Posts Tagged digital art

The chosen ones, part V

From Gallery 11, “Lightning”:

Lightning

This one seems quite a simple image (it is!) but it was really important to me maybe for non-aesthetical reasons. This image called the attention of a band named Disgruntled Postal Workers, and they’ve asked me to use it in their CD called “Wicked”. It was the first time I was asked to have an image used on someone else’s work, and also… it was the first time I made some (really small) money off my work.

I had to follow the rules and ask for a fee, but at the same time, I couldn’t ask them “too much”, mostly when I thought that it was such a simple image and more, made with a freeware software. Sure, it’s my artwork, but it could and can be easily reproduced by nearly anyone that knows a bit about fractals and Fractint. But this is what they liked, and they were not based in reviews or comments in fractal sites or art communities (here goes my anti-Deviant rant again). They just found the fractal image and thought it would fit with their work. And respectfully – the most important part of it all – they asked me for a licensing fee. And how much is too much in this case? I had no idea. I bought a book that helped me a lot to learn about how the licensing process of artwork goes, and it really helped me to decide how much to ask. It’s called “Graphic Artists Guild Handbook: Pricing & Ethical Guidelines“, and it covers all the aspects of licensing and fees and copyright issues, it helped me a lot, really (I bought the 10th edition if I’m not wrong). If they were signed to a big label, of course I could have made a lot more, but as they were an independent band, and as an amateur musician myself, I know how hard can it be to get money to help make your work to be finished and released to the public so if I asked them more than they could afford neither me nor them would be happy.

The whole process ran as smoothly as possible – maybe because there was no involvment of the big guys of record labels or lawyers or anything like that. It was just a few e-mails exchanged between me and Scott (R.I.P.!), the singer. I sent them a “contract” (written with the help of the book) just with the basics only to be sure that we wouldn’t have any problems in the future (what if they exploded and become a new U2 or something?), and that’s it. After some time I got a package with the CD already finished, and there it was, my image, my name in the credits, in a rock’n'roll CD. It’s things like that that make you keep going. Oh yes and the CD was nice as well. It sounded like a mix of Rush and Live and with some influences of grunge and tidbits of “funk metal” or whatever it’s called. After Scott’s death, they have reformed with a new name, The Red Desert,  sometimes I still go there and see what they are doing.

And BTW, the fee was really small. I even made some “extras” for free, like images that could be used as wallpapers, postcards or some promotional stuff. It doesn’t hurt to do things legally, it’s better than use something off the internet without giving the artist any credits. Play nice.

PS.: for those wondering how I could use a GIF image, with 256 colours, in a professional work – it was imported into UltraFractal and rendered there, in a big size and resolution and the colours were smooth as usual, no strips or bands or anything like that. As always, no Photoshop involved whatsoever.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why I don’t use Photoshop or Gimp?

There’s a big discussion involving fractal images and Photoshop, with several different points of view, but the main one usually is that if a fractal image is manipulated in Photoshop (or Gimp, or any other software like that) “it’s not a true fractal image anymore”.

I’m not interested in this technical discussion – each side of it has its own correct assumptions, but I’ve decided not to use Photoshop or any other image manipulation softwares because to me I feel that with them it’s much simpler to create something interesting with virtually no effort, I guess this is the same way I don’t like how Apophysis is misused by most of its users nowadays – the random, automated way to create an image or a batch of images. With Photoshop/Gimp etc. sometimes I feel the same happens.

Yesterday I gave Gimp another try (I really can’t get used to that interface!) but mostly to try something like the Droste effect which is quite interesting. I found that there is a plug-in for Gimp that does that effect (and many others) called MathMap, and it can give some interesting fractal-like results in regular pictures. I couldn’t make it work (I need an older version of Gimp it seems, and I’m using Windows), but I found some other quite interesting plug-ins that can make very nice effects and changes to your fractal images in a very easy way. I might even post some of these attempts here just for fun, the map to sphere stuff for example is really interesting mostly because I need some fractal that can look like a planet/world for a logo/icon to be used here, and an animated ” fractal planet” spinning using one of my own images will definitely look nice. But the easiness to make a fractal look “better” with a few default settings of a plug-in is what makes me go away from these image editors and not even try to use them. Not even for a simple sharpening, which gives a nice effect with images that have lots of details.

Other day I found one of these links named “amazing fractal images” (or some variation of that) and there was a bunch of images of “fractal animals” – lions, birds, dogs, whatever. All had a fractal texture applied to the original images of the animals and one that doesn’t know fractals might think that the fractal software generated a true fractal image that was shaped like a dog – it didn’t, it was just a simple dog image with some Apophysis image “pasted” on top of it working as a texture, blended with the original image. You can actually see some of these here. Is this person a good fractal artist? No, he’s just someone that knows how to work with layers in Photoshop, and this is much easier to find than someone that can really make a (traditional) fractal from scratch. I remember when I found these images. In the first image I was like “wow, that’s nice” and while looking at about the 3rd or 4th I was like… “boring!…”. It won’t take you more than a few minutes to replicate that kind of effect, much different than waiting 50 hours for a real fractal image to be rendered.

Edit: with a few more clicks, I found the culprit: a plug-in named Fractalius. Annoying, really annoying. I didn’t know it was that easy.

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Rule of Thirds and the Golden Ratio

While doing some tweaks in old images I noticed that some images don’t really fit that well if just centered, mostly some spirals and images that have a certain detail that is the main “subject” of the image. If they are just moved a few bits to the side, they look more interesting. I’ve figured this by myself I guess since I never had any formal art training, and my older images seem to suffer more from this “problem”. It seems that I just did the fractal image and wherever it started, it stayed, I never tried to make it look better in terms of proportions or positioning. A small rotation the most, and that was it. But why this happens to the images? Why some appear to look better if their subjects are in certain places, mostly off-center? It can be sort of explained by the Rule of Thirds and also by the Golden Ratio.

The Rule of Thirds is well known in the photography world, and it’s not exactly a rule that you must follow all the time, it’s more like a guideline (same applies to the Golden Ratio). It says that your main subject(s) of your pictures/paintings etc. will look better if they are located 1/3 away from the image’s edges (I’d prefer to say though that the images might look better instead of will look better). It’s not a must follow rule, but it helps in some particular images.

And how do I know where is this specific location? Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Amazing (mass-produced!) collection of fractal art

Pretty isn’t it? But guess what was my involvement in all this? A few clicks. To be precise, just 3. One to open Apophysis, other in the menu to select “Scripts”, and the last one to select a script. (OK,  there was another one, to run the script, it’s 4 clicks actually, sorry!). There were a few more clicks required to render the images, but these aren’t related to the actual creation of the images. And these images look quite similar not only to each other but to most of these so-popular “amazing-whatever” batches of fractal “art” spread all over the internet. So sad.

Read the rest of this entry »

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The rejected images

I was thinking about them and considering what I have seen in other sites labeled as “amazing” fractal art, I might give these oldies a new chance, some aren’t that bad after all. Maybe too common or simple, but some aren’t definitely ugly.

They will be back not in the galleries, but probably more like in the form of free downloads, wallpapers and such. Still to decide about that, first I need to have a look on these images again, reselect those that are really worth a second chance and all that stuff. It’s possible that some might get even a re-render, and even get a new watermark or something (different from the watermark used in the galleries, so the image can be used as a wallpaper), just to keep things more consistent and updated. Some of these images still have a watermark from a site/URL that is gone since maybe 1998. I might not be able to remake all the Fractint images, though…

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Mundo Fractal is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache