FRACTAL EDITING

[Bent-Winged Angel]

Do you do it? If so to what extent?  Is it wrong.. on how many levels? lol

[bib]

I guess this post is inspired by your comment on my image http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2530 isn' it?

I only use Ultrafractal. The only postprocessing I do sometimes is balance the color, luminance and contrast for the picture as a whole.

I don't think anything is wrong. A digital artist can use as many tools as he wants. Nothing bad...

[klixon]

It all depends on purpose, i guess... I you make a mathematical presentation on the structure of fractals, i think it would be a bad idea
In all other cases, why not? It's just another tool to express yourself.
In crafting there's rules, in art there's freedom.

[Bent-Winged Angel]

I guess this post is inspired by your comment on my image http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=2530 isn' it?

NOPE!  I have been thinking about this topic for a while now.  Ohh but you have inspired me in other ways. 

[aluminumstudios]

I think that with too much editing, it stops being a fractal and starts being a graphic composition using fractals as a tool or component.  It's difficult to say where that line is, but I appreciate fractals largely as scientific things that are beautiful, so I personally don't care for too much editing.  I'm not a fan of fractal images that have a bunch of layers and are highly edited.  I'm the same with my photography.  A little color or contrast adjustment overall is fine, but I like to see (or show) the intrinsic beauty in things and not fabricate beauty by after the fact editing.

[Bent-Winged Angel]

I think that with too much editing, it stops being a fractal and starts being a graphic composition using fractals as a tool or component.  It's difficult to say where that line is, but I appreciate fractals largely as scientific things that are beautiful, so I personally don't care for too much editing.  I'm not a fan of fractal images that have a bunch of layers and are highly edited.  I'm the same with my photography.  A little color or contrast adjustment overall is fine, but I like to see (or show) the intrinsic beauty in things and not fabricate beauty by after the fact editing.

Pretty much agree with all you say.  I also do photography.  The only thing I would add is that I do play with turning a photo into abstract art; but that's a totally diffirent thing.  I pretty much have thought that your fractal should "stand on it's own"  I only thought about this when talking about the spring coontest Trifox mentioned that entries could be edited.

[Nahee_Enterprises]

   Do you do it?  If so to what extent?  Is it wrong... on how many levels?

I have done it on occasions, but not very often.  And when I do modify a rendering, most times it is very little.

In my opinion, Right and Wrong are subjective, and therefore the levels are of your own making.

There are many discussions concerning post processing of fractal images, some may be found within these boards:
   http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?topic=686.0
   http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?topic=2361.0
   etc...
 

[Bent-Winged Angel]

Thanks Nahee for links & added discussions.   I think it's wrong when the finished product looks nothing like original fractal.  That would definately be too much editing.. (yes I know a very simplistic answer)

[Sidicus]

I do it on most of my work. I think its part of what makes it art.

[Nahee_Enterprises]

I do it on most of my work.  I think its part of what makes it art.

Most anything may be called "art", but not everything should be called "fractal art" !!!

I have nothing against modifying rendered fractal images to produce what a person wishes to attempt.  But they should only call it "art using fractals", or mixed media using fractals.
 

[Sockratease]

Most anything may be called "art", but not everything should be called "fractal art" !!!

I have nothing against modifying rendered fractal images to produce what a person wishes to attempt.  But they should only call it "art using fractals", or mixed media using fractals.
 

I agree that if changing pixels around, or adding stuffs to an image, it "crosses some sort of line" - but if merely adjusting color contrast, levels, or saturation - I have no issues saying it's still "Fractal Art"

Deleting noisy areas outside areas of interest in a 3D fractal gets into a grey area too - but I'd personally still allow it the title of "Fractal Art" regardless.

It's very difficult to draw an exact line and say "crossing" it causes too much of a change to still be called "Fractal Art"

[Madman]

I have nothing against modifying rendered fractal images to produce what a person wishes to attempt.  But they should only call it "art using fractals", or mixed media using fractals.

Let me see if I understand correctly... If I create a menger sponge with a cloudy background in M3D it is called "Fractal Art", but if I render a menger sponge in M3D and add the cloudy background in PS or GIMP, I must call it "mixed media"? Hmm... Interesting...

[Sockratease]

Let me see if I understand correctly... If I create a menger sponge with a cloudy background in M3D it is called "Fractal Art", but if I render a menger sponge in M3D and add the cloudy background in PS or GIMP, I must call it "mixed media"? Hmm... Interesting...

Just to be Absolutely Clear - YOU can call it whatever you want!!

It's what other people would have you call it that is being discussed.  There is certainly no consensus of opinion on this subject   

[Nahee_Enterprises]

Let me see if I understand correctly...  If I create a menger sponge with a cloudy background in M3D it is called "Fractal Art",
but if I render a menger sponge in M3D and add the cloudy background in PS or GIMP, I must call it "mixed media"?

There are fractal rendering applications that allow one to use photographs and non-fractal images as input, as either backgrounds or part of the rendered fractal.  And some of these applications allow different kinds of filtering and layering of rendered fractals.  Plus other types of processes may be incorporated that may not be truly fractal.  But the outcome is what many people would call a work of "art" (depending on the viewer and their definition of "art").  All I am saying is that these are "art using fractals", and not really "fractal art".  That is my opinion, and the opinion of many others that I know.  This particular topic has been discussed for many years now, and there does not seem to be any real conclusion to it (nor probably ever be one).

Whether everything is done within a single application, or it is done with several applications and methods, is not the issue.  What is the issue is what has been done to the original "fractal" that was rendered with a specific formula process.  If two different fractal formulas are used and the two images are then layered together, you are not seeing a single "fractal art", but a combination of two "fractal art" images, making it a "mixed" image using fractals.
 

[Madman]

Just to be Absolutely Clear - YOU can call it whatever you want!!

And you know I will Sock  

All I am saying is that these are "art using fractals", and not really "fractal art".

Ok, Nahee, now I know what you don't consider "Fractal Art". Apparently both my examples are a form of "art using Fractals". I like to know what you DO consider Fractal Art. According to your definition, I would suppose that Fractal Art would be purely mathematical, based on a single iterative formula, and should be composed of only two colors for the odd and even iterations. Any addition in coloring would surely be "art using fractals" because it is not strictly necessary to define the form of the fractal.

And then again, I might of course be totally wrong...

Edit: After writing this post, I stumbled upon this post http://orbittrap.ca/?p=5154. Puts this discussion in an interesting perspective...