Welcome to Fractal Forums

 new version of the sloppy old book
come and get it

its missing a page

but i am working on it as you read this

IT'S MY LEGACY

i wanted to see the public response on how it is written before i write the chapters on space-fill gasket's using smart-objects and super trees

that will be in the second edition in this tutorial we use Photoshop however it would be even cooler if someone would design me some software specifically for this maybe if everyone on the forum likes it

someone more mathematically inclined could do that  hint hint MIT students    
    
hear is the link

https://sites.google.com/site/cryographicscom/Blog

the file is  a PDF

can't say much about the content right now, only skimed through. but i recommend some proofreading. my english is not so good and i found lots of of mistakes at first glance...

interesting apparently the world thinks spelling is more important than content who knew

I have a lot of work to do  maybe  I should go back to 5 th grade and relearn spelling 

this document is a draft i wanted to see if people could understand the concept

the last chapter is completely missing 

ok, your point of view. but i think it is much harder for a book to be taken seriously, when spelling is "IRELIVENT" (quote from your draft)  :dink:

point taken thanks I will correct the spelling but that may take years because my friends will have to have time to help I can't spell on my own

version two will have some spelling fixes i promise

How in the world can you call this new?  ;D This is not new, and probably what you get with this method is not exactly a fractal. This is only an attempt to repeat by hand ( heh ) what Apophysis and / or other softwares do automatically. :dink: A fractal normally requires a formula or a transformation. Only you are doing transforms by hand instead of with an algorithm. Try to repeat a Menger sponge with this method and see. Best wishes ... Luca

OK for those of you who want to see some examples type "matty686" into the keyword search

yup formulas do there job very well

in fact the are quite useful  for calculating the noise i use to fake the lower iterations

the main point is,  just as a tree is not a perfect fractal  neither are these

but things are pushed a bit on your side two because although your fractals represent the infinite they are just pixels

it's not how you get there that matters its the result

and while I may not be able to do a merger sponge in 3d I can easily tackle a 2d one using smart object substitution witch i have not yet covered   

I really like the look of many of your images   O0

They are very attractive and fun to look at.

But fractals?

I'm not so sure.

Yes, they exhibit self similarity, but not at all scales, and fractals are by definition Mathematical Formulas.

Your work is fractal-like, and certainly has a place on this forum, but can not properly be called a fractal.

All Fractals are Self-Similar, but not all which is Self-Similar is a Fractal.

I used to insist that things like this were a Fractal:

(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m278/sockratease/inf110.png)
Click For Big (http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m278/sockratease/inf110big.jpg)

It was made in a fractal generator, using fractal formulas, but everyone here insisted it was some sort of hybrid and not a fractal at all.  I believe the term they all eventually agreed upon was "Exotic Projection" (or some other word that begins with an "E")  (I forgot it because I still like to think of those images as Fractals, despite knowing full well they are not!).


Agreed when it comes to a piece of Art!  But Not when it comes to defining what is and is not a Fractal. 

yes Sockratease

they are not fractal but they are so close even I have no clue I have even analyzed the lunacracy  using an open-source  formula  i really don't know what to call them they register the same as fractals

they have rough cost lines and they grow like trees sounded fractal to me but i have now realized how nit-picky the world is I will call them q fractals

i am posting two pictures can you guess witch is the real fractal and witch is the q fractal

You can make fractals from an escapetime formula, a mix of e.t. formulas, or from ifs transforms, or general transforms.
Finally if you transform a shape and not a pixel you get your images.
Somebody invented softwares with baseshapes a long ago; they are Incendia and Xenodream
So that is why you can not say you invented this method... ;)

Just to echo Darkbeam - you need to check out Xenodream and Incendia (both can do "object" based IFS) and also to read up on L-Systems - the method is nothing new - also check out dragon trees and DTIFS.
Sophisticated use of L-Systems can produce amazing results and it is possible to convert such to IFS with appropriate rule extensions.
See:
http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/ (http://algorithmicbotany.org/papers/)

lol, this "book" is hilarious!  ;D

oh, and regarding the "originality" of recursively (and procedurally/implicitly) instantiated objects, how about this from 1989 (John C Hart): http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.85.8650

ok i think this brings up a bigger issue

it seams that there is a lack of software that does this job in an easy manner and all in one place

photoshop has everything i need

were as these other programs are underdeveloped java projects

 ^-^

no silly i just invented the e-book and the particularity's that go beyond the

simplistic tutorial

http://psd.tutsplus.com/tutorials/tutorials-effects/how-to-simulate-fractals-in-photoshop/

 and even better I based the entire idea off IFS fractals

but what I can claim to have invented is the particular examples and how I did them

my feelings are hurt easily I give up trying to share the way i do things

the worlds funny that way

you would think in a capitalist marketplace people would be jumping all over even slight innovations

if they were offered for free

all i did was implement IFS in photoshop

so why arn't other people trying it

you don't think i seriously can't tell witch fractals are hand iterated

they have tiny tell tale signs i look for

other than my q fractals

about 3 other people on the entire internet have done it

and most tryed     and left

i mastered it


and now all i want to do is share it

i am old school like M.C. Escher   

if your are a moderator please deleat my thread it is an embarrassing   failure

 this world is strange

did i ever say i invented any of this i don't remember

what ever 

I would say first and foremost:

 *  Breath


Next:

 * Continue breathing


[Sometimes I give myself 2 hours and nothing but breathing.]


Everything else you do is frosting on the cake.  Keep it up and keep learning.  Beautiful work you have done.  I encourage you to keep doing what you love wholeheartedly.  Some of them explore with a program, and others explore with a brush.

Matty, I think this is nice, but... Don't feel bad, just accept this isn't going to start a revolution, and that it is not something really new, besides the fact that you are using PS.
Calm down. Keep working and getting better, show us how good you can be doing this fractals-by-hand, and if you work hard you will have your recognition.

I'll be looking after your works.

Regards,

Kali

P.S.: I don't have an external HD  ;D

I NEED to buy it!!! :police: :worm:

Okay Matt again I say;

Whenever I see somebody screaming "I revolutionized the world, c'mon and see!" I am curious of what he did, because after 30 years of fractals (and thousand years of geometry) it's really hard to make something radically new! And when it happens it is never announced in this way! So okay!!! OKAY! :D - Make your fractals by hand everybody loves them but only stop screaming it's a new concept okay?  :D Don't feel sad but ... keep reading and learning! You can become the best :beer:

awe thanks

and i will stop saying that

please change the thread title to an interesting way to do fractals with photoshop

No need to do so but you can edit your 1st post in any moment

If you seriously think Xenodream is "under-developed" then you need to take a much longer look at it ;)

Check out the work of Joseph Presley for instance....

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=107790&member (http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=107790&member)

sorry I love xenodream i was referring to a different response

"the algorithmic botany page you gave me

I like it but i can't do anything with it"

but xenodream is cool i used it to make make stuff but lost track of my license key

i think my dad has it
 

The most important thing on the algorithmic botany page is the downloadable version of "The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants" rather than any downloadable software ;)
I guess one of the points I'm trying to make is that one *really, really old* description of how to make fractals is the infinite copy machine and the hand-made "fractals" made with general gfx software are essentially adaptations of this where the user is in control of each stage of duplication.
I'm still trying to design a piece of software that will effectively incorporate all fractal possibilities in an easy to use interface so that even the type of art you are creating is easy to do via a controlled interface in a much easier and faster way than the "photoshop" method but with just as much user-control - the problem at the moment is I'm still finding new things to add and because I want it to be all inclusive every time I find something not catered for I start over - this project is the main reason why the class-based version of my 3D formula for UF and the 3D IFS formula that adds use of primitives for DTIFS etc. are both on hold - or in fact cancelled altogether as the plan is to include both in a single piece of software along with everything else.

Want to be the fractal Einstein? ;) Luca

 Photoshop is like the infinite copy machine

that's whats so special


my  secret sub intent with my book is to show people    which features are important

and witch are not so we can make a piece of software based on gimp eventually

the problames  with gimp are it cant free-transform multiple layers at a time it has no smart objects (tm)

and it's free transform tool  is slow and cumbersome in addition many of my new fractals require the Photoshop puppet-warp tool (tm)

so photoshop is the best for now

but i challenge you to collaborate with the makers of gimp and (inkscape (has a good free-transform tool))

and get them to work together with you on building the ultimate fractal designer's tool

the challenge will be great but it will be in the interest of the entire 2d fractal art community




 

or maby not

 maybe no one cares about people who struggle with algebraic math and programming because of learning disibilitys but are great at geometry  and other art



David this is for you  DON'T GIVE UP!!!!!! Please!!!!!

Sorry Matty.  Gimp users have been waiting years for Gimp 2.8 and it doesn't look like it will be ready in the near future.  on top of that, if development releases are anything to go by, for all its hype improvements are minimal.  Gimp users for years have wanted adjustment layers but have been ignored.  Hats off to the team for giving away a fantastic product free of charge but if you already have Photoshop, I would stick to that and don't expect too much from Gimp!

give incendia a try, it is the most undervalued and sophisticated fractal object creation program that i know, although i havent used it extensively, it is heavily versatile and intuitive in creating fractal structures!

check out the photoshop section here, some nice additional plugins are available for photoshop

Yes, but there is a big limit, every copy occupies some memory, so your "fractal" mem size will grow exponentially (or with the factorial, or even more :o ) of the iterations, and the time that you "waste" putting identical layers will also grow infinitely. Why, when you can use a program like all other humans and use your time better :agree: :dance:

I agree with all of that except "use your time better" - if he enjoys doing it - then there is no better use of your time!

It comes back to the question asked earlier about whether the process matters when creating a piece of Art.  If the end product is all that matters to you, then you are correct, but if the process of creating it is fun and you enjoy it - then it is the best possible use of your time.  And you gets a purty pixture to look at when you are done   O0

I have had many discussions at Art Forums about whether the finished piece even matters at all, and the act of creating it is the True Art.  Art is a Process as much as a finished product.  It is a Verb as much as a Noun! 

This is an Age-Old Debate, and I believe both aspects are important, but the most important is what the Artist gets from the time spent making stuff.  Art creates pretty pictures, but it also creates a State of Mind in the Artist.  To many that is the only important thing.

Okay, in the sense; "Leave all the hard job to the computer ... and use your time to make love" :dink:

at darkbeam

i found ways around all those problems they involve smart objects for gaskets and subtractive noise shaping for iterations too small to see well

thats why these are q fractals they are partially faked see my http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=6103

ok update

i challenged myself and made one without faking in 20 minutes although that was just the gasket the entire thing took about an hour because I erased something i should not have lol  :dink:

http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=10612   

one word GIMP!   

so anyway the Apollonian gasket issue forced me to think outside the  photoshop  lol

it soon became clear to me that with the right keyboard shortcuts assigned that gimp's image pipe brush

does the the same thing as Photoshop's transform tool but it does it much faster

have fun everybody i hope you enjoy the better workflow

you may still need Photoshop at times for measuring

i am also working on a way to integrate another well known open source program so you wont need photoshop

is anyone familiar with blender  hmm (3d image plains perhaps )     

Blender's cool and I'm glad you're getting on with Gimp.  These two are my favourite OS software and well worth having.  Nice to know Gimp does something better than Photoshop.

some times one needs to step back and learn