Photo of the Week #8

This is a humpback whale preparing to dive. Generally, when they dive, they do so tail up. I got several good photos of them from the whale watch cruises we went on. Unfortunately, I never was able to capture a breach a close range. I got several from the shore or from a long distance, but never a close one.

Photo of the Week #7

We had another bit of hoar frost last weekend. This is about noon, after the fog had burned away.

Amazingly Large Images - Part II

When I wrote the first post on this subject, and mentioned that you could apply the technologies to fractal images, I didn't realize that it had already been done recently.

Samuel Monnier just recently put online a new web site, Algorithmic-Worlds, where he uses Zoomify to display a 10000x10000 pixel image and a 65535x65535 pixel image. He has plans for more images.

Also, Janet Parke has two examples online of images using Zoomify.

http://www.parkenet.org/jp/07florishen.html

http://www.parkenet.org/jp/06vielle.html

Sam also pointed out that there are images from the Prado museum online. Check them out, they are quite interesting.

Photo of the Week #6

This photo is another one from my recent trip to Maui. This one is from the north side of the island. The island of Molokai is off in the distance.

Amazingly Large Images

With software and multiple exposures, it is now very easy to create very large images that can be zoomed into to view amazing detail.

There is the Gigapxl Project which uses a special camera and film to create a very high resolution image. In reading the image on their homepage, they have integrated some of their images with Google Earth. I haven't tried this yet, but it sounds interesting.

An easier way to create very large images, typically panoramic images, is to use one of the numerous stitching programs to combine multiple images into a larger image. I showed an example I did in this post from early last year.

PTGui is one that I have used quite a bit. Its capabilities have grown significantly over the years. It is reasonably priced.

Another one is PTAssembler. I haven't used this one nearly as much, primarily because when I tried it, it wasn't as easy to use for me as PTGui.

When I've used both of the above, they require you to select points in adjacent images that are the same to allow the software to know how to merge the images and adjust the perspective when stitching.

Autopano Pro is one that I've been watching for a while. It appears to be the most capable of any of the programs that I've looked at. It is more expensive than most. The creators of the program have published a book of panoramas created using their software. The content of the book is images selected from submissions by users of the program.

A big advantage of Autopano Pro is that it will automatically stitch the images for you without you having to select common points in the adjacent images. Their editor allows you to correct for errors should the software make a mistake. But, this feature makes the stitching almost effortless. Additionally, it will search a directory of images and automatically determine which sets of images comprise a panorama. It has many more features that I'm not really familiar with.

Max Lyons, the creator of PTAssembler, has quite a number of spectacular images he has created using PTAssember here.

He has also created another site, www.maxlyons.net, where he displays additional images. I particulary like the Library of Congress reading room. On some of the individual images, you can actually read the spines of the books on the shelves.

Another similar type of project is the Yosemite 17-Gigapixels site. This site contains a number of very large panoramas from Yosemite National Park. These images were create by Gerard Maynard as part of the Yosemite Extreme Panoramic Imaging Project. That project was sponsored by xRez. To view the Yosemite images you need to install Silverlight from Microsoft. It is well worth it to view the detail in those images. I've been to Yosemite many times, and looking at some of those images from places I've been to is quite amazing.

Gerard Maynard also did a 13 gigapixel panorama of Harlem.

GigaPan has a robotic camera mount that automates the taking of the hundreds of photographs that make up some of these large images. I don't think they have one yet that will handle a digital SLR with a zoom lens. But, this type of tool really makes taking the images for one of these virtually effortless. There are special tripod heads that you can purchase to help make this easier.

There is an example from the Obama Inauguration on their site that is another impressive example of what can be done with this technology.

I don't know if anyone has tried something similar with fractal images. It shouldn't be too hard to generate a fractal image of similar size as some of the above examples. You would probably need to generate the image in tiles, and then combine them with Photoshop or some other editing program.

I'm not sure what the usefulness of such images is for the average person. Most people don't have the wall space necessary for such prints. They are quite interesting on the web where you have the ability to zoom into portions of the images to see the minute details. In the case of the Yosemite images, the images are nice for people who have never been there because the images allow you to see details that you wouldn't see in normal photographs. It would be nice to see similar projects done in remote locations or in countries where people aren't likely to be able to travel to.

Regardless, I find the technology and examples very interesting. I'm sure creative people will find uses for the technology.

Photo of the Week #5

I got back from a trip to Maui a few days ago. My wife and I ditched the kids and took a trip to celebrate our anniversary. We haven't taken a trip like that since we went to the Egypt and the Red Sea and Switzerland before kids. This image is from the sunrise at the summit of the Haleakala volcano. That particular day the sunrise wasn't nearly as spectacular as many of the pictures that I'd seen. It was windy and darn cold.

The hump in the middle of the right side of the picture is the big island of Hawaii. It's about 80 miles away, if I remember correctly.


I got a nifty gadget for my camera for Christmas. The di-Pro GPS encoder. It automatically encodes the GPS information into the EXIF data for the image when you take the picture. To see the information for the above image, click this link.

I think this is pretty cool stuff. I like the idea of being able to include the map showing the location where the photograph was taken in a book. Several years from now I know I'll remember that the images were taken on Maui, but not remember where on the island they were shot. By including the location, or a small map with the printed image, it will be easy to remember where I was when I took the photograph.

Photo of the Week #4

My daughter's cat. This is an odd cat. It doesn't purr. It's certainly friendly enough, and acts like a dog sometimes, but it doesn't purr like our other cat.

Photo of the Week #3

This was taken at a performance of Handel's Messiah.

Photo of the Week #2a

This photo was from the sunset a couple of days ago. This is a zoom into a small area of the sky. The colors were this vivid orange. I liked the colors.

Photo of the Week #2

This is another photo from the same ice storm as the previous photos.

Photo of the Week #1

I've been pondering the latest screed over at OT. As usual, its full of misleading, false, and inaccurate statements. But, rather than dissect it and show how they are wrong point by point, I'm thinking about other ways to address the topic. It's become far to easy and boring to do that, and virtually every one of their "so-called" questions have been addressed multiple times before. So, if I can come up with something interesting, perhaps I'll address the subject in the future.

In the meantime, I've decided to do something that is more interesting to me. I'm going to try to post at least one photo, or perhaps a digital image occasionally, per week. I figure this will give me some motivation to be creative with the camera, and maybe fractals too. Hopefully, it will be of interest to both my readers. LOL!!! It might even be of interest to the OT readers when they send them here.


This is another photo from the ice storm that I posted a few images from last week.

Happy New Year

Here are a few pictures I took while visiting family after Christmas. There was an ice storm overnight, and these are the result. Fortunately, the ice was not very severe, so there was little damage. The roads stayed clear. Growing up, I've experienced these types of storms where the roads have been covered with a sheet of ice.





I hope everyone has had a blessed Christmas holiday and wish everyone a very Happy New Year and the best for 2009.

Merry Christmas

I hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas.


This was shot on the way to work today. Not your typical Christmas image. But, it was very cold.

Audience

When you create your art, who is your audience?

Is it only you? Your family? Friends? Is it for your online gallery in whatever form? Is it commissioned by a client? Is it intended for sale?

Does the audience matter? Does it affect your creative process?

I've been pondering some of these questions, and the recent OT regurgitation of old rants provides a good bridge to this topic. First, I'm going to offer a couple of comments on that post.

Recently, I've been encouraging anyone, including them, to publish your own calendar using any one of the numerous methods to get a calendar printed. So, they decided to comment on that. I'm glad they like to read here, but they don't seem to learn anything. I don't really expect them to. People on a crusade rarely learn anything that might harm their crusade.

I really liked this comment,

I guess Ken forgot that OT beat him to the punch by nearly a year. We put out our official Fractal Alternate Universe Calendar last December. We were proactive. We were creative.

Let's be clear, OT didn't create anything. They stole, by their own admission, the images from the 2004 Fractal Universe calendar and bastardized them with filters in an attempt to mock the actual calendar. They didn't print it. They didn't market it, other than by encouraging people to download the stolen images. They just used the exercise in a sarcastic attack on the Fractal Universe calendar. I'd hardly call that proactive. I certainly wouldn't call it constructive. It was anything but creative.

Or, most likely, Dr. Ken needs to heal himself.

But can he? The critic who rails against critics is still whining about us in both of his supposedly Zen-inducing, throw-your-complaining-down posts championing his self-help snake oil of calendar liberation.

I'm not in need of healing, but I do appreciate their concern. I guess it must take a professional writer to come up with such a nauseating sentence of the magnitude of that last one. My young daughters can write better than that. Perhaps OT needs some healing. Don't despair, this is the season of hope. If they leave Santa a nice plate of cookies, perhaps he will leave them a Fractal Universe calendar to help their mood this season. LOL!!

It's also clear that from a couple of comments to that post that there are others who share OT's disdain of the Fractal Universe calendar. That's perfectly fine. Everyone one is a critic and by no means all are going to like any particular image, calendar, etc.

But, there is a far more important issue in the larger scheme of things, which brings me back to the topic of audience.

Once you show your art to anyone, you are creating an audience. That could be for seeking praise, seeking critiques, seeking sales, and so on. But, you are creating an audience. Do you know your reasons for creating an audience?

The audience for the Fractal Universe calendar is the calendar publisher and their customers. They have found a formula that works for them and is profitable. They are creating a calendar for their audience. Their audience buys the calendar, and appears to be quite happy with it year after year. What is wrong with that? No one has ever given a satisfactory explanation that I've seen. There are only complaints are about how the images are solicited and chosen for it, and about the "quality" of the images chosen. Those complaints are irrelevant, but do provide for a useless argument for those who find them of some importance.

People who choose to submit images for consideration for the calendar are attempting to appeal to that audience. Is that wrong? Does that hurt fractal art in general? Are the artists who submit images for the calendar compromising themselves of their art by submitting to the calendar? Of course not. They are making a choice to appeal to that audience.

Anyone who shows their art to anyone else is creating an audience. It is only natural that artists like to receive positive feedback on their work. But, feedback from that audience may affect their creative process.

If you are seeking to sell your work, then you have two choices. Create what you want and try to sell it, or experiment to find out what sells and create work that has a better chance of selling. Neither choice is wrong. But, as an artist you have to be honest with yourself and acknowledge what you are doing.

I think one can accurately argue that if you choose the latter you are compromising yourself somewhat as an artist. But, if you are striving to make a living, then you have to appeal to your market. That may be altering what you really want to do. But, that is what any business that wants to succeed must do. There is nothing wrong with that. But, you must realize that is what you are doing.

The former may allow you to be more "pure" to your artistic vision, but you have to realize that what your vision leads you to produce may not be what your audience wants to buy. If you are really fortunate, this method will coincide with what your audience wants and your audience will grow. But, I think this is pretty rare.

Similarly, the BMFAC selected images for an audience. Again, you can participate or not. You can even complain about the process used to select images, and make up all sorts of issues with that process, some real and some invented. But, the organizers are the audience and they made the rules by which images were chosen. All the issues, real or not, have no effect on any individual as an artist. There is no harm done to any individual, or any art form in general. Any harm perceived is a figment of the individual's imagination who thinks he has been harmed.

I think the bigger issue is how any given artist allows their audience to affect their work. Do you allow critical feedback to cause you to run off and cry in the corner, as I've seen happen in various online forums when a critical comment is offered unsolicited to a newcomer?

Do you care, or does it affect you, if your images don't fit the audience for any particular contest, calendar, gallery, etc.? If you care, or if you are affected, why do you care or how are you affected?

For a much more eloquent discussion of the topic of Audience, read the Luminous-Landscape article on the topic as it relates to photography.

2009 Is Coming - Part II

I've been poking around looking at options for having calendars printed. I'm interested in doing some my self, and perhaps selling some custom ones to clients of some photography that I'm doing.

While poking around I've found two more vehicles to have custom calendars printed. The first, VioVio, is my favorite place to have on-demand books printed. I've had a couple of books printed by them and they are of excellent quality and the most reasonably priced of any of the places that I've investigated. The disadvantage with them is that you have to do all the layout yourself if you want a completely customized book with text. They do have a fairly new feature that will layout a book automatically from images that you upload. They even have an interface to take images from your Flickr account. I have not used this feature, so I can't speak to it. As for the calendar, you have to do all the layout yourself, including the month grids, and then choose a calendar binding when you order the product. Not the easiest, but it is an option.

The option that looks like offers the most flexibility is Costco. You upload the images that you want to appear in your calendar. Then, you select the size, 8.5x11 or 11.5x14. You can choose from a variety of styles, or plain if you choose. Then, you select the image(s) for the cover and months. There are several layout options for the cover and for each month. IOW, you aren't limited to one image per month. You can use their layout options, or create a full page layout of your own and use it. You can optionally add text.

The best part? The cost for the 8.5x11 is $9.99 plus tax and shipping. The cost for the 11.5x14 is $17.99. Very reasonable, IMO.

So, now you have even less reason to complain about other calendars and how they are created. Take charge and print your own calendar. I bet you find it a liberating experience.

Orchids

I was fooling around with my new camera photographing one of my wife's orchids. Here are a couple of images. The camera was paid for in part by fractals, so as far as I'm concerned, fractals are far from worthless.

2009 Is Coming

Okay people. 2009 is right around the corner. I can hear the knuckles cracking from those warming up and getting ready to start complaining about the next call for submissions to the Fractal Universe calendar.

Well, you no longer need to complain. You can create your own calendar. I put together a few samples in just a few minutes. You can too.

You can create monthly calendars.
You can create yearly calendars.
You can even create different styles.
The point is, do something.

Don't whine about whether or not the submission process is a contest.

Don't whine about the ethics of the image selection process or the compensation details.

Don't whine about whether or not the images selected are excellent examples of fractal art or are mediocre.

Don't whine about whether or not the calendar publisher operates their business in the manner you think is appropriate.

Just do something constructive and prove to yourself it can be done. Try it. You just might find it liberating.

Find free templates to use. There are free ones available for Microsoft Word. There are free ones available for Photoshop. There are ones available for Lightroom for a small fee. The ones I used are available from Camera's View. Or, make your own. It doesn't matter.

Print the pages individually from your favorite print outlet. Get a poster sized print for the yearly calendar.

If you want to print the calendar and have it spiral bound, why not try Lulu.com? You can print the standard size for $12.72 plus shipping.

You might even be able to sell a few if you print one for yourself and show it to people.

So, the choice is yours. Be proactive and do something creative, or continue to whine and complain about something over which you have absolutely no control and won't change because you decide to complain about it. Chose to do something for yourself, or chose to try to tear down others because you aren't happy about some aspect of the venture.

Go Vote

Tuesday is election day in the US. Make sure you do your civic duty and vote.

What Is Your Art Worth?

Is fractal art worthless?

Some seem to think so. I don't believe this is the case. I can't quite tell if the comments are meant in a satirical or ironic way, or if they are serious. So, lets assume they are serious.

Can fractal art be sold?

Well, I've sold images, so yes, fractal art can be sold. I know of quite a few others who have sold images. I know of several who have sold images at various art fairs. I know of some who have been selling images online for quite a while. Now, I doubt there is anyone making a living from selling fractal art. But, some are making enough to keep trying. Yes, it is hard, but it can and is being done. So, the contention that you can't sell fractal art is demonstrably false.

Is it worthless because it is digital, and therefore, easily reproducible?

Actually, this is a valid point. Because fractal art is digital, it is easily duplicatable. But, so is digital photograph today. Photographers are still selling images whether they be prints or books or stock, and I would contend that the digital nature of today's photography actually enhances the photographers abilities to manipulate and enhance his/her images.

The question of uniqueness because of the digital nature is valid. It is true that photographers can destroy their negatives. But, most don't do that. Ansel Adams didn't to my knowledge. People can still buy prints from his negatives printed by people who trained with Adams. The prints aren't made by Adams, but they are an affordable way for people to own his images. A painting is an original, but there are paintings that are copies of the original. Thomas Kincade comes to mind here. And, there certainly are the lithographs of paintings. So, it's certainly not fractal art that has this problem.

A print is a print. It doesn't matter the print originates from a negative or a digital file. It doesn't matter if it is printed on photographic paper, or from a printer, or printed on canvas. It is still a print. It doesn't matter if the source is a photographic file, or a fractal image, or some other digital image. You still can hang it on your wall. Fractal art is just as tangible as any other form of printed art.

The digital nature of imagery today makes it more accessible to the average person. That's good and bad. It is easy for people to take (steal) images and use them against the artist's wishes. It also makes it easier for the artist to get exposure to their images. Photographers now use online proofing and save themselves the expense of having to make prints for their clients to choose from. This is just a natural change due to the changing technology. It presents new issues, and can cause problems for those who are slow to adapt. And, some may not like the changes. But, the changes have and are happening.

Digital is here to stay. It affects photography, video, any form of digital or art generated in whole or in part using a computer, music, movies, television, etc. As far as I can tell, the music industry is doing quite well adapting to digital. While they were a bit slow to react, and theft is a big problem, adapting they are. As are photography and the movie industries.

Digital doesn't make art any less legitimate. I suppose one could argue that digital makes art less valuable. Perhaps that is true. But, does it really matter? You aren't going to remove the digitalness from some forms of art. You can destroy (delete) the original. Perhaps that makes sense in certain, isolated or limited cases, but most people aren't going to do that. I don't believe most cases require one to do that.

If you have been selling your art, how many people have you found that are actually concerned about whether or not they have the original, or are concerned about making sure they have one of a limited number of prints? If you have purchased art, have you been concerned about this? I know some are, so I'm not saying the issue is not valid. I just don't think it is a big deal. If it is in a specific circumstance, it is easily dealt with.

While the digital nature of many forms of art today does present new and unique problems as compared to the past, it seems to me to be rather silly to claim that fractal art, or any other form of art, is worthless.

Learning From Experts - Part II

I was reading a post on a blog geared towards photography. As I was doing so, I realized that it was very analogous to fractal art. In fact, I think you can almost replace every reference of photography with fractal art.

Behind the Lens - Art in Photography

There have been discussions over the months and years about whether or not fractal art or algorithmic art or digital art, etc. is really art. As the article says quite obviously, most such discussions about what is or isn't art are just a waste of time. Well, the article didn't say exactly that, but that's how I would say it.

To paraphrase a question in the article,

"is there any role at all for discussing fractal/algorithmic art as art that can actually make a meaningful difference to the individual artist?"

Well, if you have read any of the discussions over the last year or so, the answer is clearly yes. Many (some?) have a desire for fractal art to be considered "mainstream" with other forms of art including photography. Yet, as with photography, there are many people producing "snapshots" which are rarely good pieces of art.

Some lament that fractal art is worthless (perhaps more on this later). Some consider the masses "fractal-bookers". Some like to ridicule those taking classes and consider the classes part of the "Mississippi School of Anti-Fractal Art".

Some of the arguments have been about what is or is not post-processing. Some argue about whether post-processing is good or bad. Some argue about the use of layers. Some argue about everything looking the same. Some argue about whether nor not a particular calendar is "ethical". Some argue about some artists being considered "the top" artists of today. Some argue about how some contest or another is run.

The problem is, the arguments rarely serve any useful purpose. They are just a way for people to complain. They are a way for people who disagree with those taking a particular viewpoint to argue with the other. More often than not, they are only of interest to the parties doing the arguing. Fun and/or interesting for the participants, but as the article mentions, rather boring for the reader. And yes, I include myself in this group. In part, this blog exists as an outlet for me to offer a countering view to views I disagree with.

If discussions can lead one to better insights into their own art, then they can be productive. If they can lead to new outlets or competing outlets for people to show their art, then that is productive. If they tend to lump everyone into a big pile because most people are doing something, that isn't very productive. If the discussions are meant as a put down, then they might make the person making the argument feel superior, but aren't very productive or useful to anyone.

Generalities can be very useful in getting the broad picture of something. For example, it may very well be true that fractal art is boring in the broad sense. Say for sake of argument that it is. Does that mean every artist's art is boring or every piece created by a particular artist is boring? Not at all. A way to make such a discussion useful is figure out what can make fractal art more interesting. Figure out what can make your art more interesting. Turn the complaining into something productive.

I think the lessons learned at the end of the article are just as applicable to fractal/algorithmic art as with photography.

1) It isn't essential for a work of art to have a message, only that it be capable of interpretations, the latter being entirely personal to the viewer.

I think artists need to remember this. Especially, if one is trying to make a statement with their art.

2) There needs to be a reason to take the picture, and thoughts of "it will sell well" aren't good enough. It has to be a reason that relates to the artist. In the case of the photographer, it probably isn't necessary to understand why, just enough that you thought something needed photographing, that it intrigued you in some way you aren't even aware of, or perhaps even the feeling of "gee, I can do something with that".

With fractal/algorithmic art, there are probably only a very small number who have ever created anything with the thought "it will sell well". That's because there are very few fractal art sales compared with the number of images generated. I think the number of sales and artists making sales will increase over the years, the the relative number will remain small.

However, I disagree with this one a little when it comes to fractal art. Photography isn't nearly as abstract as fractal art is. Phot0graphy certainly can be abstract, but it is an effort to make it so, just as it is an effort to make fractal art not be abstract. Many times, fractal art just sort of happens. The artist starts on a path and in manipulating the image ends up going down a different, or many different paths before reaching the final destination. But, I do think the feeling of "I can do something with this" is part of what might lead someone down different paths in working on their image.

3) We have no trouble ascribing the term "artist" to a painter, but similar thoughts and drives and needs seem to happen to photographers [fractal artists], so why shouldn't we apply the term to photographers [fractal artists]?

Of course, not every photography is an artist, and not every one that generates fractal images is a fractal artist, but the comparison is still valid.

The article also highly recommends talking to photographers about the motivations for their works. The article recommends trying to understand the minds of great photographers. It recommends attending workshops and conferences. Well, this is exactly what many people are doing when they take classes to learn more about using a particular program. Granted with fractal art, the choices are rather few currently. But, many people have found, and continue to find them quite useful and instructive. Just as people do with other types of workshops.

There is nothing wrong with learning from people who know more than you. That is what wisdom is; learning from the experience of others.

If you aren't interested in a particular class, don't take it. But, does it make sense to ridicule those who do?

I didn't think so.