'logical' [?] conclusion.

You should go back and look at the sequence of walls that culminate where you are now...and analyze the evolution.

Just to add...

You've again lost the land 'connection' of the foreground to the background...so it's back to looking like a paper cut-out of a foreground looking through the gaps into a 3D disconnected image/scene.

The link is lost.

Okay, now I am going to do it how I think it should look and you all can tell me how wrong I am but I have umpteen pictures of lakeviews that do not have a shoreline on either side. Once I tried adding that it looks like a bowl to me. The trees on the left side are a definate problem. The mountains, I think, are too close to the foreground. I have become mentally attached to the project so I will return later with my version!

There is NOTHING 'wrong' with the picture other than the foreground looks more like a mount/picture frame than part of/belonging to the background....an attached border.

To anchor/connect it to its background an intermediary element is needed..

Put simply....the difference between where it now is...and how I've described it should be [and how it almost was...at one stage] will be the difference between its straight acceptance as a wall submission or its rejection.

You 'may' not understand/accept the distinction/difference but it's one of the criteria by which people [mods] judge a submission....whether it looks/reads right.

The stand-out issue is that the grass is so dark immediately below the water....it doesn't so much separate the foreground from the background as separate the result into two totally unconnected images....like a cut-and-paste.

Now if THAT's because the foreground grass/trees is on a separate image layer to the background then that's a real problem with the use of layers.... splitting drawings into 'bits' that are actually unrelated....the result is disjointed.

You can have umpteen pictures without a shoreline...you can have umpteen photographs of real locations....if they don't read right they won't be approved, either.

I am not [trying to] help you with some 'other' picture of a lake scene...I'm responding to THIS one.

It is not my intention to ignore your advice, I am just saying that as it is now it does not look right. You are correct in that the foreground looks like a frame (or Bowl). The foreground has become too dark through endless tweaking. If I don't leave it on layers for now it will be impossible to manipulate it. I am sure it has to do with my interpretation of your intent as anything else. The tree area on the left edge has become blobby from the constant manipulation (the original edge trees). All I am saying is that I think it needs some serious reworking to look correct. It is not my intention to throw everything out, just try to refine what is there.

It's cleaner, brighter and I hope better and more connected.

Almost 'perfect'...

Now...have a real, close look at the middle of the image...where the grass 'meets' the water.....is that a hard, continuous 'line' with an overlay of grass fronds overlaid?

That's OK where there's no grass....like where the bare ground is at left...but I'd be penetrating 'transparency'/openings lower into the grass area to hide that 'line' more.

Do that and I'd call it 'perfect'....

You are so astute. That deliniation line has been driving me nuts for several days. I will contemplate some more on how to clean it up. Some one took issue with the bare ground but I think it needs to be there. I am so glad you approve of the changes.