Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Gallery makeover project : Fractals

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 6:22 AM
Hi guys! :iconlawooplz:

As I've mentioned in my last this week in my MC, you may have seen that actually there's a huge project around gallery makeover.
Fractal could be impact and could change now ! 

For our main gallery actually we have this structure :



Which seems to be OK for me.
But it's my own opinion, and I'm not the community ! 

:bulletblue: So you, what do you think of this ? 
:bulletblue: How would you change it ?

What I think is important to keep in mind is the fact that we're trying to be the more generic as possible...

So I think I won't accept suggestion like : "Please give us real sub-category in each category ! Like a Ultra Fractal folder, an Apophysis folder and a Mandelbulb folder"
I support that simply because it's impossible to keep those kind of sub-categories up to date...
Imagine if each time a software is create, you must re-structure each subcat, move all the "misscat" deviations etc...

Also the main aim of this project is to "simplify" our categories to make them even more efficient ! 
So we're actually deleting and merging many of them. (don't worry actually fractals are not impact) 



Now let's take a look at our Resources and Stock images gallery ! 
Here I think we could make some more efficient changes !

Here's our actual structure :


At first sight the main structure seems OK.

:bulletred: IMO I would love to change the Parameters Pack name to Parameters
Why ? Simply because actually we should not have only PACKS in this gallery.
There's no place where to post fractals with parameters, which make them really hard to be found outside of some specifics groups folders... 

:bulletred: How would you change it ?
:bulletred: What are your needs in our Resources gallery ?

Don't hesitate to ask for something or to tell me your opinions about our category structure.
It's time to create some awesome for you and made by you !

Take care and stay devious

:heart:
Damien


Suggestions recap:

- Update the Raw fractal category with :
_ 2 Dimensional Fractals.
_ 3 Dimensional Fractals.

- Removing the animation gallery.

- Find a way to include 3D software textures / meshes / palette.

- Rename Parameters Packs for Parameters.

- Allowed more file formats in Parameters.


Gallery makeover project : Fractals.
As I've mentioned in my last this week in my MC, you may have seen that actually there's a huge project around gallery makeover.
Fractal could be impact and could change now !
It's time for you to take out of your head some awesome ideas !
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsonafoitova:
sonafoitova Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2013
I would very much like to contribute to your gallery but unfortunately it is not possible to get the entire week has
Reply
:iconrsidwell:
rsidwell Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013  Hobbyist
The current definitions for Raw Fractals and Fractal Manipulations overlap when multiple fractals are combined. Common practice seems to be that if the layering is done within a single fractal program (like Ultra Fractal), it is a Raw Fractal, but if the layering is done with a photo editor, it is considered "post-work" so becomes a Fractal Manipulation. I don't see why where the layering is done should make a difference. The first deviation I uploaded was made by combining a number of Apophysis fractals in a photo editor, which would make it a Fractal Manipulation. But if some future version of Apophysis supports layers, I could make the same piece of art entirely within that fractal program, making it a Raw Fractal. The distinction seems meaningless.

Indeed, when browsing DeviantArt I always stop at the Fractal Art category; I never browse the subcategories. Perhaps some people find them useful, but I don't. I would be more inclined to have categories "Pure Fractals" and "Fractal Based Art" to contain works that contain only fractal elements and those that combine fractal and non-fractal elements.

There is also an overlap between Fractal Art->Raw Fractals and Fractal Resources->Parameters. I often include parameters just in case anyone is interested in seeing how I did something, but I would still put it in the Fractal Art category; the parameters are just a side benefit. I would only put something in Fractal Resources if I intended it to be a resource (for example, an example of a particular technique, or a (hopefully) useful texture). I hope the descriptions of these categories would accommodate the intent of the work.
Reply
:iconcosmic-cuttlefish:
Cosmic-Cuttlefish Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Bringing back the 'traditional media fractals' subcategory, or something similar, might be useful, as there isn't really a place at the moment to put hand-drawn fractal work.
Reply
:iconannakirsten:
AnnaKirsten Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2013   General Artist
I think the current categories are fine as they are and should stay the same, except:

- I do agree that parameter packs needs to simply be Parameters.
- Fractal Manipulations could be divided between:
1. RAW fractal Manipulations (for those where outside elements are all brought into UF itself as part of the overall work that is finally rendered as one image)
2. Other Fractal Manipulations (for images where fractals have had other elements added to them in another editing program.

(I wouldn't be too bothered about that personally, but I know some people feel strongly that if they have brought everything into their fractal program and made a single overall render, this is a little more technical to say the least, than taking your fractal into another editing program and adding tubes, or whatever to the image there.)

Looking at the suggestions recap:

* whether a fractal is 2 or 3 dimensional is somewhat open to speculation. Some people say that Ultra-Fractal is a 3 dimensional fractal program, but I never view it that way. Why would we need to add these sub-categories I wonder...

* Nooooo don't remove the animation category - unless people aren't going to do animations any more! I do think they should stay separate because of their very nature.

* 3D software textures/meshes/palette - if for fractals - could surely go under Fractal Resources?

* Yes allow more file formats for parameters, as for example, they don't currently include upr's for example (for UF). They all have to be text (I think).
Reply
:iconlupsiberg:
Lupsiberg Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2013   General Artist
I'm of the same opinion as Anna in every respect! :)
Reply
:iconcelticstrm-stock:
CelticStrm-Stock Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Hiyas! :wave: Sooo I was thinking as someone who occasionally submits fractal resources.. What about adding the Category from Resources & Stock > Stock Images > Fractals to the actual Resources & Stock > Fractal Resources categories? It threw me off for a minute when I submitted my first fractal as stock.

On a side note on fractals: If anyone has any tutorials for beginners (as in the "fractals for dummies" style) or even advanced ones I'd love to know. I've been wanting to do a feature on fractal tutorials. I have a lot of members that want to learn about them, but they get really confused.
Reply
:iconkaeltyk:
Kaeltyk Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2013
Note : the 'digitalart/fractals/animations/' gallery is in conflict with 'film/animation/3d/fractal/' (which has no equivalent in 2d except maybe film/animation/2d/abstract...)
So it would be nice to clean.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for this input !
Will see what we can make there !
Reply
:iconc-91:
C-91 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'd say the Animation gallery shouldn't be removed! If the animation gallery will be removed, where shall we submit our animations to? Raw Fractals? Fractal Manipulations? I don't think they'd fit in neither of them.

Another category to discuss about is the Application Reference/Apophysis gallery. But I don't think I can say a word about that, since I have no clue what it is about. :shifty:
But it has a total of 33 deviations, among which most of them are miscats or can fit perfectly in other categories, IMHO.

Speaking of other ideas...I'm fine with the suggestion recap things! :love:
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Application reference ??? Where did you get that silly things ? :faint:
Reply
:iconc-91:
C-91 Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Here! [link] :noes:
Reply
:iconablipintime:
ABlipinTime Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Honestly, I wouldn't mind keeping things the way they are.
I do note, however, that it tends to be difficult to decide where to draw the line between fractal manipulation and photo manipulation.

For example, I cannot believe this is a raw fractal:
[link]
but it is labelled as such because they probably didn't actually change the fractals within the scene, even if they moved them around or rotated them.

THIS, however, is a raw fractal:
[link]

Moving on, then you get stuff like this:
[link]

Is this a fractal manipulation? Obviously, it's got a painted person in it, so it incorporates non-fractal elements, which would thus immediately disqualify it from groups such as Fractal Dreams (who, though purists, accept fractal manipulations).
I myself still consider it somewhat fractal art, but I would rather say it is a digital painting that incorporates fractals, rather than a fractal work in and of itself (unless you, in an amazing internet discovery, find some program that allows you to put images within your fractal works). The same can be said for my Oceanic Fractals ([link]), which incorporates fractals as "textures" but is primarily 3D models and image manipulation.

Hence, perhaps we should add another category: fractal / digital blend.
Reply
:iconvelvet--glove:
Velvet--Glove Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2013
I feel I just have to correct a couple of misconceptions here as you do not seem very familiar with what the Ultra Fractal program is capable of.

Firstly, =raysheaf's maritime work is, without question, 100% raw fractal. It will have been created with numerous layers within the program (and from there it would have been rendered in one fell swoop) and I have no reason to think the result was constructed or otherwise assembled/manipulated in a postwork stage. Purists may question whether a multi-layer image can really be a "raw" fractal but that's another matter.

Secondly, no amazing discovery is required!... Ultra Fractal does, in fact, allow images to be put within fractal works both as a single item (e.g a background or single element within the scene) or as an iterating fractal trap shape (repeating, spiralling smaller and smaller etc.). I use this import feature a lot as part of my normal creative toolbox. The effect can range from subtle e.g. some of the texture on this: [link] to quite obvious, repeating photo elements e.g. [link].

Your third example is just about acceptable where it is, I think, but I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of it. If it were my work I would have put it somewhere else, probably in a photomanip category, as the photographic element is the most prominent aspect in my view.

I wouldn't like to see any more categories as I think this will just add confusion rather than helping. I think we have it just about right already with raw, manipulations and animations. There will always be people who overstep the mark or who get it wrong. And there will be people who think applying a so-called fractalising filter to a photo of a domestic cat somehow makes it a fractal (one of my pet peeves), but on the whole I think the present arrangement works pretty well and I do still broadly favour the concept of letting the artist decide where to put their work.

Just my two pence. :aww:
Reply
:iconablipintime:
ABlipinTime Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Correct, I'm not familiar with Ultra Fractal (other than the styles of fractals it usually outputs) because it's a for-pay program. :(

You're probably right about multiple categories adding more confusing. This should probably just be a group-choice thing then, huh? (At the very least that way we wouldn't have to re-learn what goes in all of the categories.)

(As an aside comment: as a purist, I wouldn't considering layering and adding imagery authentic fractals, since that's just like combining a fractal program with Photoshop.)
Reply
:iconmargot1942:
Margot1942 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013
The things are pretty good as they are, although I tend to agree on changing "Parameter Packs" to just "Parameters". I normally don't try to fix what isn`t broken. :D
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:)
Reply
:iconakurapare:
AkuraPare Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013
parameters packs -> parameters = yes!

2d/3d - not sure - what if 3d apo or stereographics? is it 2d or 3d? i dont know...

fractals with parameters - what about adding params later or in comments? is this sub-category really needed?

removing fractal animations? no way!
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:hug: Thanks for your input !
Reply
:iconurus-28:
Urus-28 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I know you're waiting for this... so.... =P
What about a new sub-category "I can't read" for all the people submitting animations, ponies and photography in the fractal category ? =D
Ok this should also appear in other galleries of DA :lol:
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:faint:
Reply
:iconfardareismai:
FarDareisMai Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Having already said my chief concern (parameter filetypes), here's how I feel about the other issues being discussed here:

-I think the Fractal Animations category should be kept. If we didn't have it, where would a gif like this go? [link] If we try to fold things like that into the "raw fractals" gallery by allowing gifs there, it is possible that the miscat problem will simply be transplanted from the animations gallery into the "raw fractals" category as well. I'm hoping that some better organization in the other animation/film galleries will help with the miscats, but until then, images like the one I linked still need a place they can be submitted in the fractal gallery.
-I am against splitting 2d and 3d, because I believe it has the same problems as splitting into program-based folders when it comes to "dividing the community." A long time ago someone suggested splitting into "Escape-time fractals" (like UF) and "IFS fractals" (like Apo) and even though they weren't TECHNICALLY program-based categories, it was basically the same. Splitting into 2d and 3d, while not TECHNICALLY a program-based category, is still really similar. Honestly, I know I myself would be tempted to only browse the 2d gallery, thus shutting out all the 3d. I don't think it would be a good thing to have a bunch of people habitually looking at only one of the two categories and completely ignoring the other. :/
-I fully support renaming the Parameter Packs gallery and adding things like lightmaps and textures to the resources gallery.
Reply
:iconesintu:
esintu Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
HOW DARE YOU FORCE 3D FRACTALS DOWN MY THROAT?!

j/k

but really :paranoid:

I don't know why it's that important that everyone sees every raw fractal regardless of their interests.
Reply
:iconmario837:
mario837 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013
One more thought. In many cases the params are included as a comment. Where would they go? Raw, parameter or both?
Reply
:iconmario837:
mario837 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013
I am also unhappy with the proposed eliminaton of the animations category on the gounds of a quantitative analysis. In this case, quality and uniqueness should be considered and not mixed with other categories.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Don't worry actually I don't remove a thing we just discuss and I just update your ideas on the journal :)
Reply
:icongrannyogg:
GrannyOgg Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Agree on the Parameter Packs should be Parameters!
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:icondaeurth:
Daeurth Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Just remembered I forgot to bring this up: I am opposed to removing fractal animations. It's a decent sized category, and animations really wouldn't fit well elsewhere.
Reply
:icondeadened-glow:
deadened-glow Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What if the animation category had a subcat for fractal anims? I think I saw this mentioned somewhere in the comments.
Reply
:icondaeurth:
Daeurth Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Maybe, although this could lead to misscats from people. And personally, I like having it in the Fractal Art gallery instead of the animations gallery, mainly for browsing purposes.
Reply
:icondaeurth:
Daeurth Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I miss having our own top-level gallery, as it simplified things in my opinion. Also, despite it being relatively small, I think that we should bring back the "Traditional media fractals", or whatever it was called, especially keeping in mind 3D-Printed fractals, which I've found in several deviants' galleries. Perhaps it could be "Non-Digital Media Fractals" or something like that. I'm not a terribly big fan of separating 2d and 3d fractals, as it overcomplicates things, and I feel that having them combined works perfectly fine.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So we had this "top-level" cat for few months before the staff decided to going back on this choice.
First because most (actually on dA maybe 99,8%) of the fractals are digitally made...
So it going perfectly under digital art. Also when we was a "Top-level" cat we was one of the most spam cat ;) as it was even more easy to find this really missunderstood are when everything could be post ...

For the 3D print fractal, IMO it's more like a artisan craft as sculpture is even if it's make with a CAD ...
But that need to be discuss with some other CV.
Reply
:icondaeurth:
Daeurth Featured By Owner Mar 23, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Ok, I see where you're coming from with the top-level part, but as far as 3D printed stuff goes, when I see 3D printed metal stuff IRL, it tends to be categorized as metalwork, even if all the artist did was mode it in a CAD program. The same for other media, so if this is true, then why shouldn't 3D printed fractal art go with fractals? Also, 3D printed was just an example. I've seen other sorts of 3D fractal art as well.
Reply
:iconfardareismai:
FarDareisMai Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
3d printed fractals are still digital though. If I print one of my apo images onto paper, that doesn't suddenly make it a non-digital creation. Why should 3d printing be any different in this regard?

IMO, a non-digital fractal sculpture would be something that the artist built, not printed.
Reply
:icondaeurth:
Daeurth Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Maybe... It all depends how you think about it... When you 3d-print something, it's no longer bytes, but plastic or metal or whatever, though I guess this argument could apply to printed out art as well. However, I think of the 3d printing of a fractal as its realization in reality...
Reply
:iconone-tough-one:
one-tough-one Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The top one seems okay to me.

For the bottom one maybe things specific to certain fractal program MB3, UltraFractal, Apophysis, etc...

As they maybe needed.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
as i've said in my journal :
[...] I won't accept suggestion like : "Please give us real sub-category in each category ! Like a Ultra Fractal folder, an Apophysis folder and a Mandelbulb folder"
I support that simply because it's impossible to keep those kind of sub-categories up to date...
Imagine if each time a software is create, you must re-structure each subcat, move all the "misscat" deviations etc...
Also the main aim of this project is to "simplify" our categories to make them even more efficient !
So we're actually deleting and merging many of them. (don't worry actually fractals are not impact) [...]
Reply
:iconone-tough-one:
one-tough-one Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
as far as resources not programs. I hope that makes sense.
Reply
:iconesintu:
esintu Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think 2D and 3D sub categories are a good idea, I was going to suggest that as well.

I also support further discussion on how to treat fractals with parameters provided. Having a folder for fractals with parameters under Fractal Art (and not resources either) may make those easier to find for those looking for some params to work off of. I know many people still want to submit their fractals with parameters under fractal art and not fractal resources for better exposure, and I think providing a venue for that would please both the parameter providers and those who seek them out. So that would be 3 (or 4 with animation) folders under Fractal Art; Raw Fractals, Fractal Manipulations, (Fractal Animations?), and Fractals with Parameters.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I agree with your point, but there's something to work on ...
Actually if you provide parameters with a fractal those parameters are resources? but you also providing a fractal ?
So actually the problem here is that it would be in 2 different category.
IMO when you provide resources such as parameters it should be cat in Resources not fractal art...
:shrug:

:hug:
Reply
:iconesintu:
esintu Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It is a resource, but you know the type that I'm talking about right? Some challenges require people to include the parameters, a lot of 3D fractal artists also share the params to their art out of courtesy and out of habit. The difference between those and the resource parameters is that they were designed as artwork to begin with, and the parameters are a bonus. I think they belong in the art galleries, but having a separate category in there would help those who want to find them, that's all.
Reply
:icontatasz:
tatasz Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2013
omg love this suggestion... :dummy: vote for Fractals with Params in Fractal Art
Reply
:iconheavenriver:
heavenriver Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I would say the system works pretty well as it is now. I would keep it as is, and focus on removing miscats from the fractal galleries. :nod:
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Misscat are not the main work of CV sadly and I know it's a huge problem of our missunderstood categories...
Reply
:icon0bsidianfire:
0bsidianFire Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Hmm... I think what we have right now is pretty good. It's hard to get simpler then what we have. My main question would be the parameters in the "Stock and Resources" section. I habitually stick the parameters in my comments section, but I don't stick the fractal itself in the stock section because it's not really stock. I guess my question is, what makes a raw fractal with params a fractal instead of a stock? I'm thinking it's just the artist's preference, but I'm wondering if we should have some clarity on that.

What makes this doubly hard is that the fractal community doesn't have a hard line between stock and parameters... if you stick the parameters in, that pretty much makes it stock.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Really good remark.
Actually this there's a difference simply because it's not in the Stock image category.
There's stock images which you will be able to find here : [link]
And the RESOURCES which you can find here : [link]

The main difference is here :)
Reply
:iconhairbrainedscenes:
HairBrainedScenes Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Professional General Artist
I usually subscribe to the idea of " If it isn't broke don't try to fix it." However, I do agree with you that the Parameters Pack folder should be more generic thus allowing for singluar parameters to have a place in our world. Keep up the great work Damien.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I usually subscribe to the idea of " If it isn't broke don't try to fix it." don't worry you're not the only one ;)
Actually it's pretty normal BUT if you don't try to change you will never improve, create or innovate ...
Thanks for this input anyway :)
Reply
:iconfraterchaos:
fraterchaos Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
honestly, I think things are pretty good as they are, although I tend to agree on changing "Parameter Packs" to just "Parameters"

I think making sub-categories for each fractal program is too much... would be as bad as changing the 3D software categories in the same way... imagine having to post Bryce in Bryce, Daz in Daz, Blender in Blender, 3DsMax in 3DsMax and so on, and then what if you're using two or more of those programs? It ends up making it MORE complex, and the same goes for fractals... what do you do if you make a Mandelbulb with a BG created in Apo? Where does that go?

The only complaint I have ever had is that quite often the fractal animations category refuses to talke my work saying it's the wrong format, when it is not wrong... I'll try to post an animated GIF or PNG and it will say I can't post that to animations...

But the category structure seems good to me, and if it is changed in any way it should be made simpler, not more complex... just my two cents.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for this input !
Actually what kind of format do you try to post to Fractal animation ?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconsatania: More from SaTaNiA


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
March 18, 2013
Submitted with
Sta.sh Writer
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
23,531 (2 today)
Favourites
6 (who?)
Comments
110
×