Some of the comments on my images have me thinking about the process of flame creation. When I first started playing with fractals, my attitude was that anyone could create them. They were a dime a dozen. No artistic ability was needed. I feel that way about flames right now. The whole process is very random. When I fire off 10 or 20 random batches of 100 images each, I am bound to find a good one, right? But, then I feel like I am really doing something by playing with the triangles. That's where the fartsy hits the artsy, right? Maybe. It is a little less random than 2000 batch images. Messing with the gradient is even less random, especially when used in conjunction with the UF gradient editor. I guess my point is that my feelings about flames and art are evolving the same way that my feelings evolved with normal fractals. Anyone can come up with a good spiral the same way that anyone can come up with a good flame. It's the next steps that matter most. It's the composition that makes the difference. That is not to say that stand alone flames are not very beautiful. I have many that I plan on putting in my personal web site, but they are all starting to look the same to me. This makes me want to put them into a composition of some kind, just to show that I do have some creativity, if I have any at all. I just thought I would share my thoughts... Keith

I'm feeling kinda the same way... I guess that's why I can't help messing around with my fractals in Photoshop!!! It gives me the feeling of being more "in control" - like "I" am the creator of this piece, not just the fractal generator program.

I guess it's a shame sometimes since I have a collection of very beautiful stand alone flames that "pure fractalists" would certainly enjoy more than my usual compositions. It's just that I don't feel like I really "own" them, even if I spent time pulling triangles and fooling around with gradients...

Anyway, this is a very interesting thread you've started here! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and have a great week-end,

Agn :-)

I love flame fractals so much I took all the standard fractals off my website and have now dedicated it solely to my flames. www.arcanefractals.com Quite early on I found that for some reason that no matter how beautiful a flame may be, to my eye it almost always looked a bit lonely sitting by itself. So I started creating flames and putting them together to make compositions. It was for me quite a natural evolution to combine pure flames. It takes me days, sometimes weeks to find a flame with wow factor. This involves using mostly the mutation windows and speed controls. (I had never moved triangles around until last night). Then several hours playing with colour and lighting. For me that is the crucial bit. I think too, a really good title can never be underestimated to help evoke a feeling or atmosphere or help define the fractal. By the time I have finished with my flame fractal I am well and truly owner of it because I know that it wasn't something that took me five minutes to knock up by randomly hitting a few buttons, but rather took me a huge amount of effort and time plus imagination. Yes the generator is making the flames, but I am choosing, eliminating and tweeking fractals to my taste which ultimately influences the final outcome. For every action (mine) there is a reaction. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Keith. I found them and also Agnes's really interesting. Keep flaming :-) Fran

Been at your site and really enjoyed your beautiful images Fran. As a 2D person with a love for fractals, I like to include them in my images, but I am such a novice with fractal programs, so my fractals are not so complicated and excellent as those I meet in Fractal gallery. I sigh and admire when I look at everybody's creations :-) So, natural for me is not just to present a flame, however beautiful, but to place in a context. I agree with the importance of a good title.

I just started messing with flames and quaternions, and I agree, but I am not concerned about it. With Ultra Fractal I usually mess around with the formula until I find something desirable, but I don't know how to do that with flames yet. The color has a lot to do with it as well. Some fractals don't look right in red, but look perfect in green. I'm still working on fractals, and will upload some soon.

I feel the same way as Keith. I realized this not by looking at random batches, but by looking at the galleries. I go through the thumbnails and my head says "just another captured random... and another... oh, yet another" and so on, and I stop and look any flame that doesn't feel that way. That doesn't mean they are actually captured randoms, just the way my eye seems to sort them out. I think one of the reasons might be the increasing knowledge one has over the program. At first, when you don't even know the program, all images are awesome. But when you start knowing how they were created, your appreciation changes. Mine did, at least. Time shouldn't be an instrument to measure an image's artistry, IMO, but sometimes (more times than not), I'm guilty about using it that way. If an image took 5 minutes, no matter how beautiful or well composed, is not worthy. I'm talking about my own images here. Oh, and about the title, for me the process of choosing a title is just as important (and as fun!) as creating the image itself. Sometimes I even start without a particular idea, and when a particular tweak strikes me as beautiful, I automatically start thinking about its "identity". Then I continue working on the image, but towards depicting better the image's "identity". :-) Good thread. I like to exchange thoughts on interesting subjects. Barbara

I only ever generate batches of ten. Then I spend hours playing with one of those (in all the ways you describe) in order to get something that speaks to me. Nine out of ten times I trash the whole project and start again. It's probably the reason I post very few. I always thought 2D was a matter of getting the "pieces" put in the right place and that anyone could, with the right amout of practice, get good results...but fractals have a life of their own! They respond in ways that are unexpected and truely frustrating at times. Then when you get something that really sings, your computer crashes. It's the challenge. I am currently wrangling my budget to get UF. I want and need more than just pretty flames. Miriah

I was sceptical about flame fractals to begin with as well (though I liked the look of the algorithm, I hadn't seen much that impressed me in the way of "finished" images). When I started making flame images they seemed too easy: if I didn't spend as much time on them as with my UF images how could they be as good? I've grown out of that a bit (but I've been doing basically nothing but flames for a couple of years). It's the result that counts, not how much effort an image took to make, and I think the variety of flame styles in the fractal gallery shows that there's plenty of room for individual creativity to shine through, even with "single layer" flames. I also think that the variation in quality shows that Apophysis isn't doing all of the work. Mark

"It's the result that counts, not how much effort an image took to make". An absolutely brilliant comment. If I am satisfied with an image, honestly I don't care much anymore if it was generated randomly or post-processed or if it has 1000 layers or whatever else. This explains why I've barely posted anything lately, here or at my site - I'm terribly dissatisfied with my images (you can read it as: "this kind of image can be seen everywhere now").

Hello! With all respect I absolutly do not agree with Wub and Marcusbacus.You have to put some efforts,some skills,some artistic taste to an image.I created many one layer images,but it does not mean that they came to me like one, two,three. It is easy to see which flame images are done without any effort.They are on black background,same coloring like others,with similar shapes. With randomly generated images sooner or later they will look the same,and what more important they will loose an author own style. And I think this is main problem with Apophysis. When I look at UF image I can -in most cases- guess,who is an author and it does not matter if image is great or just average.People very quickly develop their own styles. But with Apohysis it is very hard to do it,unless-guess what-You put a lot of effort.And even with it You have to use other programs. But the reason that more and more people use Apophysis is that is very easy to get "nice" images without any effort. It looks like UF looses battle with Apophysis at Renderosity and in resaults we see that artistic level on this site is much lower then let say one year ago. Whay kind of images we have at Hot20? Greetings..............Wojtek..........

I partially agree and partially disagree with Wojtek. "You have to put some efforts,some skills,some artistic taste to an image". Of course, but this doesn't necessarily means that you must spend a year making it. And black backgrounds look prettier :) This thread seems to be linked a bit to some relatively old thread (also started by Keith I think) that said something like "are we making our images just for them to be at R's (or any other similar site) top 20 or are we trying to make images that are pleasant to ourselves?", and it is linked to Wojtek's message main theme as well, which is not "images must be multilayered to be considered good", but in fact it's how we can be lead to bad ways, if we misuse the tools we have and just trust on our luck. Indeed, we can really run the risk of destroying our own style and technique (no matter how simple or complex they are - I'm a fan of the "less is more" phylosophy though) trying to do images that aren't among our favourite things/techniques but that are "the top 20 of the week". I've reduced greatly my numbers of posts and visits to R to avoid being "infected" so to speak by these trends, when I felt that I was (unsuccesfully I must say) involutarily trying to "copy" some images and styles seen here. I personally have nothing against the "random" features most of the time, but I think I've read somewhere something about the randomizing algorythms, and how there isn't a real "randomizer" - things will eventually repeat sometime (I'm not a programmer, forgive me if I've said something wrong). I've used the Fractint's "Evolution" a lot, and it is a valuable tool. Sometimes there are really beautiful images that are found in the very first round (that may also have been seen by others, why not? Someone that has been playing with Fractint since 199? probably had the chance to see these same images by other methods), but my way of work is to usually import them into UF and use its better colorings/etc. etc. Sometimes, the tweaks are minimal, sometimes they are more elaborated. Sometimes there aren't tweaks at all. I don't think that the quality of the images here have decreased that much (maybe, I havent been here that much either), but instead, most of the artists are now in the same "level" of techniques - the "random realm" level.

With all respect I absolutly do not agree with Wub and > Marcusbacus. You have to put some efforts, some > skills, some artistic taste to an image. Well then you are actually agreeing with me. I said my flame images took less effort than my (better) UF images, not that they took none. > With randomly generated images sooner or later they will > look the same ,and what more important they will loose an > author own style. > And I think this is main problem with Apophysis. I wasn't encouraging people to rely on totally random flames. Apophysis isn't going to pop up with a great image on its own. Of course it takes some effort to develop a personal style with flames, perhaps more effort than with Ultra Fractal because your choices are more limited, and flames already have a "style" of their own. > But the reason that more and more people use Apophysis is > that is very easy to get "nice" images without any effort. Well maybe, and some people are going to settle for "nice" random images (and I guess there's no reason that some people shouldn't settle for that). But that's not the program's fault: it's just a tool. Mark

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=602601

But nevertheless - this topic runs into spheres were noone can really decide for others, only for oneself...

This is the fifth time I'm trying to post in this thread! They keep disappearing so this time I'm copying it and if it doesn't take I'll start a new thread with it.

This discussion reminds me alot of the discussions about whether PSP and PI (quick & easy to use with alot of built in push button effects)were as 'good' as Photoshop (industry standard and used by 'real' artists). sigh Snobbery (is that a word? LOL) is what I call it, you know some artists won't even call fractals art!

I just recently started making fractals and I have about 20 different fractal programs on my pc that I play in. I love the flames the best...it'll take me several hours at least to make a flame fractal and even then I may scrap it and start again rather than render it. If I post process or make something using the fractal it may take a day or two more. When I do finish and render the fractal...it is my creation. The program is merely the tool I used to make it. I do find it's getting easier to guess correctly what program was used as well as which artist created it because regardless of the program I think the artist's style shows.

I do enjoy combining fractals though I doubt I'll ever use them as building blocks to make a picture for the same reason that the bushes in my garden aren't pruned into shapes; but rather planted in an area so their natural growth and shape is incorporated into the garden design.

I usually don't title a fractal as I think that influences what a person sees when they look at it and I prefer people to see their own thing. You never know what a person is going to focus on though I do try by placement, lighting, etc. to attract the eye to a certain area.

Fran...I have to add I love arcanefractals and go there to drool quite often! LOL

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this. It's a good discussion. ;o)

I like stand alone flames a lot. Especially if they are well defined shapes and the gradient is applied well. I like the glow of the colors in a flame. I just don't post any that I make because its not my style, not to mention that I have yet to make one that even closely compares to my favorite ones here! lol There's a good bit of Polygon Pushin' and gradient work that has to go on to refine a randomly generated flame and get it rendered well. You do see a lot of similar flames types, however. The possibilities are hypothetically limitless, but there are a finite number of shapes that people who like fractals find pleasing. Couple that with the fact that you see a lot of the flame variation types repeatedly generated and "spiralled" with the same scripted algorithms and the number of possibilities is even smaller. I suppose its due to the "quasi"-random operation of any of the psuedorandom sequences that man is able to come up with. As far as I know, only God is capable of true randomness. That said, I usually use flames in my images as texturing or in concert with other flames or UF fractal layers. My style is to make "compositions", I guess, (and the bushes in my yard ARE pruned into shapes - lol) and I use fractal shapes as part of a greater whole - though my initial love for fractals stemmed from the psychedelic, "black-lite poster" look many had in the 90's and still do now and I still love them. One thing I've found is that Apo can be a bit detrimental to getting any work done in UF due to its addictiveness - it can be almost like a compulsion and is great stress relief therapy, too! lol Mark could make a mint (the $$ kind, not the artist! lol) off of Apo if he chose too! I've had to stop running spiral scripts because I was running out of "landscaping" materials - flames with an organic look to use in compositions - which have to be made manually. Fractal geometry was first described to me in the '80's as the math that describes the shapes of nature and crystals, so I reckon that's why I'm inclined to use so many "plant-like" flames. As far as whether an image has to be a mega-complex layer fest to be considered "good", I suppose I don't subscribe to that opinion. I think, in the end, the question should be "is it beautiful or pleasing to look at"? After all, we are creating ART, no? Some of the most pleasing - at least to my eye - images and graceful shapes I've seen here are only one or a few layers. There is quite a bit of work involved in perfecting an image of one layer and a lot of attention must be paid to fashioning the right gradient and shading for those works. But in the end, I think the question should be about how the image looks and not - "was it hard to make"? Rick

(and the bushes in my yard ARE pruned into shapes-lol) NO...NO.....NOOOOOOOOOO....;o)

Yep! I'm a regular Edward Scissors Hands! Got a giraffe, an elephant, a platypus and a cool bush that looks like Zaphod Beeblebrox after a hard days night trying to reclaim the Golden Bail from the Robot Warriors of Krikkit! Unfortunately they became "Someone Else's Problem" and I had to trim them to look like toasters - not the new kind, but the old kind that used to play on the screens of Macintosh computers before the arrival of the army of Stand on Your Head and Tie Your Shoes functionaries from the evil planet, GatesuxIX, at which time they left the Earth to join in the war to rid the planet WunderbredIV of unruly pumpernickel bread slices who were making quite a mess of things at the peanut butter factories there. :>) Actually, I just have 2 eugenias that are trimmed like a stick with 3 balls on it because thats how they were when I bought them - lol)

Well that explains it then...you came to earth by way of the B-Ark. LOL I have lots of spirea, nandina and holly which I let grow with a minimum of pruning. I had 2 evergreens out front though that hubby pruned and they ended up looking like balls of green too...what's up with that?!?! Hahaha...;o)

When Keith started this thread, I wrote a lengthy bit of ramble that made very little sense, because I didn't know what I was talking about. Since then- and especially today, I've been working feverishly in Apophysis to come up with something presentable enough to post. I've been aided by tutorials and tips 'n tricks, etc. I'm here to report XD & UF fractals come easier to me than do good flames- particularly stand-alone flames. Maybe I'm making it too complicated, but most of my results leave me cold. I'm definitely attracted to flames..particularly the soft, ethereal type.