Hmm. Magnificent and evocative like all yer landscapes, but I find I'm not quite convinced by the inward-jutting jagged bits in the back.
I'm not sure how much is the sharpness and how much is the angle, but it just doesn't feel right. And that's so unusual for your stuff--realistic or fantastic--that I thought I'd mention it.
As far as I know, there are four basic reasons/ways you could end up with a large pit: Erosion, impact, eruption, or excavation.
Erosion happens when rain cuts through soft rock, which means the remaining edges would also be fairly soft and therefore weather-rounded and not projecting so far, or they'd break off under their own weight.
Impact, whether meteor or bomb, would blast the sides out in a conical shape from the point of impact, so the upper areas wouldn't still be curving inward that way.
Eruption from below, presumably while the rock was still fairly molten, would be possible, but again I can't picture anything that would leave in-curved jagged blades rather than wider arcs or rough cracks (And if it were caused by a subsurface magic blast or bomb, I'd still expect the upper areas to be straight up or outward, not leaning in.
And deliberate excavation normally happens in stone soft enough that those projecting points would probably have fallen under their own weight.
I'm certainly no geologist and may well be wrong, but for some reason this jars me where even stratospheric-height towers haven't.
In any case, I'm certainly still happily devouring all yer art as you post it; just figured you might want to hear about any problems.
A collapsing of supporting structure could cause a formation like that, no? Like if the ground underneath shifted, or the rock inside was crumbling for some reason, causing the middle part to "sag" inwards?
mypethuman-- In theory, that could certainly happen, but the examples of such a collapse that I can think of tend to leave downward-angled and sagging shards/slopes rather than just up-jutting edges.
It's certainly not a big issue either way, and Noah's a better artist than I'll ever be, so I trust him to decide whether my crit is useful to him or not.
'S why I only leave crits for the good artists & writers, not the beginners: they can evaluate what I'm saying and decide whether it's of use to them.
Beginners tend to be pert' fragile, and they have a hard time sorting the good & useful crits from the nonsense and the attacks. But a good pro learns to treat crits like any other tool; sometimes it's the right tool for the job ("Oh, you're right; a hammer would drive this nail in better than this Q-tip does") and sometimes it's not. ("A hammer? For my embroidery? I don't think so!")
My primary art is writing, and I value having (and being) a good beta reader above all things. Sometimes they catch your errors; sometimes their advice isn't *directly* useful because they've misunderstood what you're trying to say--but that tells you where you weren't clear enough; and sometimes they're just plain wrong, like a young beta who kept wanting me to write a thug's dialogue in complete and grammatical sentences. But that same young beta understood the thugs's internal turmoil better than almost anyone else out there, and she also was great at catching my typos and clunky phrasing.
So I try to give feedback to people whose work I like and respect, and leave it up to them to use or ignore it.