I pondered about making a journal like this for long time. I always refrained from doing such a thing because I was unsure about how people would have received it, but the time has come!
A lot asked about more detailed DD guidelines, especially about the requirements of an artwork to be DD worthy. In my Daily Deviations Guidelines
, I talked about four main traits I look at when a decision has to be made.
I will try to insert some visual examples (the bad ones will be made by me).
For UF guidelines, see heavenriver
's How to fractal well
This is the trait I'm willing to "sacrifice" more than the others. What I mean is that, as long as the fractal is well crafted and has something more than the ones you normally see in the gallery, it's likely that I'll feature it.
While it goes without saying that flowers are probably one of the least original objects for a fractal (especially Apophysis and UF ones), you can still make it so it stands above the others.
This is one of my first flowers, and clearly something that is not DDable in my opinion
Other than having many issues on technical level, my imprint is not really visible.
What would be a good flower to feature as DD? (and, in fact, it's a DD)
It's not something you can see everyday in the Fractal Art gallery. The colors combination is unusual but fits perfectly, the lighting is well placed on the top of the bulge and contributes in creating the right ambience. A great attention to the details leads to a creation that, despite coming from the kind of fractal you wouldn't call "original", stands out above the many of its kind.
This translates into:
- No color barfs;
- No color combos that hurt the eyes in general.
Example: a punch in the eye.
Again, there are many issues, but let's focus on colors only. Isn't that pink a little bit too much
? I apologize in advance, in case you get your sight worsened.
Don't get me wrong, you can still use similar color combinations, but less aggressive ones. The result will be way more pleasant:
Example: color barf
I quickly made a tweak of one of my fractals with a coloration that I consider color barf
There are too many colors that don't fit with each other. More colors doesn't mean better fractal, it always depends on what you use.
Despite this opinion, I featured some wonderfully colorful fractals in my CV term, and this are good examples of how to use many colors at the same time (vivid ones too!):
This one is difficult. It might concern symmetry and the placement of the image within the borders. An example?
The focus in this fractal is evidently on the wrong spot. There's a lot of empty space, while the view should have been zoomed where there's actually something interesting to see.
There are exceptions to this rule, but in those cases there's always something strongly eye-catching to see among the empty space.On symmetry:
I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of highly symmetrical fractals, especially those which have radial symmetry and are centered in the very center of the image. Send them my way anyway though, because they might be great on every other level.
Quality of the render
I'm not too picky if a fractal contains some graininess. Sometimes, it can be justified by the greatness of the fractal itself, or by its kind (see Apophysis glitch fractals). But there's a limit to everything:
This a different color preview of one of my fractals and, for that reason, it's been done with lower quality. That's ok for a preview, but if you want to suggest a fractal with this render quality, think twice.
I know that some MB3D fractals have rough edges, due to the kind of formula the artist is using in the artwork. That's also ok, main thing is that those grainy borders don't disturb the overall appearance of the fractal.
Other things you should consider
- Pay attention to credits. There are many fractal manipulations or Mandelbulb3D fractals that use stock resources (backgrounds for example), or parameters. If the artist doesn't credit properly in the description, refrain from suggesting and instead send them a note asking for further informations about the used resources.
- Dreamscope. Don't even bother sending me a note with a picture altered with Dreamscope, I'm really sorry for that but no. I documented myself about the process and as far as I understood, the only """fractal""" component they have is iterations. Adding a personal taste issue (I really don't like them, I'm sorry ), you get my point. If the altered image is a fractal, send me the original artwork instead.
- Personal taste. It does have a part, I don't deny that. But it's not always about my taste. It's not about pleasing the CV. It's more about "There might be something better than this in the artist's gallery. Let's check twice!".
- Question your DD suggestion. There's the WOW factor, and I perfectly understand when somebody sees a fractal and says "MAI GAD TIS IS BEAUTIFUL". But is it really the best piece they have made in recent times? Probably yes, probably no. Double check their gallery and aim to the very best. I remind you that my duty is to feature the artist with the piece that best represents them, and meets the high quality standards of a Daily Deviation.
- Being unactive. Suggesting a DD that belongs to an artist which doesn't take part to community life leads to rejection. If the artist hasn't been active for over a month, go look for something else.
- Being recent. As long as the artist is active, it's ok to suggest something old. I still prefer featuring something more recent (a year old is fine too). So, if you're going to suggest something from 2009, double check if there's anything DD worthy from recent times.
That's all for now. I hope this in-depth journal will give you some more indications about suggesting DDs to me.
Thank you for reading!