HOME | DD
zzzzra β La vraie gloire
Published: 2006-12-30 02:47:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 735; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 10
Redirect to original
Description
This is a pretty classic fractal using Triangle Inequality Average as the main coloring algorithm, but I really enjoy the level of details. It has been created with UltraFractal and minor postwork with Photoshop (Contrast, sharpen, border and signature).The printed version is 300 DPI quality.
Full view is a must for details !
Related content
Comments: 44
An amazing *take* on a classic. Beautifully detailed and coloured image. Flawless work, Alex. Bravo!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm always happy to see 'classic' fractals - with all the layering and fancy options available these days, it's easy to forget the beauty of pure fractal shapes with just a filter or two applied
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks very much ! A classic fractal from time to time is good for me, as I'm more into abstract, it's like having some holidays far from my work
π: 0 β©: 0
It looks like some expensive satin sheets!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for your nice comment !
π: 0 β©: 0
Very cool Julia seed location! I especially like the complexity of the central area.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you very much for your comment !
π: 0 β©: 1
You are most welcome!
π: 0 β©: 0
Tu voudrais pas repeindre le ciel de nuit ? (le vrai)
Moi je te donnerais carte blanche.
π: 0 β©: 1
Merci Steph pour ton commentaire ! Repeindre le ciel sous forme de fractale est un beau projet, mais je ne saurais pas vraiment par oΓΉ commencer hΓ©hΓ©...
Au fait, bonne annΓ©e Γ toi, Γ Sylvie et Γ Florian !
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you very much Michael ! I wish you a happy new year
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes...this is a classic....and a beauty! Wonderful detail and very creative use of color to enhance the design....very nice work! 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks very much Anita for your kind comment and the 
π: 0 β©: 1
wow.. amazing! pure fractal are with perfect color scheme! Your taste is great!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks very much ! I think I'll create some more with TIA, I had fun with this one
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful gradient ... makes this so delicate!
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree with you concerning the prettiness and depth of this one!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you very much ! I printed a version of this fractal in A3 format (1440 DPI), there are so many details !
π: 0 β©: 1
Something I wondered about... When submitting an image for print here (I have all the ppi sizes etc. from their FAQ) can I simply upload a full A3-sized JPG image in the normal way - is this what they require? I was surprised we don't have to use FTP - unless I've missed that?
Also, if that's the case, does this mean I can just go into edit of any of my already existing images here and replace the image with the full high res. one without loss of comments etc.?
I hope you don't mind me asking, but someone told me you sell some of your stuff here...
Then again, I'm not so sure about the pricing! To get an image from this site over here to the UK, it would cost about the same again in postage!!! I like to see the quality that's being produced, whereas on the other hand I know what we are able to attain here are very high quality giclee prints, with a rather different pricing structure designed not to diminish the value of digital art. So I'm tossing the idea around a bit at the moment, as I have ranges of artwork on my site where the pricing would rather be in conflict with DA.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I only sold one image here, so I'm not very good at it. All the other ones, I bought them for friends and myself...
The A3 format I was talking about comes from my own printer.
This is what I usually do for DeviantArt : I calculate two versions of the same image, one regular 72 DPI and one in 300 DPI at a size found in the DA size FAQ (usually 7200x5400). I use the DA FTP to upload the big image, I find this method working pretty fine.
Then I submit first the small 72 DPI version of the image, that's the one people can comment and fav. In the submitting process, you are asked if you want to make a print for that image. If you click on this button, you can now select the big 300 DPI image you sent by FTP as your print, and select which format you'll use (as an exemple, if you submit a 7200x5400 image, you can use the 40x30, 24x18 and 12x9 format. I dont select the first one as the image wouldn't be in 300 DPI). As for the prices, I don't have any tip, I look at other's pricing and copy them
When the whole submitting process is done, you can go see your small 72 DPI image in your gallery, while you have to wait for DA to send you a mail for the quality approval for the 300 DPI image. This is generally a 24H wait... When the print is approved, then people can buy it.
PS : In the case you already submitted 72 DPI art and didn't create a print version of it, you always can make a print by going on the image page (where people can comment it), and click on the icon next to the text "print Not Enabled (Submit as Print)", at the left of your image.
[I apologize for my terrible english speaking, I hope you did understand me...]
π: 0 β©: 1
WOW thanks very much for the explanation, which is very clear, and your English is so good I had forgotten you weren't English at all!!!!
Well I think I will continue to think about it for a little while. My experience, along with that of many friends in the art world, is that not a lot sells via the internet, as people always prefer to see a print there before them and then make a decision! It seems to be only people who's artwork is already really well known that succeed in selling from the internet. The other thing is, of course, that prints never look the same as the image on the screen, as you know!
Anyway, I will keep this information handy just in case... I haven't yet posted anything that I'd feel happy to even try to sell here!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm glad you understood me, I wasn't sure I was very clear hehe
I agree with you when you say you have to be already known to sell a lot on Internet. This is what I do, I have a A3 portfolio full of prints I made myself with my own printer, and when people want a print, they have the choice between buying directly the A3 format, or let me buy a bigger one at DA, then I sell them at a price we discussed before the trade.
DA prints are a bit darker than what I see on my screen, but the result is pretty ok. I might have to do some brightness/contrast test sometime but I'm a bit lazy hehe... I find my printer as a better resolution than DA prints and isn't that dark, the only thing is I'm limited to A3+ format (around 48cm x 33 cm).
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup, I have to admit I really like to see the finished product before feeling happy to sell it! lol!
We have our new Epson A3+ printer now, and my husband has spent the last couple of days setting it up (we got it off the internet, so have never seen one set up in a shop). At the moment though, it's doing some odd shadowing on larger prints, so there's obviously a lot more to learn. Meanwhile, I have an A5 print of one of my simple images from my personal site printed out by this printer, and am simply amazed at how beautiful it is! WOW! Of course a major difference is the fact that it uses pigment inks (9 variants), which brings out all the subtelties one would hope to find!
I find with this printer that the colours are pretty true to what I see on the screen, and I think the only way one could improve on that is to spray a specialised varnish on in order to bring out some replication of the lighting one sees in the screen itself. Of course the type of paper used makes a difference too, and we never go for glossy!!
π: 0 β©: 1
My printer is pretty new, it's the Epson 1290 inkjet (no pigments, maybe new time when I get more money from my sells hehe), but the quality is awesome ! It can print up to 2880 DPI, but usually 1440 DPI works fine. I always use the premium glossy Epson paper that really looks like photography paper (255 g) and the result is pretty close to what I see on my screen. The balance of colors is good without tweaking, same for contrast and saturation. Sometime on some fractals the result is a bit darker, but strangely I prefer the printed result than what I see on the screen
What's the name of your Epson printer ? That's odd, mine was very simple to use, I didn't have much things to set up to get it work normally.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's an Epsom Stylus R2400. It turns out that the problem lies only with front-loading paper, which is what has to be done if it's extra thick. Anything that is fed in from the back prints perfectly (thank goodness) but my husband bought 50 A3 pages of Hahnemuhle FineArt Inkjet Paper which, being 308 g/m is just very slightly too thick for the back-feed. Bummer! However, the front feeder should work just as perfectly, so today he will be phoning up Epsom to find out why it isn't!
Last night we mounted the A5 print of the image I mentioned which was done on this paper (back-fed, as it seems to take this thickness in less than A3 size) and boy! I was so pleased with it I really didn't want to part with it, but it was a present for a friend - I hope she likes it too!!!!
This printer was available off the internet for over Β£100 less than anywhere else; if you're interested, I can ask Richard the details and let you have them - it was less than Β£500 (not sure what the Euro equiv. is, but I think it's not far off the same.)
π: 0 β©: 1
I saw on a website that it costs about 800 euros, it's a bit expensive for me at this time. And I bought my printer last month hehe. Well if I sell about 15 fractals I will be able to buy this printer, so that would be next year or the year after
π: 0 β©: 1
You enjoy the one you have - Epsom are a very good make of printer, and I'm sure the results you get are excellent in any case! Some of us can be so very critical of our own work and of our expectations, but those who see the prints without seeing the images on their screens will be just as pleasantly surprised by what they see, and love them. And yet again, we all see each other's works on our own screens differently, because of the way we have them individually set up! When I look at my own works on my daughter's laptop, I go "Ouch!! Where's the colour?? It's all desaturated looking!" That's because she has set her screen to the way in which her eye copes best, and of course, she is using her laptop for assignments and case-studies rather than artwork in any case.. On another art site, we have a member who constantly complains that images are too dark. Well that's because she has a very old computer and her monitor is probably dying, so there are certain depths of colour she is unable to see properly. She is a very good artist, and deserves better, but can't afford to upgrade or replace anything.
Our own printer is going to be replaced!!! It turns out to have a problem that Epsom can't seem to resolve and which definitely shouldn't be there! Grrrrr...
π: 0 β©: 0
Il est vrai que TIA fait des belles colorations! Ici les couleurs très peu saturées vont bien!
La dernière fois que je l'ai utilisée elle faisait des coupures dans son dégradé...c'est bien dommage pcq sinon ca rendait bien.
Comme l'a dit ersi, c'est rare de voir ce genre de fractales plus 'classiques' dans ta galerie!
π: 0 β©: 1
Merci Thomas ! J'ai fini par m'y mettre moi aussi, cette formule est assez excellente pour faire des fractales avec beaucoup de dΓ©tails.
π: 0 β©: 0
An unusual piece for you, but the use of TIA is really striking and so are the details. The colours work wonders!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you ! You're right, I'm not used to this formula, but I think now I love it
π: 0 β©: 1
You are now an official victim of Spiral Craze! My sympathies
π: 0 β©: 1