A question/discussion topic for all you out there:

I normally post pics that are, at first glance, -not- fractal art. No obvious Mandelbrots or Julia, no spirals, nothing that immediately says "Fractal". On those rare occasions when I do feel like making a traditional frac, there is more response from viewers who've never before commented on my 'normal' pieces.
And in a recent IM exchange with another fractal artist, she mentioned that doing the same old spirals was getting tedious for her, and she wanted to do something different.

So, first question: how many of you get tired of the same-old-same-old? and secondly: if you -have- left the beaten path, have you noticed a different response from the audience?

(Please note that this is NOT a complaint [I make my pics to please myself only], nor a trolling for viewers, merely an idea that I would like to discuss.)

I tend to just make images that I like, and I like to wander all over, trying new things all the time. I have a couple of favorite formulas, and I tend to prefer certain types of images because they 'work' well, but I also love to do things that are completely different. What I notice is that more people comment on flame images, almost invariably. I can understand that, because I think they are more 'real' looking in many ways than other things. However, having said that, other contributing factors seem to be: day of week, time of day, color, who posts next to you....and a whole host of other small things. Sometimes I think people will also comment if you do something that is unusual for you, maybe just out of surprise. Thanks for an interesting topic.

I for one would love to know what are your favorite formulas. :)

I'm very new to fractals but I've noticed I don't really view anything but flames... I love flames and I think they're the most fascinating fractals :)

Don- Favorite formulas?? Gosh. Depends. grin

[Caution: UltraFractal terms/preset names used in following:]
For neat texturing, I find that the 'popcorn plasma', 'gnarly orbit traps' (by Mark Townsend) and 'SFBM 2' coloring (by Sam Monnier) give me the best combination(s). For a defined fractal look, though, an asteroid, or smooth coloring style usually works well.
For fractal formulas, if I need a layer of just texture, I usally use a pixel formula--not truly a fractal, but allows the fractal nature of some of the coloring algorithms to work unhindered. For structured shapes, almost anything goes. I often play by running a single fractal formula through almost every option in it's box, as well as almost every coloring set. I tend to have about fifteen to twenty 'experiments' for every finished piece. And I tend to save sets of ideas for rework and re-combination later. (So, yes, I do reuse elements like frames and such over again....)

How do you other folks work? Do you start with a image in your mind that you want to recreate, or is it more spontaneous?

I for one do a lot ao single-layer fractals. Mainly because I'm really new to fractals. At the same time I do love to experiment, just starting with flames now and hoping to work my way to layering. In the day and age that we live in now, with everything in a constant state of change, who's to say what is traditional and what is not? What is non-traditional at this point, may within the next year or so, be considered traditional! Just enjoy what you do. Do art for art's sake! No more, no less!

I get tired with the same ole same ole and try every now and then to do something different. I have noticed a different response as well, and sometimes it has been positive and other times not so positive...I think the rest of the time I just scare people, LOL. As for making images...I start most in Apophysis and just try and find something that looks as if it may be interesting. Once I have something then I start 'fine tuning' it and usually as i'm doing this an idea for a finished image will come to me. If I don't get an idea then I will just save it and come back to it later. I also tend to re-use a lot of stuff...One day I may post a finished image on Renderosity and the next day I may use it as a background or gradient for a new image. I have used one image more than a dozen times in different ways...but I ain't saying how or where! ;O) Matt.

I too love to try new things! I especially love taking fractals that have captivated me and mauling them in photoshop! Some of the most wonderful patterns can be created and recreated over and over this way. When I love an image and it makes me feel really good inside I find that the possibilities of re-creating it into new art are almost limitless. But then again, I can sit down with a pallet of paints and just mix them for new colour combinations for the sheer pleasure of it! Yes, I'm a colour and pattern junkie through and through! Nice discussion topic!

Firefly- Well, I had noticed that there wasn't much free-form discussion going on lately, and wanted to contribute something to the mix. grin Seems that folks had a interest, and were willing to go along with the flow!

I've noticed that too. My "best-ranked" images so to speak are or traditional images (usually variations on Julias, "enhanced" by Ultrafractal) or flames. I'm not very fond of all kinds of flames, but when they are beautiful, they for sure stand out of all the other images. I don't feel intimidated by playing with "old stuff", sometimes it's very refreshing to just zoom in a Julia and find something new. I am not using Fractint as much as before, but it's still there. I'm not much into making very complicated compositions. When I like something and it has just one layer, every time I try to add something to that image it gets destroyed so I keep it as it is. I also import old Fractint images (the "Orgforms", hated by some) and change them in UF - the changes are surprising sometimes. I also noticed that whenever a new formula/coloring method is available, there's a flood of images using these methods/formulas, and something that was once beautiful soon lose its initial appeal and gets boring. Then it's time to go back to the old stuff.

I normally start with plain ol' Julia spiral and try out some new variations for one of my old UCLs or try out new UCL ideas. The same is true when I think of new geometric patterns that often results in using a pixel formula. Once I got tired of making spirals but still liked to look at them. Then I created patterns and "abstracts" (It is funny that we don't call a spiral an abstract image). But these abstracts did not get too much response when they were too geometric. Gnarls and Turbulence images got much response.
In the moment a new spiral is just rendering at home...

What I often find less interesting are fractals in a 70's chaotic style (except those from Fred) and images that make too much use of strong symmetry. For me symmetry is ok when it is not perfect.

fractals in a 70's chaotic style<<<<

Not quite sure of what this references? Do you have an example?? But, even so, it's an interesting phrase to use to describe a style....would like to hear more...?

Yes the "trippy" images (lime green and purple combinations?) bother me a bit as well... but some are quite interesting when the colours are well used and not just placed there randomly.

70's chaotic style... Take a look at the first images in Peitgen/Richter's books or on some LP covers by Greatful Dead or... I think marcusbacus got it right :-) But please - it's only a personal preference...

And my "most stolen" images (i.e. those that were hotlinked heavily on public forums, call them "the most popular" too) were those that had somehow a reference to "trippy" or sometimes "cool" in their descriptions... I've changed my naming techniques since. Another band that I know that has used a fractal in a cover art is Killing Joke, in the "Millenium" single. Much probably a Fractint image.

Sometimes I start a fractal with an idea, they're the worst coz I don't have the skill to know what will do what so its a lot of trial, error and time. Other times I just work with a 'lets see what happens attitude'. I get bored easily doing the same type of images and just recently came to an abrupt halt from using the same ucl's. I guess I'm more non traditional in regards to spirals and mandy's, I'll try most any formula and rarely use the same one more than a couple of times. I love Apophysis flames and the imported pic fractals and I like messing around with post porcessing.

This looks like a fun discussion.

I've noticed that my particular style has evolved over the years. What I'm looking for in a fractal now isn't the same thing I was looking for seven years ago. For example, this page contains fractals I made in 1995 and 1996. Old, old images. Back then, I was more content with basic spirals and minibrots. I don't think they're ugly now, I just don't find them quite as interesting.

But now as I look at these old images I see hints of style that I think I've developed more in recent images. Spirals deliberately placed off-center. Looking for unusual shapes and framing. A lot of these are butt-ugly, but they're interesting.

After this pleasant stroll down memory lane, I took a quick look at the artwork I did after that. I was looking for more texture in my fractal images, so I experimented with post-processing. Some of it worked, some of it didn't. I started looking at new formulas. I found more interesting stuff, and I was getting better at things that didn't look like the same old stuff, but I was still sort of restless.

Then I hit what seemed to be the jackpot: new ways to color existing fractal formulas. Oh I had so much fun; everything was new, different, interesting. But I was, in a way, back in my rut: spirals and minibrots again.

It took me a while to get out of that rut. As in, years. It's oh-so-easy to find spirals once you know where to look. If I'm not paying attention, I'll end up with a spiral. Or a minibrot cluster. Especially when I make a new tool--I want to use it, so I'm in a hurry and I make a spiral. I end up with something rather ho-hum.

I still saw glimpses of interesting things, things that don't seem to fit the normal fractal mold. Things like "Liquid" or "Fear". Things to look at that don't immediately scream "fractal" but are produced with the same tools as more obvious fractal art.

Over the past few years, images that are less obviously fractal are among my favorites. It's not that I don't like classical fractals: I still do, very much. But would you rather put "Banded Clouds" on your wall, or "Thunderhead"? I chose Thunderhead, and a large framed print hangs in my living room. Most of my visitors don't even realize it was produced with mathematics.

I wish I could show you some of the other new things I've done but my new web site isn't quite ready yet. Only a few of the images I've made since 2000 have been posted in various forums. I did post one of the most interesting here at Renderosity, called "Abandoned". That's about as unconventional a fractal image as one can get. (smile)

I guess to make a long story short: yes, I sometimes get tired of the classical shapes, especially if I've just had to look through forty variations of the same spiral. Fresh is good. Unconventional images keep our imagination active. It's easy to get into a rut and hard to get out of it, but--if we consider ourselves artists--we owe it to ourselves to pry ourselves out of our ruts and do new, original work. We shouldn't stick with derivatives and variants on our old work.

--Damien

When it's time to hang something on my walls, I also tend to not use the "classic" things. I have a few images on my computer room, and a few in my living room, and just 2 out of perhaps 10 are "classic" images or can be recognized as fractals (one person only actually saw one and said "oh a fractal!"). When it's time for hanging on someone else's walls or something else, I've noticed that the chosen images are always the most classical images. I was even surprised how much one of my simple Mandelbrot zoom-in images was so well received. When I first start making my "non-traditional" images, after some time I also got bored with them as much as I am bored with spirals now (even though spirals is all I could do lately...), and I came back to the old Julias. I think that the fact of watching not only our images but a lot of other images made by several different people with different tastes and styles and "levels of quality" so to speak (about 100 new images daily, if we follow the UF list and other fractal lists and newsgroups? Perhaps much more than that) can cause a feel of "deja-vu" on almost every image, be it our creation or not. 99% of the times I make a spiral, I say "it was probably done sometime in the past", but I go ahead and finish it anyway.