I've thinking a lot about flames lately. It seems that there is almost a religious fervor about them and I would like to understand what the big deal is. I think that if you have seen a hundred flames you have seen them all, so why is everyone so excited about them? What prompted these thoughts was an e-mail on the apo mailing list. Apparently there was some complaining going on in Deviantart about how not everyone's flame is declared a masterpiece, or something along those lines. They do a lot of flames over there. The trouble with places like this is that we are surrounded by people who like the same stuff that we do. We upload images and we tell each other how great our art is and we have no reason not to believe it. I've learned to enjoy the feedback, but then I put some time between me and my masterpiece. In almost every case, after a little time, I see that my pride in that image may not have been so justified after all. I can always build a better image and so can just about anyone else. I think that if we look at our flames from an outsider's perspective would see something different from what we keep telling ourselves here. After looking at 100 or 200 flames, an outsider would start to see that maybe flames are a dime a dozen, that they are easy to come by - which they are. Outsiders don't care that a tremendous amount of work went into gifting us all with Apophysis and they sure don't care about the math. All they see is a bunch of fuzzy shapes and patterns, which at first glance are beautiful, but after 2 or 3 hundred of them, they all start looking the same. So why the fervor? Part of has to be because Apophysis is free and easy to use. I have to ask, where is the creativity in Apophysis? Is it messing with the triangles and gradient? Is that all? We mess with the triangles and gradients and that makes us artists? I don't get it. For me, using Apophysis is like walking along beach and looking for seashells. It's more of a process of discovery than it is one of artistry. There's not a lot of creativity involved - not any more than if you were to find a beautiful seashell. Sometimes you get lucky and find something amazing, but that's not because you are a talented artist, it's because you're lucky. I suppose that there is artistry in recognizing pleasing shapes and colors. Or maybe not. I don't need to be an artist to recognize a beautiful woman, it just happens - OK bad example. How about a flower? Then there is the scripting part of it - the means to the end. I do understand the excitement about that. Scripting is cool but it's not the end product. It still makes fuzzy patterns in the end, but it is cool. The sheep thing is a mystery to me. Apparently you can upload parameters and become popular. I've never done it but I can't help but wonder if it's like counting comments or the hot 20 in this place. The screen saver must be cool. I'll have to get it. Just random thoughts. I'm not trying to say that Apophysis and flames are evil. I have been using Apophysis since it became publicly available as a front end to UF3 and I am going to continue using it. I'm still in search of the lost flame. It's out there. Keith

How interesting your comments are, because I have had similar thoughts lately about Apophysis. Although I love using the program, I have stopped posting my images because, as you said, I've seen them all before. Occasionally I create, or see online, an Apo image that is different, or eyecatching, but being so close to the program, I generally recognize images that are very similar to those I've done myself. I think the appreciation part for the viewer is mostly from the Apo user...but what does the general audience see? We appreciate because we know to some degree what the program is capable of, and what its limits seem to be. A non-Apo user, as my friends and family are, sees either a fuzzy shape, or a swirl of color for the most part. Now, an interesting point...I posted some images over a year ago that I have NOT seen recreated in the galleries, and they got barely a notice. I love them no less, and oddly enough, THOSE are the ones my friends and co-workers asked to have for framing. I love Apo, and I will continue to use it, for my own pleasure. I would never want to question what I enjoy because others who do similar work aren't giving me the praise I "deserve". End of babbling :)

Attached Link: http://ebtx.com/art/art02.htm

Hi Keith. I'll bite. :) Art is anything that people add to their 'output' which is not functionally necessary and is other than the default properties of that output. "I think that if you have seen a hundred flames you have seen them all, so why is everyone so excited about them?" I once saw the same statement made about spirals.I'm thinking it was peapodgrrl that wrote it, on a forum somewhere, long ago.There are spirals in her artwork, she just doesnt focus on them.She likes to add a sun spot and focus on flower shapes instead.That is her preference. I like spirals.Not ALWAYS the focus in my stuff but alot, yes. I love flames.I love apo.Not because its free or easy to use. I have UF.I PAID for UF.I don't use it much at all anymore. 's price is why some people will never use it. I just find it harder to find a starting point with UF than with apo. I ,personally, can draw half decent, with a pencil and paper.I have done tattooing.I've also messed around with oil paints/acrylics and canvas. I prefer my computer for art endeavors now. Its neat and tidy and stored, on my hard-drive.Not stacked around on shelves in my home. I dont have any degrees in art but made A's in art class in high school...because I LIKE art.I like looking at it and creating it and sharing it with others. I made money tattooing.LOTS of money. I also had people coming to my home all the time with specific ideas on what they wanted permanently etched into their hides.Did many drawings that werent what they wanted until, finally, they saw one they liked enough to pay for. Put alot of time and effort into walking canvas' that carry my artwork wherever they go.It was alot of WORK. Very tiring.Not very fulfilling for me. Behind each image posted here is a person.Some with art degrees, some without.Each has a reason they do what they do. They are all artists in their own minds. If they are encouraged, they may become even better artists...or not. What difference does it make what is used to make art and how does the answer to that affect whether or not the person behind the said art is considered an artist??? THAT is the question I want an answer to. I'm really not a "people person" so I'll probably never sell anything I make.People are nice in small doses but when I get tired of them I withdraw. Doesnt make me very popular and if you aren't popular, you ain't making no money, honey. My take on it all. Movin'on. ;)

Great link. Thanks.

Thanks, too, for not getting all defensive about this. You have no idea how much I love our artform. Well, maybe you do. My goal is to see it move forward, along with everyone involved.

I agree, all spirals look the same too. It's the nature of fractal art. It has limits. BTW, lately I've been building a lot of spirals.

A standalone flame with a black background is like a picture of a flower with a black background. It's still beautiful, and it is art according the above definition, but it's not much of a composition. Put that flower in a mountain meadow next to a tree or a lake and then you have some creativity. Take a flame and put it someplace interesting using GIMP, PSP, PS, UF or whatever. When you do that you have to make decisions like where to put it, what to put it next to, where to use the airbrush and what to mask out. You have to be creative. It's a risk too, because it might look stupid (believe me, I know about looking stupid), but a lot of times you have to take a chance to move forward. When it works, it feels good, even if it only works for yourself.

Message edited on: 10/07/2005 18:56

From the link: ""Work the composition for all you can get out of it." Don't take the easy way ... even though that's the way every "modern" artist goes."

Also from the link: Logical Integration of the Parts
In keeping with the forgoing statement, all non-essential elements must be excluded from the serious artwork. Nothing is added which does not support the "main configuration" ... the work is maximally integrated.
I once saw at a local art show a depiction of the modern "drug scene" (somebody shooting up some H). What was odd about the work was the inclusion of drug paraphernalia which the artist "floated" in the scene over the head of the drug user. They had no active connection with the rest of the painting. True, they were related objects but they were floating there like "putti". This is exactly what I mean by taking the easy way out (forget integration "Let's just fill the canvas"). If I couldn't find a way to put an object into the work as an active part of the composition ... I wouldn't put it in ........ period.

Sometimes I find that to be the case with flames.
Other times I have spent ridiculous amounts of time composing and integrating:
I find that I have less time now to devote to flame compositions but that dragon is still one of my favorites.
Instead I spend more time making interesting patterns that deviate from the norm:

I think that this thread has expanded into something I have been tempted to discuss here for a while now: what is the difference between 'good' and 'bad' art? Or art and non-art? This I know is a very delicate topic, but something we all have ideas about. First I'd like to comment on the "anyone who makes art is an artist" idea. And following on: "If the artist creates a 'work of art' who's to say it is not good? Anyone who does so is being cruel and arrogant." Well I agree that all personal expression is 'worthy' so long as it is honest. But is it art? or good art? Not necessarily, says I. There's got to be vision, and a certain amount of technique, and other things that would be good to discuss. My background is in music, particularly improvisational music, call it jazz if you want. And I will tell you all that some people can make a horn screech at the right pitch and timing and it will cause the hair on the back of my neck to prickle. (I mean that in a good way!) Art for sure. But there are very few who can do this. Most of those types are just screeching. Horribly screeching. Definitely not art! But the great improvisational musicians can do wonderous things with their instrument, some melodic, some rhythmic, and yes, sometimes very rarely screeching, but definitely art in the most honest form - that of expression of a facet of the human condition that others can then feel. Improvisational music is not planned, at least not anything more than the overall vibe and the chord pattern behind it. It is in this that I disagree with the link that was supplied earlier in this thread. There is no requirement for a philosophical component in art. Those who choose to put one into their art can do so if they like, and if it helps to convey a feeling then this has advanced their art. But philosophy is just that - philosophy. Not necessarily art. And not a necessary component for things that comprise an artwork. This is why I have no objection to the 'looking for seashells' approach to fractal art, or photography for that matter. To some a certain shell may contain a glimps of heaven that can be honed and presented to convey this vision, and to others it is just a shell. One type of artist is one who can use a raw natural material and create something that enhances or even transends the basic idea, be it stone or seashells or musical tones or paint or fractals. And another will have the vision to spot a wonderful thing and simply present it. An Ansel Adams landscape photograph can almost bring tears to my eyes, and nobody can tell me that because he doesn't create the image himself it doesn't constitute art. That's arrogant snobbery. But not every seashell or landscape contains a 'glimps of heaven' (if I can use this hackneyed expression). And here is where I'd like this thread to go, if possible. What makes one artwork more valuable(?) than another? Surely there is something there. It's not just technique. I've heard some incredible musical technicians who couldn't make a work of art to save their lives. There has got to be some spark of inspiration, some vision, some artistic sense, and thinking about and defining that would be a useful thing. Tim

Attached Link: http://www.geocities.com/astrokeith/fractalt.htm

I have a freind that is a pretty good landscape photographer. One day I told him that a good photo was just a matter of luck. His answer was, "you make your own luck". After spending a few years trying to "get lucky" like he is, I had to conclude that he was right. You can't just cary a point and shoot instamatic camera around with you and expect to make good art. You have to plan for things like location, composition, time of day, lighting, wind and weather, depth of field, lense and filter selection. Even short lived events require this sort of thought. A sunset requires you to look at the whole composition. Otherwise it's just another sunset. After all of the planning there is the element of luck, which is why you snap a lot of pictures. Maybe, if you plan it right, out of a couple hundred shots you might find something that triggers an emotion. The rest just become vacation shots. I think that there are a lot of point and shoot fractals in the world. It's not just flames either, although I do look at Apophysis as the point and shoot software of fractals. I'm OK with point and shoot fractals. I understand why. Everyone is in this for different reasons. We are at different software skill levels. We have different interests and tastes. Most of us, like me, are still trying to figure out what good fractal art is. If you look at the attached link you will see my attitude about fractal art 7 or 8 years ago. I have provided the link just to say that I do understand.

"I think that there are a lot of point and shoot fractals in the world." - LOL! Several million I'd say.

I have always liked the comparision between fractals and photography. However, many artists have pushed the envolope with compositional fractals containing many fractal elements (flame or otherwise) to create original artistic collages. Other people extend creativity on a more technical side, extending formulea and colouring methods etc. These people are all progressive in their art but the effort put in and even the fact that they are thinking out of the box does not garentee a pleasing piece of art.

Its very difficult to say when something ceases to be a holiday snap and becomes great photography but I hope people keep snapping.

It's fun. They are pretty. I love making them, as simple as that is. They are my creations as no two are alike, unless you change the gradient on the same flame or whatever. To each his own. I love making them when I have had a bad day. It is relaxing to me. So whatever your motive, Enjoy.

"It's fun. They are pretty. I love making them, as simple as that" Well said Christine - sometimes think all this analysing obscures the real point of it all!

Every morning I look at as many fractals as possible with fresh eyes. I do NOT think they all look alike. Each one is different. I think you are a wonderful artist Deagol, but maybe you just 'think' too much. lol q-: Just enjoy!!! (:

Attached Link: http://www.idreamincolor.com/keith/pgs/gallery3.htm

You're right about that. I do think too much, but I find these discussions to be interesting. There is always something to be learned :) Allow me to think a little more... This discussion is important to me for selfish reasons. It's beyond "just enjoying" for me. I am now trying to sell some of my stuff. You would think that instead of encouraging everyone to make good fractal based art, I would say the opposite - continue to make point and shoot fractals and let me build the good stuff so that I can corner the market. I don't think it works that way. There is no market for fractal based art. For the most part, outsiders don't even know what it is. I would like to see a market created by good fractal art, then I'll worry about competition. I'm still not sure what good fractal art is, but I am pretty sure that it isn't the point and shoot stuff that we all do. I would love to be proven wrong. If anyone has been able to quit their day job by selling flames, I would like to hear it. While I am waiting I would like to encourage anyone who is willing, to go beyond messing with the triangles. If you're not willing or not interested, no problem. I do lots of point and shoot photography and have a great time doing it. Just enjoy it.

I've got two points to add to the mix here. 1) Define the difference between a decoration and an artwork and we will have gone a long way. 2) (And I mentioned this in so many words above,) A plan and some good technique does not necessarily make a good artwork. It's not just luck; there's something else. Let's talk about what that is.

Attached Link: http://creativ82.deviantart.com/gallery/

I've only ever bought ONE fractal.Paid $25.00 for a poster sized print several years ago at DevArt for my daughter from creativ82 (Nicholas Rougeux ).Link to his gallery there included. I've since went back and checked on him and his prints have doubled in price (A 24x36 Inch Print is now $50.00 ). He also sells at zazzle.com and from his webpage. Awards for Computer Arts magazine - Featured Artist Digital Creative Arts magazine - Featured Artist DIGIT magazine - Featured Artist. I paid somewhere around 100.00 to have it custom framed locally and it still hangs in her room. The print I bought was titled [Origination.](http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/908467/) My suggestion would be to drop this guy a note and ask some questions if you're truely interested in promoting and selling your artwork. Just a suggestion.Trying to help.

Message edited on: 10/09/2005 15:48

More than likely people will have to get fractal art out into the community and galleries more. I personally feel there are so many that could be sold, but right now fractals are new. Heck! I remember when we didn't have PC's, and that was not so far back. The more people that get their fractal artwork out into the galleries 'n' get them recognized, the better chances there are of selling more 'n' more of them. They are just 'babies' right now. I love so many forms of fractals. Everyday when I'm looking at fractals, even the ones I only look at and don't comment on, I'm sitting here going, 'WOW! WOW! WOW!' It's such a wonderful form of artwork. The details, the colors or greyscales or whatever are fantastic. I LOVE THIS STUFF!!!!!! (:

By the way...heh heh heh....don't think too much...have a beer 'n' cruise the gallery. lol q-:

I go to art museums, and there is so much there that is indescribably beautiful, yet I wouldn't particularly want it on my living room wall. But in a book, on a calendar, or other medium, I'd consider making a purchase. Perhaps by mostly limiting the exposure to prints, the market for digital art is bound to be tiny. I do not attempt to make flames and fractals as a business, and I doubt I ever will. I certainly applaud those who do, tho, and I cheer them on and wish them luck. A few of my images have been used in other ways, however...a cd cover in the Ukraine, another in Australia, limited edition greeting cards in the UK, a silkscreen scarf by a small but emerging fabric business , and one is being used very soon on a band's website. In every case I have given the images for free, but in every case I was approached with $ offers. This led me to wonder if there weren't a totally different market for our designs...wouldn't some of them look fabulous as a wallpaper border, or a fun china pattern, or place mats, or outdoor furniture cushions? I don't know that anyone will get rich selling digital art, but aren't artists supposed to starve in their lifetimes? I may be mistaken, but unless one had a patron, and did commissioned work, the creative people lived the life of bohemians, fed mostly by the love of their art. I now go to find me a beer and browse the galleries. :)

lol Beebee! I think you're right. What about tee shirts with fractals on them? Keychains with fractals in the little plastic circle attached? Why not make a cross stitch pattern? There are no limits, but still, we need to get the fractals 'out there.' I could really go for some fractal curtains in my living room. heh heh heh (:

I've got an Apo image that I reckon would look totally awesome on a bedspread cover - but how the heck would one get something that size done?? Screenprinting is out of the question - way too prohibitive in cost due to more than one colour in the design... grrr! Digital printing onto a queen sized quilt cover? Hahaha! Suuure! Not! My local digital photo printing mob are also pretty expensive... $13 (Australian) for a 15"x10" print! and the professional places like Kinkos, etc, are even more expensive! Don't even start me on "real" art places that will put digital images onto canvas... !!! Is there anyone here from Australia that could give me some ideas about where I could go to have a fair few of my images printed at decent sizes - for a decent price? T.

I agree to most of what have been said here .. and find the discussion very interesting. I have not been doing fractals a whole year yet .. only almost. But I have been doing "normal" art since I was a little kid. After I started doing fractals .. I have often been met with questions like : Why are you doing fractals when you are so good at "real art"? At first I got a bit offended - but then thought - they think fractals are some you just "pick up" - sign and frame - upload and thats it ! There is no easy way to make art .. of any form. And I find you are spending just as much time creating a good satisfying fractal picture as you do making a normal art-painting. All this said - I can tell you what fractals have done for me. I had to give this a lot of thoughts - because of that "evil" question popping up again and again --- why am I doing fractals? .. What makes a fractal good and outstanding? What is the essence of it? You can agree or disagree .. and I might be wrong .. but I have cut it down to it being : colors - highlights/shadow - composition. So after creating fractals for a couple of months I suddenly saw that my "real art" had changed !! .. I had enhanced my skills in doing more work on the coloring .. the highlights and shadows .. my compositions! My "normal" works had improved .. and improved A LOT !! It was not just me seeing that .. many told me so too - and it was not even me bringing up the subject at all. So now I have a good reply to why I am doing fractals ! In a way you can say that fractals are art boiled down to the edge of what art is ..hmm sounds maybe weird .. dont know if I can explain this right LOL ... But the artist that I went to when I was a young artist to-be told me back then : All art is just light and shadow. So I see the fractals as something where you are FORCED to do the right thing .. because if you do not .. then it is just an awful mishmash - you never would upload. So when I go and make my normal art it still sits in me .. doing more about the highlights and the shadows. Making them live in harmony or in fights what ever fits that peticular painting. Apart from fractals giving me something to my other artforms .. I do love and care for them - love making them - and I know I will never stop doing them. And to the statement that there are only so and so many different flames ..or spirals ... I do not believe that .. I dont think there are 2 that ever are the same ! Hugss zoozee :)

zoozee, thanks. You make a lot of sense to me

It's really nice to get a perspective from soneone who does 'real' art. Last year I was working for an artists' collective and there was no way I could persude them that digital art was 'real' They would take a photograph, bring it to the studio and copy it! Where's the art in that - technical skill certainly but imagination - no way. I think what you have said goes a long way to defining 'good' art - although it is always in the eye of the beholder. I would add 'balance' to your list of criteria. The colours, the light and shade, the fractal shapes - they all have to look balanced - I don't mean symmetrical - just all in pleasing proportions. Hope this makes sense.

Thank you for commenting .. I appreciate it :) I agree .. balance is important too .. very ! But I find that included in composition .. may be my bad .. but I see a good composition as one that is balanced. And yes .. there is always - the eyes of the beholder. Some hate yellow .. others love yellow ... and any painting containing a lot of yellow will then be hated by the first .. but loved by the second party. Just to name a little thing like that .. And even art critics have their own personal likes and dislikes .. so no person can be totally neutral and say what is real good art and what is not .. but that is of course my opinion. Even inside art .. there is the thing .. what is "in" right now and what is "out". Which adds to the confusion too. But yes .. your comment did make sense to me :):) Hugss zoozee :)

The thing is you do have to have an 'eye' for what looks good, depending on what you like to look for. Not all flames that come out of Apo are fantastic. You can't just take everyone of them and post them the way they came out. You have to work with the triangles, play with the colors until you find what you really like. Then you hope that others will see the beauty that you have seen. Not everyone does, but hey, that's okay if they don't and you do. I don't suppose those tee shirt transfer sheets would work on quilting squares, would they?

"I don't suppose those tee shirt transfer sheets would work on quilting squares, would they? " Don't see why not! I presume the quilting squares would be made of cotton and I've used them on a denim shirt before which came out fine.

I only agree Carol .. you have to have the eye for the potential in a flame .. same in the other fractal programs .. you need to have the feel for what you can take out .. and use with other layers .. and finally enhance into the final picture. Even a one-layered one .. the art is "seeing". And it is never like just picking up a sea-shell .. you almost always have to do something to it to really make it shine. It is here the work is .. it is here the art is created. :) .. Hugss zoozee :)

Out of the endless, literally infinite, possibilities of change in the development of a fractal image, the moment you select a specific change over any other you have moved from the observer to the creator. The same choices apply at every point in the development. So that by the 'butterfly effect' from chaos theory your image is truely unique after only a few iterations. Unfortunately it often looks a lot like countless other flames or spirals or swirls, etc. Therefore to come up with something that not only is unique but also looks unique the artist is driven to go further, to create a unique composition or feel, or sometimes even meaning. This is true for any art form. There be the magic. Tim

After reading all the comments in this thread I find there are good points all the way around. I can speak only for myself, so here goes. What constitutes art is subjective. We all have our own criteria. What I consider art, you may not. I never cared for Picasso, or Dali. But I love Van Gogh. Go Figure. I always personally felt that Picasso should have taken a course in Human anatomy, and that Dali must have been friends with Timothy Leary. Just my personal opinion. I have been using apophysis for almost a year, prior to finding it last December, I had been using Fractal Explorer for 2 1/2 years. I love fractals and flames. I think that in general flames are softer, more ethereal, more delicate than fractal images are. There are artists here who can make scenes from just flames, or flames and fractals combined. One young man made an amazing composition that contained over 50 flames! Fault me if you will, but I call that 'art'. To say that 'if you have seen 100 flames you have seen them all', is in my opinion saying that once you have seen 100 paintings of roses by various artists you have seen them all. No two artists are alike. I never view flames as being just like someone elses, because they aren't. Each person who creates an image imbues that image with a part of themself, their spirit, if you will. A uniqueness that no one else has. I feel the same way about fractals too. It doesn't matter what tools, or programs one uses, be it Bryce, Vue, Ultra Fractal, XenoDream, Apophysis, Visions of Chaos,or Photography, it doesn't matter. The creativity is what I look for. What I consider art? When an image reaches into you and squeezes your heart, evokes emotions that you might not particularly want to feel, when you are so touched by the beauty of the image you cry, when someone has the ability to evoke a response that helps you to grow as a person, to consider and think, to blindfold your prejudices, so to speak; That is art! My 'art' is an outlet for me. I lived the first 17 years of my life in a domestic 'war-zone'. I have PTSD, depression, anxiety attacks, panic attacks, Social Anxiety Disorder, and I could go on. But I won't bore you with the facts. When I create images, I am outwardly focused. It is how I maintain a balance in my life. It is an expression of who I am, and what I feel. Sometimes it is joyful, sometimes not. It is communicating on a non-verbal level. It isn't really hard to grasp. Personally I find it arrogant that if we move a transform it isn't art, but if you add a layer, it is! Hmm I have to wonder if the artists who painted roses felt that those who painted daisies, weren't artists? Food for thought. Thanks for your time Leanndra

AMEN to that Leanndra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just so you'll know, I am keeping score. I have now been told twice that I am arrogant.

If arrogance is holding opinions that don't meet with the approval of everyone, then HOORAY for arrogance. This thread turned into a "what is art" kind of thing, but your original theme was: I think that if we look at our flames from an outsider's perspective would see something different from what we keep telling ourselves here. After looking at 100 or 200 flames, an outsider would start to see that maybe flames are a dime a dozen, that they are easy to come by - which they are. Outsiders don't care that a tremendous amount of work went into gifting us all with Apophysis and they sure don't care about the math. All they see is a bunch of fuzzy shapes and patterns, which at first glance are beautiful, but after 2 or 3 hundred of them, they all start looking the same. I agree with you 100% on that. That doesn't mean flames aren't beautiful, but that the variations in them may be only vaguely perceptable to the non-Apo eye. And to be completely honest, I am just amazed how often flames are raved about as if they were Rembrandt's museum pieces, when I know they're simply a variation on one of the original set of starter flames, with some gradient adjustment...pretty, yes, but unique? I don't think so, particularly when day after day that same image is presented with some minor adjustment. I do those myself, by the way. :) I just don't expect other Apo users to commend me for my creativity. beebee (unafraid to be unpopular) :)

More often than not, I get the process of discovery and creation confused with the final product. It's a lot of fun to use the software, explore, and learn and discover new things. That is a joy in and of itself. I put that feeling into the image and expect that others should feel the same when they look at it, but why should they? They see what they see, not what it took to create the image. Images should stand on their own.

I had an interesting thing happen a few weeks ago. I was invited to a picnic where there were around 40 30-something people and a small number of children and another number of 50-somethings. I took a handful of my fractals, simply printed out on standard copy paper with a color laser-jet printer. I was careful to take a wide variety of shapes, colors, types. These were pretty 'cool' folks and I got lots of 'oooooohs' and 'ahhhhhhs', which felt pretty good, lol. The oddest thing is, the flames were invariably singled out as 'really interesting' or 'so organic'. They definitely drew more comments than all the other images, even tho several people sorted the stack so that they could look at a number of the images a second time...and rarely included the flames in that stack. None of the group was very knowledgable about fractals in any way, tho most had heard of them, but didn't know how they were made. I don't know if this means anything or not, but I found it quite interesting.

I really find this interesting too .. but .. something I did not understand completely I think .. were they all flames .. or were some of them other fractals? .. Did I understand it right .. as it was the flames they did not like so much ? .. Maybe it is just me not understanding your story right - I just wanted to get it right .. lol. But if I understood it right .. well that would actually also be as I would have expected. That it was the other fractals that would be more popular than the flames. I am thinking about what I thought was the most cool ones before I started making fractals myself ...

Most of the images were my UltraFractal work. A few were flames. Of the UF work, I included not just spirals, but other shapes as well. The flames were more often remarked upon, but they seemed to want to see the UF images a second time. I hope that was more clear.

That is interesting. Flames are popular.

Don't tell anyone, but the only fractal to recieve an award in the art show at a fair that I was recently in, was a flame.

On the other hand, in the same art show my two images (from the flower series, 15 & 6) sold for $150 each and the flame got 10 bucks for an honorable mention. I won. :-)

Message edited on: 10/11/2005 22:53

Message edited on: 10/11/2005 22:57

I sure appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. I think these are the best kind. I don't know about you but I have learned from it.

I like the look of them. The fact that they are colourful (mostly), asymetric and pleasing to the eye, keeps me interested in them.

I just reinstalled Kai's Power Tools. I know you can use presets and "make" fractals, but I don't know if you can actually make your own. I'll have to do some research and find out if it's possible, and how to do it if it is.

I'd rather work from within a program that I"m familiar with such as PaintShop Pro, instead of having to install another program. I hate having to change from program to program to do what I want. Someone posted in the paintshop pro forum an image they did using a fractal for the iris of an eye. It turned out beautiful.

Message edited on: 10/12/2005 00:23

I prefer flames because, to my eye, they don't really look like "normal" fractals. I love the way that one can get some pretty amazing effects from flames that you just cannot get with the more regular fractals. That said - there are some pretty darned spectacular "regular fractal" images that make my jaw drop! I think that a lot of my more recent works are different enough from the thousands of other flame images out there that one couldn't really say that "you've seen one, you've seen them all"... but we all have to start somewhere, and given the right encouragement and gentle coaching from others, we can all grow as artists in this particular medium. I sure as heck am deeply grateful to all the people who have helped me, and those who will help me in the future - so that I may continue to have the confidence to keep experimenting and refining my abilities with Apophysis. ...and one also needs to give thanks to all of those wonderful people who continue to refine and enhance this fine application (Apophysis) - and all of those amazing artists who share their images with us, and keep us inspired... all of you rock totally! T.

Sometimes I think you really have to look a long time at flames to get the full measure of them. I'm telling you what, they have the MOST intricate details! I have a real slow computer(Pentium III, 500mhz), so when I have to wait on a picture to fill-out, then you better believe I'm gonna sit there and look real good at that sucker! lol q-: That's also the reason I can't look/comment on every single posting. However, I am also enthralled with the other fractals. I actually love all of them, each for their different virtues. It's really a blast to change numbers around in UF or change formulas in other fractal programs, then mess with colors, then POOF! you can find the most awesome fractals/flames. Sometimes you barely have to change anything to find wonderful fractals. One of my most favorite times is to have the time to look at the 'ALL' new posts from all the galleries. There are so many talented artists here in every section of the galleries. Have fun everyone...that's the main thing. When you aren't having fun anymore, then it's time to take a few days off. Laters! It's been great reading all the feedback on this string. Usually I just lurk. (:

Last night I spent an hour messing with the triangles, the whole time wondering if I was being creative or not. I had to conclude that I was. I take that part back :)) I still hold that "adding a layer" adds a new level of creativity, and not a little. It's an exponential addition By the way, apo Z is freaking cool. I don't know where it came from but thanks for your efforts

Of course you're being creative. You aren't just watching tv, are you? You're making something pretty, right? lol q-: I still have Mark's last Apo version. There are so many fractal programs to play with that I decided to stop updating for the time being. Chris aka Kitchaos has been finding some lovely ones on that new version though. He does sheep too. What gets me is that everytime I try to import an Apo.upr into UF, I just get a black window. It's gotta be something easy that I'm overlooking. Oh well, one of these days I'll stop playing long enough to figure it out. Laters! (: ...oh...depending on the flame/fractal, an extra layer or more can add lots of facets to the original. However some of the flames/fractals are just so gorgeous, they don't need anything else. IMHO Bye again!

Thank You tresamie for making it clearer to me - just wanted to be sure I understood it right :) Deagol .. yes I do like this thread and do think I learn a lot from it too :) It is so interesting to exchange opinions and ideas. I do find APOflames very interesting and I agree totally with Carol ..you have to give them more than a glance to really appreciate them and get into the details in them. And we all know most people do not really have the patience :) .. Even in the other fractals .. I find you need a closer look too .. and give it time .. to really see what is in front of you. So that is why the commenting does take time. Adding layers .. yes that does go into more creativity and more work for each one you add. LOL but often I sit there with 7-8 layers .. and in the end the one I upload has only 2. Too many layers can give a "dirty" or too dark look - at least for my taste. Hugss zoozee :)

Guess I'm 'easy,' because most of the time my flames 'n' fractals are one layer, and sheesh, I don't think I've made a UF fractal yet with more than 3 layers. The only ones with more than 3 layers are the ones I turn into compositions with tubes 'n' backgrounds 'n' frames. I feel that some flames just ASK to be presented in a different way....and I'm more than happy to listen and oblige. heh heh heh (:

Carol, it takes some time for the flames to show up when you import them to UF. UF calculates the entire image before it begins to put it up in the screen. If you are using a dinosaur puter, it could take a minute or more, and if you zoomed in a bit, it might take forever! The other problem that most people have with flames in UF is that they have to go to the Outside tab on the Layer Properties menu and increase the Sample Density under Render Settings wayyyyyyyyyy up to get a nice thick image. It usually starts around 35 and it needs to be much higher, sometimes even 3000. Hope that helps!

You can instruct Apo to export a upr of a flame with any number for Sample Density - I use 400 as a good compromise that doesn't take my rig (P4 2.53gHz) too long. It's in the "Options"-"UPR" tab in Apo. Also, if you scroll down in the Outside tab once in UF, you'll see a box called "Background Color". Open that box and you'll find a slider at the bottom of the window that controls the opacity of the background. Pull it all the way left to zero and you'll have a flame in UF with a transparent background. Rick

Thank you Rick! Thank you tresamie! I will keep this in mind next time I have time to play. Honey's off all weekend! YEA YEA!!!!! (: Have a fantastic weekend!!!!!