Wow, this one is really impressive. Great job. What I love the most is the nebula - stunting colors.
One thing that disturbs me is the starfield. It looks like the stars were ahead these nebula formation in the center of the image. In fact most of nebulae are to dense to let star's light get through it, so they should be invisible (or barely visible), 'cause the nebula simply covers them. In here the stars in the center are as white as another one's, and what is more, the starfield is visibly more close-grained into the bargain. It seems to be little unnatural to me BTW.
Unless the stars ARE ahead of the nebula. It'd be really enormous nebula then. After all, every time I'm looking at this piece, it makes me thing that something's wrong with stars here. Maybe that's just my personal feeling, don't know.
It's a good point and I understand the perspective.
My thought process at the time was that the starfield depicted here is the result of a supernova(s)-spawn nebula and that millions of years had passed. The nebula has progressed very far into it's decay, as the gasses have either dissipated or more often than not, collected, compressed and given birth to new stars. As a result, the orientation of this picture does show an excessive amount of stars 'in front' of the nebula.
The funny thing is I created the starfield in Apophysis 3D. Even though it isn't real 3D, the perspective rendered seemed to fit this concept.
The scale of the nebula is indeed supposed to be massive, as I do most of my nebulae (the grander the scale the better )
Oh, now I understand. Nevertheless it has to be a very massive (and dense) supernova - nebula is still quite visible (and has vivid colors) when it has at least few light years of length and breadth (or the newborn stars are very small and close-situated). But overall that makes sense.
Thanks for reply. Hmm, have I already mentioned I love this piece?