You have to type:

<a href="linked address">Label</a>

where 'linked address' is the address of the page your link goes to, and 'Label' is the underlined text that appears in the browser for the user to click.

For example, if you typed:

Thanks for your comments on "<a
href="http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1314459">These
Days</a>"

you'd get the following:

Thanks for your comments on "These Days"

Hope that helps

Hi Viv and Barb.

I just wanted to say a quick thanks for the work you put in. I know I've moaned a bit in the past about the some of the choices you've made, but looking at the FWW after a long absence from the site led me to some great pictures that weren't created by any of my favourites and I would otherwise have missed.

Best wishes,
Simon.

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the quick response, especially as it was exactly what I wanted to hear. :-)

Best wishes,
Simon.

Keith said: "Like it or not, when fractal art finally appears in the high end galleries in the big cities, that art will be made of flames."

Possibly, possibly not. Just because a particular medium is widely used, doesn't mean that the best art is created using it. Many, many more pictures have been created using crayons, felt-tip pens or coloured pencils than oil paint, but look what's hanging in the galleries.

"The flame trend is real and it is growing. I am trying to decide if I want to jump on the bandwagon with everyone else."

Very little worthwhile Art (with a deliberate capital A) was ever created by anyone who chose to be on a bandwagon. In fact, I think I can fairly confidently say that ultimately the most celebrated art is created by the people who jump off bandwagons or who deliberately head off in directions no wagon has gone before.

When, eventually, there are images hanging in 'high end galleries' that have been created digitally, I think it very likely that they will have been created by people who are more focussed on the image than they are on the medium. The software that is used to make them will be the software that enables the artists most powerfully to express themselves, whether it's flame-based, escape-time-based, or whatever.

I don't really like the term 'fractal art' because I think it is too focussed on the medium - there's an unhealthy set of ideas (I think) that follow from too much focus on the medium (e.g. don't post-process) that get in the way of producing the best art. Anyway, I digress. The point is that I think we're still in the early stages of using computers to make art, and understandably we're still pretty much focussed on what can be done technically, and not thinking enough yet about what we're actually producing. Most people who visit galleries wouldn't understand the difference between flames and other types of fractal, neither would they want to, and why should they? Given that, what's the likelihood of stuff hanging in a gallery that does little more than demonstrate the creator's ingenuity with flames?

I've rambled on at quite some length (more than I intended to). I did so because I think Keith's original comments demonstrate a lot of wrong-thinking (sorry Keith, but I know you like straight talking!). I think it is counter-productive to try to create art that other people will like - you should create what you like, and then (ironically/paradoxically) I think you're more likely to be creating something that will end up hanging in a gallery (that people other than your peers will want to look at). I also think it's wrong to care whether flames/Apo will 'win' or escape-time/UF will - I don't care what software you use: use whatever helps you express yourself best. Lastly, I think it's wrong to want the average person to know what a fractal is - what we create should be compelling whether or not the viewer knows anything about the medium - so I don't care whether the average person thinks of flames when they hear the word 'fractal'.

Erm... I prattled on far too long, so I'm going to shut up now. :-)

Best wishes,
Simon.

I use the Adobe Gamma utility that comes with Photoshop too. I've been working on a laptop for the last few months (I'm travelling and my PC and lovely 21" CRT monitor are in storage). Until necessity forced me to get this laptop, I avoided them like the plague: horrible keyboards, trackpads instead of a mouse, and worst of all: one of those terrible LCD screens! One of the first things I did on it was to visit my gallery here to see how my images looked, and I recoiled in horror. My number 1 priority became to get Photoshop installed and see what I could do with colour management. I must admit, that once I'd run Adobe Gamma the results were surprisingly good! My old images now look practically the same as they do on my CRT. The only difference really is that the LCD is sharper (i.e. there's no colour bleed between pixels) which on some of my more textured images results in a more grainy look, but nothing I can't live with. The last three images I've posted were all created on the laptop, and I must admit that I'm slightly nervous to see them on my CRT when I get home. But considering that I'd previously thought I'd never be able to produce any images on a laptop, this is very positive. Anyway, the point of all this waffle is that even using a very simplistic, software-only, colour-profiling tool can produce very good results (between screens at least), so it's worth trying. Best wishes, Simon.

This business about not being 'qualified' to comment unless you know about art and/or colour theory really bothers me!

There is no such thing as a universal set of rules about how colours should be combined, nor about how images should be composed. All that theory stuff is just that: theory. It's sets of ideas that people have come up with to try to explain why some things seem to work and others don't.

None of these systems is carved in stone; they should be for guidence, not blind obedience. You think Picasso or Van Gogh were following the then accepted rules of composition and colour? It's much, much more important to think about what you're creating and why it has the effects on you that it does than to try to conform to other people's rationalisations about what constitutes good art. Come up with your own colour and composition theories.

Carol Walske (who knew a lot about art theory) commented to me about some of my images, that she didn't know (compositionally) why they worked - they shouldn't, but they did - and that's what she found particularly interesting about them. For the same reason, I find Eveline's (fractalchemist's) colour combinations fascinating: I look at them and wonder why I like them, when they seem to conflict with lots of my ideas about colour.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you like something or don't like something, try to work out why. It will help you become better at creating things in future. If reading all that theory stuff helps you to do this, great! But don't read the theory with the idea that unless you abide by it your images will 'fail'.

In terms of commenting on other people's work, if you can say why you do or don't like something, that's every bit as valuable as knowing the accepted art theory.

Have confidence in your own opinions.

Anyway, off my soapbox now, and back out into real life.

:-)

Best wishes,
Simon.

How can someone know whether they're interested in the images at Renderosity if they're not even allowed to view the thumbnail galleries? I'm not talking about allowing non-members to comment. I don't understand what the point is of forcing people with only a casual or temporary interest to go through a sign-up process for something they're not that involved in currently. The whole point, presumably, of putting our stuff on the site is so that people can look at it. Renderosity has been making it harder and harder over the years for non-digital-artists to casually drop in for a browse.

Lots of people don't like signing up for stuff on the internet because of the potential to be sent loads of spam (me included). The first thought when I'm asked to sign-up is 'Why? What are they going to do with my details?'.

If you think I'm being unnecessarily grouchy, consider this: about four years ago I suggested to a publisher that they pop over here to look see whether anything might be suitable for their book covers (I knew my stuff wasn't, but thought that other people's might be). I only had to send them a short link. If I wanted to do the same thing now, I'd either have to send them links directly to the galleries of those people I think might be appropriate, or tell them they had to sign up. There's no way they'd sign up, trust me, and I bet that after following a couple of links and being asked for passwords they'd leave. Who benefits from this?

Much as I like you guys, I don't want you to be the only ones that can look at my stuff. When I joined this place, it was an easy alternative to setting up my own website, but it's becoming less and less of an alternative, and more and more a source of irritation.

Anyway, time for Oscar to get back in the trash can. :-)

Personally, I find it very irritating, but not as annoying as the fact that people now need to have an account here to see the fractal gallery. I used to send people that expressed an interest two links: one to my gallery (which, thankfully, you still don't need a password for) and one to the fractal gallery so they could get a sense of what other people do. Now they can only see mine unless they sign up for an account. Doesn't do much promote the art form, does it?

Message edited on: 01/28/2006 00:48

Hi Stephanie. I don't know how much of what you wrote was directed at me, but I want to clarify what I said in light of your comments, and answer some of your questions. If someone doesn't want to improve their 'art', it's not important to me. Plenty of people make stuff I don't like; that's fine too. Does everyone that makes art have to have the same gifts and skills? Certainly not. The same motivations and intentions? No. Who am I to dictate? Where I feel it becomes my right to comment is when people post their creations to a public site, presumably so that other people (including me) can look at it, and when they allow people to comment on it using a comment box that is provided for us to give "helpful comments for improving this image". You haven't heard from me directly about this because it isn't a huge issue for me: I'm certainly not angry about it. I don't complain about it habitually (if at all). Nor do I discuss this in private with Keith et al. I don't think posts should go through a selection process, precisely because the place is designed for people to give and receive feedback. My niggle is with people that post lots of images, that don't care about improving, and who seemingly are only prepared to accept flattery. Despite the fact that the comments system is supposed to be for giving helpful advice on how to improve the work, most of the comments in the fractal gallery are just of the I-really-like-this kind. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, unless people start jumping on those people that actually use the system to actually give advice or to comment on the general state of what they're seeing posted. And remember, as far as I can see, no-one has been singled out or specifically 'picked on'. No-one is being victimised. If someone posts here, then they do so knowing that I may look at it, and possibly even comment on it. If I think it has little merit, the vast majority of the time I'll pass over it in silence. But surely it's not unreasonable for me to make a general comment about the qualities I think an 'artist' should have every now and again? Anyway, I hope this message isn't coming across as in any way aggressive, because that is not the intention. Best wishes, Simon.

I agree with Panny's comments, and I'd like to add to them a bit. I don't have a problem with beginners (or anyone for that matter) posting images that don't display a great deal of expertise (we were all beginners once, and you'd have a good laugh if I posted what I'm capable of doing with Xenodream!). In fact, I often comment glowingly and genuinely on images that demonstrate very little technical ability. What matters to me is that I get the impression that someone has tried their best to make the image as perfect as they can before they post it. Now I admit that it's not always easy to tell, but a sure sign is that over the course of several (dozen) posts, someone's work improves. There have been people here that posted literally hundreds of images that showed no signs of improvement at all, but that have got very annoyed when anyone has dared to question whether what they are producing is art. Art may be many things to many people, but one thing that I think is an essential element of any artist is a sense of perfectionism and pride, and if you're prepared to churn out hundreds of mediocre images without honing your skills, then you're not an artist (at best you're a craftsman). If that's the case, then you should be prepared to take a bit of flack every now and again from those people that do work hard on everything they do and who have to wade through your images to find the good stuff by other people. As I say, it's not about absolute technical ability, it's about attitude. My comments aren't directed at people that aren't very good, they're directed at people that don't care that they aren't very good but don't want anyone to actually tell them so. Encouraging people, especially beginners, is important, and I honestly think that I do that with my comments, but I do get a little irritated by those people that expect to get flattery for very little effort. Those people that try, even if they haven't (yet) achieved technical or artistic marvels, have all my support and encouragement. Anyway, time for me to get off my soapbox now too. :-) Best wishes, Simon.

I often find myself surprised at the choices you make for the FWW, but I'm amazed that you haven't included Paul DeCelle's "Corum".

Based on previous FWW choices, you seem to have a liking for spirals, and a finer example would be hard to find.

Best wishes,
Simon.

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

Hi Cornelia. You thanked me a bit too soon I'm afraid. I just checked the link under your 'Morning Glory' image and it's not working. It seems that if you don't write the web address with 'http://' in front of it that 'http://www.renderosity.com/' gets put in for you, so what you need to use instead of what I told you before is: &lta href="http://www.MyImageAddress.com"&gtMy Image Sorry about this. Best wishes, Simon.

Hi Cornelia.

This is what you should enter if you want to create a link to www.MyImageAddress.com with caption "My Image":

&lta href="www.MyImageAddress.com"&gtMy Image</a>

Hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Simon.

You can do an awful lot with very little if you take your time and think. For example, here's one of the layers from my "Delicate Work" image. The whole image is made from four main layers with another three simple layers to add some subtle lighting effects. Each of the four main layers is coloured using Doodads which is pretty great for this fake 3d stuff. This particular layer has a gradient with only three points on it, so you don't even have to generate really complex gradients to give an impression of 3d.

Just so no one thinks I'm cheating, this layer uses a private formula, but most of the 3d effect comes from the Doodads and gradient combination. I've anti-aliased and sharpened it, and added the SK, but no other pp was involved.

Best wishes,
Simon.