Simple question but i think a right answer is not so simple For me personal is this the next steps Render most be really sharp Colors most be in balance (personal taste) As you use postwork for special effects do it clean and clean up the flying pixels or keep it natural Using a border or borderwork keep it subtile and let the fractal be the focus and the eye catcher Depht - 3d look is also one of the things that can make it really special But i think many of you have of course a complete another criteria what a good fractal is I am really inquisitive what you think about my question here and i understand that it is the first place a very personal taste is Excuse for my bad English hope you understand it a little bit Have a great and creativefull day guy ,s Arend

I think a "good" fractal is one that gets an emotional response from me - pretty much the same as with all art... Whether or not a particular work has nice "clean" lines isn't necessarily what I look for - it's more the overall effect that the complete image has for me. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of nice crisp clean lines...lol! But sometimes a bit of blur can really bring out a whole different tone to an image. Borders, I'm not a great fan of - but some can really enhance a picture... others destroy the overall effect as far as I'm concerned. I like borders to be simple and not to detract one from the actual fractal - but that's just my taste - I don't use them myself (as yet anyways...lol!) Well - that's my 2 cents worth... T.

For me I think it is summed up in some words in one of the Xenodream tutorials written by Smithgiant; I'm looking for an effect that creates a sense of harmony somehow. Yet that is an instinct, a felt sense and probably differs from one person to another.

I too like it to draw some emotional response from me. Most of the pictures which I make which feel harmonious are very symmetrical and soothing. Yet some images that carry an emotional tone of disorder and chaos also fascinate me, because that too is part of the whole. But I spend less time looking at chaotic images because they tend to disturb me more.

I'm less worried about sharp renders. Some effects I have made such as 'embroidery' were so chaotic they could only be sharp in the central region so the outer borders were fuzzy whatever I did (though someone kindly complimented me on the effect despite it having been wholly unintentional ;)

One thing I do prefer though is if people render large and then display reduced images because that way there are less 'jaggies' as I've seen them called. I really find it jarring if there are clear square edges of pixels as colour shifts.

Another personal preference for me is that generally I prefer subtle colouring. There are obvious exceptions, I love images from Mountmous, Yesitis, Kitchaos whose images are often in rich vivid colours. But when I'm colouring my own I usually aim for the subtle.

Interesting question Arend and one I've thought about myself as I look through the gallery and wonder what the hooks are that make people open some images and not others, is it important how the thumbnail displays the image etc. Kathy

agree the tumb is also my drive for the big click I have not free time enough to visit any upload and yes i select on interresting tumbs Greatz Arend

It depends what programe i am using either UF of Apo. With Apo i do random batches until i find something i like colour or shape. I like both........ the crisp sharp images if i see just a one flame image. The more blurred ones perhaps, if i can see the potential for a composite flame.

UF i have to be in a patient mood for because, i find it's layering properties exciting but hard to master. But i love other peoples creations in both apps, and marvel at them, particularly UF

Message edited on: 03/08/2005 07:46

I get off on a lot of different things about a fractal. Typically colors, form and especially depth/texturing. I like fractal images that are well composed/arranged on the digital "canvas", too. And I especially like images that have been rendered and anti-aliased as they look more "polished". I agree with Arend about the thumbnails. They are the first impression a viewer gets of your image and I take time to make sure my thumbnails are crisp and sharp. I spend as much time sharpening those as I do the large image and then find the minimum amount of .jpeg compression I can get away with and still come in under the 15kb limit. As the saying goes - "first impressions are lasting impressions", or something like that. :?) Rick

Arend, interesting thread. Thanks. I don't know what a good or bad fractal is. I can only say what I like or don't like: I don't like frames. They are distracting. I think they should be made of wood, not pixels. On the other hand, I can tolerate a frame that is integrated nicely with the image. I love flames but I am so tired of them. Seldom does a stand alone Apophysis image do anything for me anymore. I love images that scream "fractal" with lots of repetitive shapes. I don't like too much sand paper texture. I don't like images that need to be anti-aliased - most are easy to identify. It tells me that the artist doesn't know about anti-aliasing or they don't care about it, and I assume that most people do know about it. You can take it from there. I have respect for a well named image. For me, naming an image can be the hardest part. Rainbow colors may not be too artsy-fartsy, but I still like them a lot. I like images with lighting and depth. I appreciate flat images (like KPK's) because I can't make those. I've tried. I like images that mess with my head, like impossible geometry images. Keith

Great topic, Arend! I think the first thing that draws me to a particular fractal image is the lighting. It can be subtle or dramatic, but it has to make sense. Often the lighting will give an image a sense of depth, which I think is the next thing that strikes me. Colors are very important to me and I tend to really love unusual combinations and subtle transitions. Next would be a pleasing composition, with balance and harmony in the shapes and flow. Finally, but no less important, textures can enhance or detract from an image. Frames are nice if they are small and subtle, just controlling the transition from 'gallery wall' to the image itself, setting the tone of the image. Really though, often what catches my eye is a view of the impossible! You know, when you look at an image and say 'How the h*** did they doooooooooo that???' That's the best :) Vivian

Tough question and hard to nail down a good answer. For me, the shapes and colors have a great impact on me. I love spirals. I like some abstract images. I like fractals that are a bit different than the usual. I like a very skillfully made fractal. I know nothing about art composition, so don't really know what a 'well composed fractal' is. I just know if it pleases me. I agree with Keith--I like flames, but am a bit weary of seeing them. As for frames; it all depends??? I like borders more than actual frames. I think a border is like a boundary which keeps the image inside and the rest of the world outside. Titia pointed this out to me a long time ago. Made good sense to me. Marion

I think the best way to find out what you really like is to look at your own gallery, atleast it will give you some good hints. As for me, I have to disagree with Fractelaar on a few points, one is cleanliness and sharpness. I like fractals to be gritty. Mainly because it disguises the image's origin. I don't like looking at an image knowing exactly wich formula was used, and I don't want people to look at my images like that. As for colors, I like monochrome and I like colorful. But the coloring should make sense. What I don't prefer however are clean colors and gradients. Noise is almost always good. :) About patterns... this being the essential ingredient in fractals, I want them to be 'difficult' to spot and not too obvious. If you emulate non-computergenerated art, it's a huge plus. For instance, if you manage do create a fractal that looks as if it was painted with a brush, it makes it interesting (atleast for me). And ofcourse... I almost left out the most important thing, ingenuity. Use the fractalprogram in a way that other people normally don't, include other programs in the process. Extend the fractal into 3D, print the fractal, toss mudd on it and then take a picture of it. Make a frame with the fractal on the outside and nothing on the inside. And... max 50% of your images should include spirals (just kidding) :). Anything that doesn't look like everything else.