Isn't this going back to the same thing that has been discussed so many times? It's wrong for someone to use a 3D shape in an image. It's wrong to use photos or anything like that and post them into the "fractal" gallery. If you get down to it, probably 99% of the images in the "fractal" gallery are not all fractal. A little tonal changes in a paint program, a little sharpening or maybe even a blur or two. All of these are not "fractal", if you are looking for purity. This discussion seems to go back to the point of, " I used UF to make it ". Which is fine, but what if someone else preferred to use a paint program to do the same thing? According to that line of thinking, if you don't have UF you may only post "pure fractal" images, simply because the program you are using doesn't have the graphics capabilities of UF. So, if someone wrote a fractal program and incorporated a 3D generation engine; the resulting images would still be fractal? Personally I think it should be up to the artist. People go through different stages of learning, but usually they return to fractals or they post somewhere else. Mostly because that is where they feel most comfortable. William