Here we go again, but I can't help it... What's with all of these mostly non-fractal images showing up in the fractal gallery? I know what's up. In the fractal gallery someone could put a pile of dog crap in front of a random batch flame with a flood filter and it would get 10 comments. Put it in the mixed medium or Bryce gallery where it belongs and it may not get any comments. Our addiction to comments is killing us. Show a little backbone. Take a chance and put these images where they belong. Someone might even offer to help, or even better, we might see our images for what they really are, and maybe they really are masterpieces, but maybe not...

exactly ... like your "Real Fireworks" ...

i wonder why you are always critisizing ppl for their artworks, and you pubish exactly the same ... you should have a little bit more admiration for your fellow artists ...

your 'real fireworks' is made with a digital camera, and then manipulated with a fractal program or something else ... so according to your message here, it DOESNT belong in the fractal gallery, or are you waiting for comments and then change the gallery...

i can quote you: "show a little backbone"

Harmen

Message edited on: 07/07/2004 03:29

lol get this: "Life of Deagol" 16% fractal and 84% bryce ... and where did you publish it? right...

Harmen, you are wrong in your comment and conclusions.
As a member from the UF list, I know in what way Keith 'composes' his images in Ultra Fractal; using very clever techniques and personal skills after many years of experience.
No Bryce; no manipulated digital pictures or photo's as you suggest; even no PP to get some effect. And bring-it-in is a sort of plug-in; only usable in Ultra Fractal.
All images are pure UF and/or Apophysis.
So don't react on this item, if you don't know about the used software and technique's from Keith.
Or are you jealous?

Keith, IMO you are right in your observation and conclusion.
Wish you all the best.

Message edited on: 07/07/2004 06:44

Harmen, you are flat out wrong about me using Bryce. I don't use anything but UF and maybe a brightness and contrast or sharpen in Photoshop. I just bought a copy of Bryce 2 days ago. Go look at the thread that I started in the Bryce forum. I am only beginning to learn how to use it, but after using it a little I did realize how out of line I would be to post a Byrce image in the fractal gallery, even if it is full of flames. That's what prompted this thread. Plus you are really missing the point. We are inbreading and creating monsters with our comments. We are telling ourselves that garbage is great. Can't you see what a disservice that is? From what I can see that doesn't happen in the Bryce gallery. I speak from experience. I am addicted to comments. I am more inclined to put my images in the fractal gallery because I know I'll get a string of comments. But on more than one occasion, I have been naked and still told how great my clothes are.

yeah well like you we all feel home in the fractal gallery ... i could have my images posted in the artmatic gallery, but i refuse, they all use artmatic voyager there, and we artmatic pro users just don't belong there it seems ... if you didn't use bryce with that gallery image, i must say its brilliant to do that in UF ... but the digital camera fractalized image is mixed medium :-)) look if a real fractal artist, uses another pic to flourish up his design, there is no point of putting it in the 'mixed medium' gallery we all are fractal artists and fractal designers, and use fractals as a basic of our creations ... and belong therefor in the fractal gallery if ya have a gallery in new york and have yer fractal show of the day there, then ya don't say, the rest of my designs, which are partly fractal, and partly bryce and photographic, are in the gallery in boston... anyways, most fractal artists dont look any further than that fractal gallery also i ain't designing stuff to get comments, i design for myself and share it publicly... going back to flash, photoshop, fireworks and illustrator now to create another 'fractalized' monster LOL oops... animation smile Harmen

To each his own Keith, not all of us are UF wizards and the Fractal gallery just seems right for some of the works we create. People just don't seem to appreciate the fractals anywhere else. It's not about the comments for me, those are an added bonus. It's more about sharing with a community to me. Harmen, there will always be someone speaking out against an artist no matter what he/she does. As for me, I put fractals into Bryce with an idea before I do. It's not dog crap, its an idea. I put my fractals in the Fractal gallery to see how some of you like that idea. It's something that not everyone does and it's what makes me me. When I have a Bryce creation that doesn't focus on fractals, I put it in the Bryce gallery. Fractals are a touchy subject because there are so many ways to create a fractal, and even more ways to manipulate a fractal. I hate to see threads like this, but yet I feel inclined to participate.

"your 'real fireworks' is made with a digital camera, and then manipulated with a fractal program or something else ... so according to your message here, it DOESNT belong in the fractal gallery, or are you waiting for comments and then change the gallery..." If using Bring-it-in makes an image belong in the mixed medium section I would have to move a couple of images of my own. I often use textures and reflectionmaps in Ultra Fractal and these are based on photos. Does this image belong in mixed? http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=648166&Start=1&Artist=kinggoran&ByArtist=Yes

An after-thought. I wonder how a gallery with no comments or statistics of views would affect our work... There would be no constructive critism, but then again we're used to that, aren't we?

There are always grey areas and I am not about to be the grey area police. It just seems like a few images have come up that are not so grey. Please understand what I am saying. I am not trying to insult the artists who create these images, I am trying to help them. Let me give you a specific example without being too specific. Some time ago an image showed up in the fractal gallery with a flame background, a couple of Poser (or something) objects and a flood filter. At first I thought that the artist must have been joking. The flames were medeocre at best and the Poser objects looked like their feet were stuck in the corner between the floor and the background, or that they were walking on water. There were other things wrong as well. In our kindness, and our comment feeding frenzy, we told the artist that the image was excellent, amazing and great. By doing that the artist got the message to build more just like it. We did a disservice to that artist with our kindness. If this image appeared in the Poser, or whatever, gallery where it belonged, the artist would have been better off. On a different note, and I know that I am going to piss off some people with this one: Anybody who posts images in Renderosity, asks for comments and then claims that they build art for only their own satisfaction, is a liar, if only to themselves. I challenge anyone who makes that claim to put up or shut up and turn off their comments, or ask for help. There are a few who ask for help through comments but the vast majority of us do it to be stroked and to feed our addiction. One more thing: I am using words like "us", "we" and "our" on purpose to include me. I am guilty of doing what I am complaining about, so go ahead a dig through my gallery and fling it at me.

lol ... in other words, your asking for comments LOL

Well, maybe, but keep that between me and you :)

Keith, have you ever seen some of the heavy mixing artists to join a discussion about how much is too much? I havent. And I dont think they will ever. The dogs will bark, the caravan will continue travel. Any time this question appear (every month, I think), we are given to understand that everybody who feels at home in Fractal gallery can post here. Fact.But if the question is one of the main themes in the forum, isnt it the time to find a solution at last? Every other gallery has certain rules about the art posted in it. I am going to a certain gallery to see what other guys created in certain medium. If I want to see mixed medium, I go to Mixed medium. And last - if a work is good, it gets attention wherever it is posted.

I have a lot of mixed feeling about this subject. I do not know where anyone would draw the line to decide if an image is more fractal or more some other program. Seems that since so many have drifted away from the idea that a fractal needs to be 'pure' (whatever that is), there is more and more postwork done on fractals and that has included combining various graphic software with fractals. I actually think UF is somewhat a graphic program, rather than a pure fractal program. So, it seems the debate will continue. Also, I have thought we need to have an Apophysis gallery. But then, what about those who take an Apo image into UF for a background? Same problem, I think. As for comments: Yes, it is nice to get comments, but sometimes I find the comments a burden as I feel compelled to respond with a 'thank you note'. I often think it would be nice if there are no comments, only votes, and no one knowing who voted. But on the other hand, this would be a rather sterile community. Many online friendships have blossomed here on Renderosity. It is rather fun to communicate with others of like interest. Keith, I am glad you mentioned asking for constructive comments. I shall have to do that. I have noticed a few do that already. Oh well, life goes on, and Renderosity goes on. Guess we should make the best of what is available. This venue is far better than the newsgroups IMO. Marion

I do understand the sense of community, the birds of a feather thing. Programs like Bryce or Photoshop take a lot of technical skill to use successfully. I just hope that our strong sense of community, or addiction to comments, doesn't keep us away from the resources that are available to us. When I put Bryce on my machine, the first place I went was to the Bryce forum. I was greeted with the same warmth and willingness to help as we have here. Of course the first thing I did with Bryce was to start mapping fractals onto everything. My first Bryce image is going into the Bryce gallery because that's where the Bryce resources are. It just seems like common sense for me to do that. If I have a complex Photoshop image, with lot's of flame layers and masking and merging and filters, it seems like I would be doing myself a favor to put it into the 2D gallery.

Yes, I see what you mean, Keith. Guess when we use PSP or PS for massive postwork, then it should go in the 2D gallery. Is that what you mean? Anyway, I think that all artists in all the galleries use various programs to enhance their art in some way or another. The borders are very blurred these days, I think. Don't know if this will ever be resolved. It will simply evolve into something different as computer technology evolves. Marion

Marion, I have to agree with you 100% on this... we don't know where this will evolve :)

Keith, I'm backing you, too. For me, mixed media should go in the mixed media gallery - but where to draw the line? I can't verbalize it - but I know it when I see it!

Most graphics imaging programs use Fractal math to some degree - but I like knowing, for example, that a sphere was created in UF, or XD, or other fractal generator. It takes a whole different set of skills to set up the lighting and colors/reflections in what we call "fractal generators" than it does in other imaging software. I like to know what I'm looking at, and appreciate the fact that even though those "spheres, or whatever" may NOT be perfect, the thought and work behind it comes from a program I know, and can appreciate. And I can appreciate those beautiful post processed fractals, when I know what program the artist used to create the original.

For those that enjoy mixing programs (and there are some beautiful works here) how about posting something to the fractal forum that says "hey! I just uploaded an image to Mixed Media (or Bryce, or Poser) that involves some fractals - y'all come by and have a peek!". Fractal friends will follow the artist, and comment accordingly. And you get the added bonus of making new friends in a different community.

Panny (off soapbox now)

Well, here I am again..a day late and a few dollars short. I just posted a XD-Bryce image (mostly XD) to the fractal gallery..BEFORE I read this thread. Whoowee, Keith! I actually agree with you on most points, but I think the fractal gallery has broadened it's horizons as of late. Actually, you're the one who got me thinking about my old fractal-bryce combos. Harmen, I understand your angst, though I can also say, except for the fireworks image, I can't recall Keith using anything but pure UF for his remarkable work. But, hey- let's all call a truce here. We're here because we love fashioning fractals, no matter the program(s) used to acheive the final result. The community spirit and support in this gallery is phenomenal, but I do agree that we need to stop the recipriocal back scratching and get down to serious critiques. Not that I don't appreciate the lovely and complimentary comments.. I do. But, I want the kind of feedback that will allow for growth and help me to stretch beyond what I've been doing. Sure.. I'm addicted to comments, too- love getting the positive input. It's just time for me to step back and ask myself why? Why is what you think (universal you) so dang important to me? Don't know, but I want to focus on s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g. :) I say all this knowing I- more than most, have a tendency to gush, but I'm going to try to be more discriminating in my comments. Probably will lose some gallery friends. I hope not.

Hi all
First, let me say that I think the majority of opinions are valid here.
So...Where to draw the line?
That is a tough question.
First, if you postwork in another program, then by definition, that is 'mixed media'. Well, that would be a large portion of the gallery, would it not?
I've been through the 'postwork' thing before, and I am definitely in favor of it.
I've also stated before, that if the main focus of the image was 'fractal', I felt that was fine here.

Second. It is true that I might have missed some postings that may be more of another type. I'm not perfect, nor do I have a large amount of time to cover the gallery. We now have DreamWarrior, as Coord to help, and for that I am most grateful.
Yet, this doesn't clear the conflict.

Where do we draw the line?

Do we exclude the 3D/Fractal compositions? Again, that is another good portion of the gallery. How about the ones with added clip-art, and such? Do we exclude those?

In my mind, if the main component is 'fractal', then I believe it should be here.

But...
I would like to hear more views on this, and please keep it civil.

Also, you can help.
You can let me, or Barbara (DreamWarrior) know by IM, or e-mail if you see something that you don't feel belongs here.
We are working hard to keep this an enjoyable forum and gallery, and there are some good things yet to come :)

Lastly, I thank you for expressing your views, as it is you that makes this such a great section :)

Thanks,
Nick

What if I spend 2 hours making a fractal and then because i'm fickle I decide to post-work it in photoshop. I spend 1 hour filtering it and such before i'm finally happy with it. Now this image looks nothing like a fractal anymore, but I have spent twice the amount of time creating the fractal than I have doing the post-work. In my eyes this is a fractal image because the majority of my time was spent making the fractal...Though to other people this now looks like a mixed medium image... If I post this image to the fractal gallery then am I in danger of being told it doesn't belong here? Even though I am the only person who really knows just how much fractal work went into this image... I think there is a large grey area here that is impossible to police. I think we just have to accept that some images we don't think belong here are going to be posted. The only one who knows for sure where something belongs is the artist who created it. unfortunately, some will post here instead of other galleries because they know they will get more comments in this gallery. I've done this myself in the past. I also post to other galleries occassionally. I posted one image a couple of months ago that up until a few days ago had zero comments on it, I actually learned a lot from that. As MidDayCrisis I posted images to the Bryce gallery that incorporated fractals, some were well received, others not. Art isn't defined by it's gallery, it's defined by whether or not it is any damn good...I live for comments like "I don't usually look at fractals, but this one caught my eye...". If a fractal image crosses over into the 'mainstream' and attracts people that don't normally bother looking at them, then it's a success in my eyes... I would rather have one comment like that, than any number of ego strokes. My tuppence worth... Matt.

Hmm, been away, so only just spotted this thread.... "When is a fractal image not a fractal image?" Interesting question, and it's clear from previous posts that there are a variety of views on this. My personal opinion is that if the image is primarily fractal based, then it may go in the fractal gallery - although if it also calls heavily upon other software (as some of my own images have) then it may also go in the relevant gallery for that. Again, speaking personally, I think that the current trend towards incorporating fractal images into a combined finished item is a positive thing. Art is not a static thing - if it were we would still be using vegetable dyes on the walls of caves!! Anything that is moving the genre forward is, to me, beneficial. Not everybody will like all of the results, but isn't that true of life generally? Some of the images being posted now demonstrate great originality and creativity, together with a significant amount of skill with the software. And many of them don't. I'm sure that I'm not the only one here who has looked at a thumbnail, thought "Ho hum, another Apo spiral" and moved on. For me, creativity is an integral part of art, and pushing the boundaries of what is possible is a part of that, and is to be encouraged, not closed down. Bernie aka Lord Wexford

Oh, as regards giving comments, I have started to change the way I do that lately, Linda. Since I don't allow ranking on my images, I also won't rank other peoples images. Instead, I incorporate my ranking into the comment. If I think an image is 'nice' then I will say so...If it's 'very nice', 'good', 'great' or 'excellent' then I will say that. Often I will see people say that an image is good or nice in a comment, and then see that they have ranked it as excellent...Am I the only person that sees this as hypocritical? If you think an image is 'good' then at least have the courage to rank it as such...Or don't rank it at all... Anyone that wants to comment 'honestly' on my images is welcome to do so. I'll even let you use my system, lol. Matt.

I have the solution. It is simple and it will work. Let's define the fractal gallery, in writing, this way: The fractal gallery is an any medium gallery for any image related to fractals. Period. That's it. Yep, it's a 180 degree turn around from how I started out, but it is the only reasonable solution that I can think of. Instead of defining boundaries or drawing lines, let's erase them. Fractals occur everywhere in our software and in the universe. Bryce, for example, generates terrain from fractals. Any Bryce image with terrain would be fair game. Same for Teragen or any other software that has a hint of a fractal in it, no matter what that software is. Fractals are everywhere in nature. A picture of a flower or tree would be fair game. Astrophotography would be fair game. Bacteria, fair game. Let the artist decide if it is a fractal image. As far as not getting the correct resources for whatever software, who cares? What do you think?

OK, not sure about this ........ I would not, for instance post a MojoWorld image in the Fractal gallery, because, although the thing is based totally on fractals, the output is actually a landscape, not a fractal per se. Ditto for Terragen. However, there is no black & white compartmentalisation to this, because as you point out, nature IS fractals. A grain of sand, a rock, or a coastline - they're all fractal based, just at different levels. So do we say that the Fractal Gallery is only for fractals of a Julia / Mandelbrot / IFS nature? Probably not, because that would be unduly restrictive. Don't know the answer to this one - we could go round in circles for ever and not reach the end - which would be a very "fractally" sort of thing to do!!!! :-) Anyway, what's with all this "Bryce" stuff - everybody knows that Vue is the best 3D package around..... Ducks rapidly & reaches for the sandbags ............ Bernie

Yeah, it sure looks like things are being rattled all the way down to the foundation in the world of fractals these days. That's one of the things that's good about the Renderosity "phenomenon". Fractals are now not just the province of a few ecclectic individuals, like me, scattered about the globe - they are becoming MUCH more seen, created, used and recognised all over the place. The second largest group at 3dc is now the fractal artists! This is inevitable and the changes we've seen with all of the different tools, post-processing and the like are the natural result of an ever growing number of artists wildly and exhuberently tossing out new ideas and processes, much to the consternation of the established status quo. I know it can be unsettling to see an old "friend" starting to change after being essentially unchanged for so long, but I liken it to the wild days in music and society in the 60's where anything was game to try and the more off the wall the better. Nothing is "sacred" to the newer fractallists and anything that looks cool goes - post-processing, flooding and all kinds of other ideas that will surely be imagined and explored and thrown into the mix. This is, IMO, good for the genre and for digital art as a whole. Fractal shapes are beginning to insinuate themselves into all sorts of other types of digital art. "Chaos Unleashed", indeed! :>) That said, I do think that fractal art (though maybe not the kind of images I sometimes make - too structured with the chaos "leashed") is the purest and most seminal form of digital art. Fractals came way before PovRay and Bryce, etc. It was first described to me in a lab the mid-80's as the mathematics that describes the shapes of life and nature. From the shapes of crystal lattices to the branching of amino acids to the branching of prehistoric ferns to the branching of an oak tree to the branching of limbs of an animal.......to the whorls on the tips of our fingers. No two exactly the same - "God's mathematics"? You can't just go and get fractal "free stuff". Everything has to be crafted "by hand" by finding just the right formulae and coloring algorithms. If you look at Maria Kinsey's and some others' recent work, you will see that her images consist of dozens of these most pure of fractal shapes composed very skillfully and artistically to create a larger whole - a representation of our surroundings. We live in a veritable sea of fractal forms swirling about us. I'm sure she could have used Bringitin and composed the image in Ultrafractal but the end result would have been similar though maybe not as nice as what she did with PSP. The composition of the fractals she used is AT LEAST as interesting as the one small PSP tube in the images. Some of us have been around the fractal scene for decades and have watched the artform since its inception. But most of the artists creating fractal art images today are very new to the game and, for some, fractals are just another tool to create something else. The changes we see are inevitable and will grow and I believe the genre is fast approaching a nexus where it will have to redefine what it is and what it is not to avoid becoming - or remaining - some "miscellaneous", catch-all type of artform. Choose too narrowly and it will be seen as stodgy, quaintly odd and something that only white-haired mathematicians in lab coats do. Choose too widely and it could be marginalized as a catch-all, "other" category. I agree, btw, with Keith's remarks about the Bryce images that have as their only fractal aspect an Apo flame in a rectangle hanging on a Bryce wall in a Bryce room. I DO think they are VERY cool images and my wife bought me Bryce for Christmas to try some of that stuff because I like them and think the artists who make these images are very skilled and talented.(been too into UF and lazy/scared to make time for it, as yet). Yet, they are predominately Bryce images or "mixed media", IMO, and would surely make a good impression in those galleries, as well. They probably wouldn't bother anyone except that, occasionally, they have been deemed the best "fractal" image at Rendo for a given week. They certainly were among the best "digital art" images posted to the fractal gallery that week, IMO. A fine line, I suppose. Hard to describe - we know fractal art when we see it. But...there are only so many types of spirals that can be made with the current tools at hand, at least that are pleasing to human eyes/sensibilities. I don't think using filters or textures to enhance the appearance of a fractal disqualifies them for being considered "fractal art". Or the fact that one used Bryce to shape a flame into an orb rather than UF doesn't disqualify it, either. Or the fact that an image is a composition of multiple fractal shapes. In the end, though, something somewhere has got to give to avoid stagnation. Rick

Well, I guess I'll put my two cents worth in. I have only been doing fractals for a little over a year now. I have a very large collection of fractal programs; and I like to "play" with each of them. I love to experiment and try new things. I do not like to feel restricted to the use of only certain programs. If I have an idea, I'll do almost anything to achieve that idea (or as close as I can get). I'm far from being a professional, I do this mainly for my enjoyment. I like looking through the gallery and seeing something different ( which is becoming harder to do), and trying to figure out how that artist created that particular image or effect. Most people will stray back and forth on some particular tangents, but usually come back to the basics of their art. (The partially incoherent ramblings of a partially mad man!) William

"I have the solution. It is simple and it will work. Let's define the fractal gallery, in writing, this way: The fractal gallery is an any medium gallery for any image related to fractals. Period. That's it." That seems a bit silly...if you're going to define it in writing let's make it even simpler. 'Pure single untouched fractals only'-if it's postworked it doesn't belong here, doesn't matter what program you worked it in either (PSP, PS, UF) you're still doing extra work on the fractal. No 150 layer/multiple-fractal images that have been blended and masked and combined into one 'image' made out of fractals...just the real deal! Hmmm...that seems just as silly doesn't it! That said...I haven't been to the gallery yet but before I left Monday I did see a few compositions posted that I wouldn't have labeled fractals so some clearer guidelines might be a good idea (but that's just me). We have alot of artists here that put their fractal images together using a program other than UF. UF is different in that you have a graphics program combined with a fractal generator in the same software, but some people prefer to use PS or PSP or Bryce to put their fractal compositions together and I think the fractal community here as a whole would suffer to exclude those artists. If you're addicted to comments...turn them off. I just turned mine back on, I got asked alot why I turned them off and there were several reasons but the one that mattered the most was that what others thought became one of the components in the work I was doing. The only way I could take it out was to turn off comments til I got a grip! LOL The problem with comments isn't with the people leaving the comments. That's a real nice, encouraging, supportive thing to do...the problem is when the artist attaches so much importance to them that they let them unduly influence their work. I'll tell you too...it was really hard to do at first, but it gets easier. Just my two cents. Guess I'll go check out the gallery now...it's good to be back and I can hardly wait to see the new stuff posted! ;o)

Guess no solution has been arrived at yet. So many opinions. What I would like to see is for the artists to be COMPLETELY HONEST and state what post work has been done on the images they post, no matter how slight it may be. Even a small description of their technique might be nice. I wonder if some of us don't take our images into another program and maybe use 'unsharp mask' and never give a second though about it being post processed as it has become a habit and accepted. One artist very nicely states that the images posted are sharpened. I like that. I don't do much post work, mainly because I am not very good at it. I use PSP for borders and for my signature and once in a while to recolor stray pixels in the image. And sometimes I use unsharp mask and when I post, I forget all about stating this. I saw one image posted recently in the fractal gallery and for the life of me, I could not find the fractal portion of it. It had lovely post work done on it, however. Now that is the kind of image that I think should go in the 2D or mixed medium gallery. It seems that I remember some time in the past, when we could post more than one image per day, that some images were posted in two different galleries; as if the artist was aware that the image could be in either category. That doesn't happen now that we can only post one image per day. Arend makes beautiful mixed medium images that could fit into maybe 3 different galleries and be acceptable in each. But he posts them in only the fractal gallery and the fractals are clearly evident. So I can see why he posts them here. Just some more of my thoughts on the subject. Take care, Marion

Attached Link: http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/

I have seen that site and those images are ugly ;?) My point is that here in R-land, fractals are an art form. It doesn't matter what the math folks think (but we do owe them a debt of gratitude). As long as it is an artform it will evolve and change and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it.

I used to think that I was a pretty good artist, but lately I have been getting my artistic ass kicked (maybe that's why I am frustrated). I was one of the first to do a flame composition. That's not a brag, it's a fact. Now everyone is doing it and they are not using UF like I did, they're using whatever tools that work. This train is not stopping any time soon. This artform is moving forward. Maybe not in the direction that we think it should, but it's still moving.

I'm resigned to it.

Those of us who have been fractal purists had better wake up. I don't know where we'll end up but I am convinced that fractal artists will need more than a fractal generator to remain competative. I don't think that fractal art will ever move into the mainstream where photography or other popular fine art is, I hope not, but it can still be fine art. With all of the tools available and all of the young artists here learning to use them, us old guys will be left in the dust. It's happening right in front of us. I have seen many artists get better and better as they learn to use the tools.

Message edited on: 07/09/2004 21:36

[What I would like to see is for the artists to be COMPLETELY HONEST and state what post work has been done on the images they post, no matter how slight it may be. Even a small description of their technique might be nice.] I tend to agree with that. It may be unfair of me, but I do tend to be more impressed with an image that took a lot of effort and innovation, rather than a pp trick or filter, etc. I don't consider myself a purist per se...after all, I do think the final piece of art is what is more important, not just the tools used. But I still think it's important to give credit where it's due when someone develops a certain skill with one program. For example, if you see a decent image that was digitally painted from scratch versus a stock photo that's been filtered and manipulated, I'm more likely to be more impressed with the digital painting...even if the processed stock photo looks nicer. Which leads me to wonder if some don't post their methods of creation for that very reason?

I must be going in the opposite direction to everyone else here...

I started off using fractals in Bryce (those who have been around here longer will probly remember some of them) then I started using Photoshop to compose fractal images, now I find myself doing more 'pure' fractals. The last 14 images I have posted have only had sharpening and a name addition applied in Photoshop. As I get more and more comfortable with the fractal software i'm using, the less and less post-work I do.

As far as flame compositions go, Keith. I can only think of 3 people who have even come close to making anything as good as the ones you posted, I know I never did.

Matt.

Message edited on: 07/10/2004 08:47

Mytwocentsworth...
I'm one of those who do mixed-programs pics. They usually start with a fractal as the base picture inspiration and have other elements added. I would post both the unaltered fractal and the final pic in the Fractal Gallery, to show what happened. It would also go up in Mixed-Medium, usually. As mentioned earlier, it was easier to do this when we could put up three pics a day. Now, unless you want to pay hard cash, you have to wait multiple days to post the pics in every appropriate Gallery. The separation of posting creates a gap... and the point of showing the comparison pics is lost. Not sure what the solution is for that problem. I recognize that R'osity is HUGE, and our free posting of pics in the gallery is a privilege.
However, I feel that fractals, both as pure art in their own right and as inspiration for a mixed composition, should be celebrated in all their glory. What we do need is to do, is to continue to raise the standard of art. Unfortunately, this gets us quickly back into the dreaded realm of "The Critique" debate. And I'll leave that for another thread (and another, and another....).

I have mixed feelings. There are some images that I think are better suited for other galleries, because the fractal is secondary. On the other hand, I enjoy seeing all the different ways that fractals can be used and I'd miss that if they weren't on the fractal gallery (I barely have time to keep up with it).

"What I would like to see is for the artists to be COMPLETELY HONEST and state what post work has been done on the images they post, no matter how slight it may be." What does postproduction have to do with dishonesty? Why shouldn't the artists also describe what color algoritms they've been using? It only seems to feed the notion that there's some fundamental difference between altering the hue and contrast in Photoshop and changing the gradient or coloring in Ultra Fractal. None of those actually alters the fractal, only the presentation of it.

Maybe I chose the wrong words. What i meant was that I believe that sometimes artists do minimal changes in graphic programs to their fractals and simple forget to mention them when they post their image. Sorry!!! Marion

Nothing is ever going to change. People will still continue to post mixed media images into the fractal gallery, and people will continue to post images that are less than a quarter fractal into the fractal gallery. To quote a very wise man, "To thine own self be true." Every art site has its fair share of propblems. Some differ, and some are the same. People are people where ever you go. You can either fall in with the trend and be just another face in the crowd, or you can be true to yourself and your art and stand alone. What type of person you are, only you can answer.

The reason why I don't think that a person needs to account for all/any postproduction on an image is that the Fractal gallery as opposed to the Bryce, Poser or Mojoworld galleries is not centered on a specific utility but rather on a type of image.

I agree with you Goran...I also feel that having someone who doesn't use UF or XD list all postproduction steps is tantamount to having the people who do use UF and XD list every step they make in their programs. ;o)

Well, I give in. I guess what I said originally was stupid, to say the least. In all truth, I really don't care one way or another whether anyone says what they do to their fractals. And I don't care what they do to their fractals either. I simply enjoy looking at artworks in many of the galleries here, comment on the ones I like, and am on my way again. Marion

I dont think it was stupid Marion. I for one like it when people list under their work what they have done in the post processing part ( if any ) I like to know how they achieved the final state of their fractal. I also do it myself if i assemble a UF / Apo collaboration in Photoshop. If a technique piques my curiosity enough, ill even IM them and ask. You dont learn unless you ask questions. No, there is no need to list your PP, in fact i dont think that was really implied here. Like me, i believe Marion was just stating what she likes to see, and appreciates it when artists do it.

This place is structured so that we can from from each other. The problem is that not everyone cares about that learning. It requires unselfishnish. We actually have to make an effort to say anything but "what a masterpiece, V", or to list what we did to come up with an image. Plus, we don't want anyone to know our secrets. They might be able to build a masterpiece just like ours. For many people this place does not go beyond a free gallery. It's a teen chat room with pictures.

gettin tired of this

"Plus, we don't want anyone to know our secrets. They might be able to build a masterpiece just like ours." There might be something to this... :)