Me, for example, want to go for an "organic" look. I try to make fractals that somehow resemble natural phenomena. I dislike hard lines or angles, for example, since they are very rarely seen in nature (not that I completely exclude them from my work). I know a lot of people are more of a "geometric" fractal taste. What do you guys think?

A Dark brew & Deli sandwich..

I tend to swing both ways, Ianfe. (Did I actually type that?)

Rarely is my final product extremely rigid and geometrical. Usually I concern myself more with texture than with form. Even my most geometrical work tends to have softening textures and colors added to it to break up the lines.

There are exceptions, of course. Occasionally I'll begin with a particular shape in my mind that must make it into the final product before I'll consider it "done," and those pieces can be quite geometrical because it is the shape itself I want to highlight. But even those are softened somewhat by my choice of texture.

About half of my stuff has some degree of symmetry and maybe ten percent features straight lines to any degree. That probably depends on whether I'm feeling particularly "anal" when I start. :)

I see. Symmetry has never been one of my aims, so I find it interesting. My interest in fractals started mainly because of my biologist's background; I have learned thast indeed symmetry is more accidental, and not an evolutionary "goal", so to speak. But I do admit that some of the most beautiful things are of symmetrical nature, so you've got a good point there.

Arista - had to check out your gallery after that... what are you doing in the beginners gallery? Sean - (lol) You've definitely done some interesting work. I've noticed your pieces over the last couple of weeks, but hadn't really paid attention to the artist, my bad. what program(s) are you using? Ian - symmetry isn't an evolutionary goal? Then how is there so much of it, so much beauty? Or is it merely that as humans, we perceive certain things to be harmonious and pleasing when they fit naturally into their space and role in the universe? For myself, I came into fractals purely for fun. I saw what fabulous images other people were creating, downloaded a program, and got hooked. I just want to create something interesting and beautiful, and have a great time exploring while I'm at it.

BF: Symmetry does not necessarily equate into harmony, and harmony most definitely does not need symmetry. OMost objects look symmetrical because both sides are similar. But even in your own body, you know there's no real symmetry, just a resemblance drawn along a vertical axis. The semblance of linear symmetry (radial symmetry is another matter entirely) was caused chiefly for ease of movement, streamlining in an aquous environment, but the first living organism were not symmetrical. Take sponges, for example: one of the most ancient forms of animal life. Definitely not symmetrical. Cells themselves are not at all symmetrical. Sean - excellent work. I forgot to say so in my last post. "Touchstone" and "Sometimes the mirror does lie" are amazing! "Touchstone" is an excellent example of the look I strive to achieve. I take of my hat to you! Arista - nice work. Specially if you actually manage to get a sandwich out of them. You have to teach me that trick sometime.

Just for the people who are probably really confused now... my other online nick has the initials BF. He always calls me that. Rollseyes When I equated symmetry and harmony and beauty, I was thinking of the other type of symmetry. I should have been more clear. Asymmetry is of course, more concerned with harmony than exact symmetry is, and yes, asymmetry is a type of symmetry. Sort of. g A beautiful explanation, Ian, thanks.

Thanks, folks. Both of the pieces you've named were done entirely within UltraFractal, which is my tool of choice. I use Bryce every so often, as well as KPT 5. I also use XenoDream a lot - and from what you have to say, Ianfe, it's a program that might be right up your alley.

You both have nice galleries. I never really got into Poser much, so I admire folks who have the patience to get results like yours (SerpentGoddess) from it. Terragen is a cool program, but I've spent more time trying to get decent DEMs of my area (Western Canada) than actually doing anything with it, and never anything like your (Ianfe) stuff. Very nice!

WOW !!! Thanks crew.. SerpentGoddess =Umm..How about I wip out a can of SuperCalcaFractalisious ExaustableReferanosious. How about if I tell ya what you wont to know?I will post some after I finish dinner.. Hey !! Ianfe? Umm I don't guess that you will show us some of that Love shattered Symmetrized stuff??? break out the Brittanica.. Are we all still focused on the Serpinsky picture??Uh? didn't they use the Serpinsky math product to help in a design for electrical towers??? Oh yea!!SeanPratz..Have you found any DEM product's for your neck of the woods???I know that the USGS just reformatted most all of the free stuff into a new *.stds format...Bryce does killer dem conversions Bryce even makes the file size way smaller..Like 2.3mb for a 1:24,000 map..Where as I used to have write to file sizes "O" say around 30-400mb???Bryce is a huge difference..

Attached Link: http://www.fractalus.com/cgi-bin/theway?ring=fractals&id=43&go

Personally, I do not expect anything from my fractals. If I were a scientist or mathematician, then it might be different. But being only a IT/MIS Tech/Programmer, just learning the use of a fractal generator and the capabilities of it is enough for me. If an interesting shape and/or image appears, then it gets posted to one or more various forums. Not trying for "art", just knowledge and abilities. :-)

Hmm??? Thats cool..