How much is too much?

chuckle

How high is up? Loaded questions.

There are some of us that do what might be considered post work (usually integrating fractals into other art, or vice-versa), and some that stay 'pure', and some that do a bit of both. It's all in the individual's choice of goals.

As for my own opinion, I will do, and accept, anything that can create a piece of art (and, no, I won't get into the question of "What is art?" in this thread...). But then I consider myself more of an artist than a "fractalist".

So, I think the question you should ask yourself is how do -you- feel about it? (Hint: feel free to discuss your choice and reasons without being flamed...)

I'm not what I can call a "purist" (or else I would still be using Fractint and just tweaking the basic Mandelbrot/Julia set) but I tend not to use any kind of post-processing, even the unsharp mask and things like that. It gets a bit complicated when you think that a KPT's plugin for Photoshop is now "integrated" (so to speak) into UF, the "Flames". Is it a post-processing tool or a pure fractal formula? I'm confused.

In my opinion, it's whatever you want it to be..or, whatever your unique vision directs you produce. This is an age-old controversy..post-pro vs. not.. Fractal art is just that- fractal "art" and each of us decides which route we'll take to arrive where we want to be. Truth be known, "pure" used within the context of fractal art is a misnomer. I mean, with all the transformations, masks and even various coloring algorithms, the "pure" fractal form is- more often than not, not entirely evident within any given fractal composition. I consider myself a digital artist, and one of my passions is fashioning fractal images, and my goal is to produce art- not a pure fractal form that is necessarily distinguishable as such. So, as the song sez, "do what you want to do, go where you want to go" with it. Just my .02. :)

I agree. With all these transformations and layerings etc. etc. it loses a bit of its "purity" so to speak, but it's still a fractal in its essence.

Attached Link: http://www.incurableart.com

Purity gets boring. Do it in the dirt!

Attached Link: http://www.AliceKelley.com

The original question is how much post-processing is too much. Possibly if you post-process to the point that the image is so color-saturated that it's turned black, you might consider that you've done too much. However even that can be argued. So probably the way to know if you've done too much post-processing is if you yourself look at it and say, "Ew." If you look at it and you're happy, then probably you've used just the right amount of post-processing. Because your opinion of your own art is the only one that counts. --Alice

What I meant by saying "post processing" wasn't adding a logo or converting it to JPEGs or something (this is sort of an "innofensive" processing so to speak), but adding something to the image that will transform it into something different, sometimes for better, sometimes for much much worse.

I'm all for offensive post-processing, myself. Even defensive post-processing has its place. Why are you asking how much is too much? What is the goal? The pro-post processing vs. anti-post processing argument's been done before. If you transform an image into something "much, much worse," that's your problem. If I transform something and you think I made it much, much worse, that's still your problem. --Alice

woah, thanks for the (unnecessary) flaming (not that I wasn't expecting any). As you said, "The pro-post processing vs. anti-post processing argument's been done before." But I'm not here since the very first post to know what has been said about it and what are the "ultimate rules of post-processing". I was just asking what were the other opinions about it. What I do to my images, yes it's my problem. If others don't like it, it's theirs. If I don't like people (ab)using plugin presets to make something "interesting", that's also my problem. We're supposed to have different tastes, we're not ants. Creative use of post-processing is not a problem.

well, you pretty much got your answer, already. the responses i read seemed to cover it all. so, why not just go ahead and have at it and post some of your images.

I have done it. Without post-processing (but the logos).

Marcusbacus says, "What I do to my images, yes it's my problem. If others don't like it, it's theirs. If I don't like people (ab)using plugin presets to make something "interesting", that's also my problem. We're supposed to have different tastes, we're not ants. Creative use of post-processing is not a problem." Sounds like everybody here is in complete agreement. I would change the word "(ab)using" to simply "using," but other than that, perfect! --Alice

I don't think I'll ever be able to say who's right or who's wrong, neither it's my "job" to do so. One must have his/her reasons to use whatever techniques he/she likes, and has the rights to do that. These images shouldn't just be "excluded" by a "post-processing police department" as you suggested because they don't fit into some predefined rules. If so, soon we'll end up having a "no-spirals" rule, a "no-basic mandelbrot set zoom ins" rule, and so on. My first question can be interpreted in many ways: I could have asked it by trying to know what's the "acceptable" level of post processing (if any - "how much", and I think this was what I really wanted to ask), or to say that "I hate post processing". I think I've just said that I don't "hate" post-processing. Probably I think it's not necessary, most of the times. And just clicking some plugin presets just for the fun of it is really not the way to go, I think.

given your position on processing images, i have to wonder why you bothered asking about it in the first place.

Can't I be curious about someone else's opinion? If not, I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong place for asking questions.

well it was hard to know just the heck you were after when you seemed to get your answer right off the bat. if you're concerned about predefined rules, glance at the archives. if you just wanted opinions - you got plenty. if you want ongoing discussion, then say so. your follow up sounded like you weren't even reading the reponses that were graciously posted.

There seems to be an issue surrounding plugin presets. One reason presets exist is because they give cool results quickly, saving the plugin newbie the time it would take to find that combination of elements. Whether the newbie goes on to make his or her own presets or continues to use the provided presets is, of course, up to the newbie. Applying the preset is still an artistic choice, and thus can't be condemned by the digital court of law.

I wouldn't like to point out "you're wrong because you've used the plugin X..." images. Authors may be offended. And this is not my intention. I am not part of any don't-do-this police. I can't say much without being repetitive, but it seems that I am not being understood. Probably because I can't express myself as I should in another language. I've never said that I don't use post-processing just by adding a logo or by converting the UPRs to JPEGs. I've said, though, that I prefer to keep away from other kind of processings, like adding extra textures (Blade Pro can make wonders to an image if well applied, with creativity - here I am being repetitive again), embossing, sharpening (even though it's necessary sometimes, which contradicts me), retouching colours and others. One can say that some of the many transformation/coloring methods available within UltraFractal are nothing but emulators of some plugins (some of them even have this stated in their help/description files), but then again what's the difference? Because the effect X is done inside UF it's not post-processing* anymore? Because it's converted to JPEG, and if I am radically against post-processing (I'm not, but it seems that you believe I am), I can't post my images anywhere else but only post the UPR text files? "Simple actions like adding a signature or compressing an image into a file format do transform any fractal "into something different". These can be then called the "non-offensive" post-processings according to my point of view, if you really want to put tags on things. And yes, I do have my opinion about post processing. Wasn't it said a few posts ago? *I guess I should have used the word "retouching" instead of post-processing...

"Perhaps we do have a language barrier here, for it seems to me you are the one doing the tagging." I don't see any tagging coming from me, but I won't ask you to give me an example as you've been trying to make me do with the "offensive" images. I don't go to comment sections typing "post processed!" or something like that. Now that's offensive. More than a language barrier, it's just more like a waste of time. As I said, I won't give you names of the images that I don't like because of the overuse of the post-processing techniques. There are too many. "Isn't "retouching" an image just post-processing it a little instead of a lot?" No. Or at least, it is more post-processing than just adding a logo. "If you feel saving an image and adding a logo is "non-offensive," then I reasonably assume you find massive post-processing to be "offensive" -- a term with very negative connotations and one often associated with calls for censorship" I'm adding a logo not to make anything more beautiful or artistic (or to post-process the image and make it impure), but for just in case someone downloads the image, the name of the person who did it can be also part of the image (yes, a protective measure). Like in every painting for instance. Is it "retouching" a painting adding a signature to it? I don't think so. Maybe I have used the wrong word again when I said "offensive". But offensive can be thought not just as something... as in "pornographic" so to speak. And nobody other than you made a single complaint about me saying that the post-processed works are "offensive". Again (hoping this to be the last time), I said that post processing, to me, isn't necessary in a fractal image. If it is not necessary, when overused, it's visually offensive, whatever your definition of "offensive" is. You'll reply over and over saying that I use post-processing in my images, therefore I cannot say it's offensive. No problem, my images are offensive then. Go give them bad comments.

Attached Link: http://www.peapoddesign.net/gallery

What amazes me is that this is even a topic that is up for discussion. To me, that's like asking a photographer if he thinks it's wise to tweak his work as he develops in the darkroom, or a musician if his music is pure because he used a synthesizer. Of course you wouldn't, but some people in this community still think if you post process your images you're going straight to hell. It shouldn't even be a question, if fractal art is indeed *an* art and not just a panoply of formulae. Mathemeticians do not artists make.

Art is either good or bad. Whether you post process your images until they look like a pile of crap or you can't crop a pure fractal image to save your life, the end result is generica at best, and garbage at worst. If you don't have an artist's eye you're going to create crap, whether you use filters or not.

I always giggle when someone posts a UF image and says, "ninety two layers, no post processing!" as if not post processing a fractal is some kind of great achievement and all that layering didn't constitute post processing.

I only hope that when burgeoning fractal artists find these fractal web communities, they aren't intimidated or affected by these absurd judgements. What a shame that would be.

Mindy

"post-process with extreme prejudice." Heheh. I like this term, Terry. As those who know me already know, the only parameters I like applied to my art are the ones in the fractal generator. Other people's ideas about my art are just that, and are therefore of less value than my own opinions of my art. Anyone who has taken art classes at a level beyond high school has probably experienced some scathing critiques of their art -- which is as it should be. Yes, this subject has been, and will continue to be, discussed in the fractal world -- just as people will always ask, "what is art?" The only real vaue in that, IMO, is when it helps the person who asks the question of themselves and lets it guide them in their own vision, and execution, of their art. Beyond that, I think it's ridiculous in the extreme when people put value judgements on others for post-processing outside of a generator when they're post-processing within the generator and then denying that the images have been post-processed -- "post-processed" being the working term, really, for "altered from the original fractal as originally generated before layering and texturing." Such denial is, IMO, akin to the child who closes his eyes and thinks he's invisible.

I guess the literal definition of "post-processing" is anything you do to the fractal outside the fractal program. With UF3, it's becoming possible to do more and more inside the program, such as using one of the small utilities that allows you to turn a photo in a coloring algorithm, so that you can turn photos into fractals:

http://www.fractalus.com/cheshirecat/statue/statuetuesday.htm

Why don't the purists find that offensive? Surely such work dilutes the purity of fractal art, and the fractal community should protest!!!
I guess what we really need is for UF4 to allow plugins, so that Blade Pro and other filters can actually be applied within the generator. That way, an artist could use several Blade Pro presets and still proudly proclaim that the image is not post-processed.

It is a funny discussion and I still did not get the point where this is directed...
But let me make some more confusion :-) How do you call it when I import a BMP (be it a pencil sketch or another fractal) into UF and play with it via changing colours, adding transforms and so on?
I always hated post-processing because I could not have it in UF for zooming and re-using it. In the meantime I often have images that don't need zoomings because they are no real fractals or are fractals that look pretty the same in zooms. And I have discovered that adding textures in PSP is fun too.
But what is too much? This is a question that can be answered only personally - everyone has his/her own answer, and my answer depends on daytime, stress in the job, whther there is a new Enterprise sequel at home or not, ... And I did not find the correlation between these things yet :-)

"...But what is too much?..." Hi Abmlober, My question to myself has always been "Is this enough?".

;-)

Here's some gasoline for the bonfire... Before I knew of any fractal generator program (circa 1995) that could do what I wanted to it to do I used Photoshop/Painter tools, filters, KPT plugins and anything other what is now termed: post-processing tool I could get my hands on. I did come to find that many of these tools either employed fractal algorithms directly or other mathematical formulae, so this accounts for many of the shapes I was able to come up with. I always started with a blank canvas and using gradient shapes created by the gradient tool and/or other paint tool and used the "post-processing" tool and other (editing) tools to "massage" it all about to get what I wanted. So, if I'm using a post-processing tool to actually create a fractal, and not applying it AFTER I create the fractal; and the end result looks/feels/acts like a fractal (whatever that might mean)...then am I creating a fractal a "post-processed" fractal...and/or a "pre-post-processed" fractal... If none of these were "fractals" I sure had a LOT of fractal types write me and demand/state that if I didn't publicly post my parameters and disclose what application I was using that I'd never "be recognized"... Giggle.... I went thru the hundreds of images that I created using these techniques and tried to pick just one that represented what I'm talking about. My goal then as it is now is to create and present scenes and motifs that no one has ever seen before. When someone looks at my work, I don't want to give them any reason to think about anything other than the theme/motif/shape, etc., that I've created. So, I do my best to "hide/mask" any "tool signatures". The best way I have found to do this is to only use those tools which I believe "enhances" my presentation, and not yet "label" it. I will use whatever tools are available to me to do this. If I have the/a tool "inside" the application--fine, I'll use it. If the tool doesn't exist inside, then I'll go outside. Cheers, ya'll Bryan

this whole discussion about "purity" seems to me like a very big missunderstanding between people who write to their postings "no postwork" and people who read this and think it's a shame to postprocess any images. but in my opinion it's not really a question of value what's better. if i put a standard-frame in photoshop to an image, i think it will be better to mention this by posting the image. because one could spend hours and nights by trying to make the same frame in ultra fractal. so it's better to know, i think, and fair to tell others where the technique comes from and how it's made. also if i made the frame in ultra fractal (just an example), it could be interesting for others to know, and they can ask me the formula etc. if they know it's a uf technique. now i always wonder about the human nature that tries to turn every information into a principal question!! ;-) happy fractaling! sophie

A good point, Miss Sophie :-)

woohoo... you go.. laughing

Hello! This is what I posted on UF List on 11-04-02 We should ask ourself this question: what do we use UF(or any other fractal program) for? Do we want to create 'Fractals" or do we want to create "Art" ? For me the best images are those ,which do not look like fractals.I do not want to hear from somebody...wow this is beautiful fractal.I want to hear ...wow this is beautiful image. If I would create let say a elephant in UF I did not want to hear nice comment about it because it is very hard to create it in UF :) I want to hear nice comment,because that elephant is same great or greater like one made in Photoshop or painted on canvas. We have to remember that UF is like any other electronic medium,that help to creat an art. Of course each of them has specific characters and it is easier to make a elephant in Photoshop,but much harder to create a fractal looking image. And mathematic and fractals algorithms are also in Photoshop,and Bryce,and all electronic artistic medias. We have problem with math at UF,because it is so visual on surface,but I think it is possible to hide it(at least to change some math terms to more friendly names) Another topic was:is it fair to transform UF fractal within other program. Well,what is the diference when I use UF plug-ins(tranformations and to some degree coloring alghoritms),and when I use plug ins in Photoshop.What is the differance when I use twist tranformation,or when I use twist plug-in from PS. It is much easier and with more options to make a frame in PS then in UF. Of course it is not fair when I would post heavy transformed fractal image in fractal gallery,without describtion that it is impossible to make it in UF only and what else was done. Greetings.............Wojtek..........

WOW!!! It's hot and sweaty in here..

art follows its own conclusion, and only the creator knows when that conclusion is. If a fractal that is created inside a fractal program goes forth into post processing, it is because the one who sees it, has a vision far beyond any program, its a vision in the minds eye. Who are we to govern that thought and try to put parameters around it? Its like stabbing the creative process in its heart, and we do not have the right to choose that for anyone.