My image is in very distinguished company, I'm not sure it fully deserves it considering the skill, experience and patience that obviously went into others.  However, it is a great encouragement to someone who has just started to do fractals again, so thank you for choosing it.

Mike

Paul, thanks for posting this. I'm not feeling up to trying it all out for real yet, but a quick test of the 'workflow' went well.

Guida, you can find Dave's workflow in the tutorial section here :
http://www.skinvue.net/

ditto from me ... original, creative and excellent execution.

Yes it is Joe :) I wanted to go for something fairly harsh with this subject though. I might give it another go some time and try and hold back the neck area a bit.

Mike

LOL Alpha, very true ... you going to buy the 'Ferarri' for him ? :)

I put together this comparison in case anyone finds it useful. They are all crops from much larger images, that I will gladly post if anyone wants me to. The leftmost image is digital and is taken from the raw TIFF output from my Nikon 990. The middle one is the same image with Photoshop unsharp mask applied at 100% with a 1 pixel resolution and 0 threshold. The rightmost image is scanned using a Nikon Coolscan 3 from a negative I took about 12 years ago. The only pre and post processing in this is a slight tonal shift to try and improve the comparison in terms of overall brightness. The originals were both taken at about the same time of year with overcast but fairly bright conditions.

Mike

This is a difficult one to advise anyone about and I think Rork has given a lot of sensible advice. I know what those comfort zones feel like, so don't let that be the main reason for any decision you make, particularly if you have a route back to it later if things don't work out. I would certainly go to the next stage and find out more from this woman and then write down the pros and cons, as Rork suggests. You obviously find the option attractive, or you wouldn't be thinking about it. In that situation I would ask myself whether it is my heart or my ego that is making it attractive. You must obviously be flattered by the fact that someone recognises your talent. If I was sure it was my heart that was taking me down that route and I was still tempted to say 'no', then I would think very seriously if that would be a decision I would regret later in life... not easy I know :) but sometimes it is easier to go back than to regain a lost opportunity. I don't know if any of this helps... I hope it does, but, whichever way you go, you have my best wishes.

Love them both Michelle, the colours and saturation are excellent.

JordyArt/Mike, I can appreciate your love for the Fuji. It was on my short list when I was looking to go digital. The main reason I went for the Nikon in the end was because I can't get out and about so much theses days and I thought I would probably make more use of the Nikon's macro capability :) As regards the Zenit, I must have got mine in 1970 :) I'll post a photo of it when I get chance, so you can compare.

LOL.... started my day with a chuckle. Thanks for sharing it :)

I started with a Zenit 35mm SLR, which was all I could afford at the time. Later I started using a Pentax ME 35mm, which I subsequently supplemented with a Pentax MX body, so I could have both colour and B&W available. When I was forced to retire, I treated myself to a Nikon Coolpix 990 digital, but I haven't made as much use of that as I hoped yet.

Third one is my favourite too... but I do like the Alpha mods :) Guess my gamma is ok.

Syyd, I'm not realy up to speed on hardware these days, but from what you say are the one off disposable types an option, or does it have to be digital ? Just a thought, although I'm not sure what the quality is like, wouldn't cost much to find out though. Mike

I came across this topic last night, in my time frame, but felt too tired to join in then. Which is probably just as well, since Punkclown and Peter have now expressed views that pretty much match my own. Personally, I think trying to define 'art' is an exercise in frustration. I think people have different standards for what they will accept as art in different media and I think this has much to do with what they perceive as the skill required to use that medium. Fundamentally, painting and photography are both just recording media, a means to a produce an image. Almost everyone can take a faithful record of a scene using a camera, while far fewer have the skill to produce an equally faithful record using conventional 'art' materials. Place the two images side by side and I would guess that most people would accept the painting as 'art', largely irrespective of it's quality, but not the photograph. For the photograph to be accepted as art, in the past at least, the photographer must first demonstrate mastery of the media, in terms of framing, lighting, mood and tonality. In other words, to demonstrate skills that take photography beyond a simple recording medium. I think terms like 'creativity' and 'intensity' are also very relevant, but, arguably, have more to do with what people will define as 'good' or 'bad' art, rather than with the fundamental acceptance of whether an 'image' is art, or not. If you accept that perceived skill is a factor in this debate, then I think there is a simple answer to Peter's question. Yes, the computer is undermining the perception of photography as an 'art' form. The skill of many renowned photographers was not confined to the point at which they released the shutter, but was probably even more evident in their darkroom technique. While programs like Photoshop, do not reduce the knowledge required for good 'darkroom' technique, they do, from personal experience, make that knowledge more accessible and lower the skill level and dedication required to apply that knowledge. I think this is a point Peter, himself effectively made in a an earlier post and I can't help wandering if that prompted this question ? I'm not too concerned whether people regard my work as 'art' or not. Personally, I don't. I like to create 'images', first and foremost for my own pleasure and satisfaction. If sharing those images arouses some emotion in others, then that is a bonus, even more so if it is a positive emotion :) I started using Ultra Fractal a little over 12 months ago and the worst thing I did was to try and change my style to match the skill of others. I got so frustrated that I didn't use the program again for a long time. Oddly enough I tend to use UF in a style that mimics photography. is that undermining the 'art' of fractals ? :) Take care all, Mike