wedreamincolor

Orbit Trap Blog and the Calendar

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:09:00 +0000

Once again, Orbit Trap is on the attack about the calendar.

As far as I know, in years past the publishers and editors have never responded to the accusations that Orbit Trap has made against them. Good for the publisher and editors. Why should they respond to Orbit Trap? In spite of what they might think of themselves, Orbit Trap is nothing. No one owes them an explanation for anything.

Some of you might buy into Orbit Trap's calendar propaganda, so for your benefit I will give my views on some of their accusations. I was an editor for one year so I know how the editor's role in the calendar works. I am not an editor now.

Orbit Trap's conflict of interest and self jurying accusations are simply false. The editors do not suggest which specific images to put into the final cut of the calendar. The images that the editors select, along with their own images, are "thrown over the wall" to the publisher . There is no back and forth negotiation between the publisher and editors over the final 13 images, including for the editor's own images. The publisher might ask for specific images from various artists, but beyond the batch of images that the editors select and provide, the editors do not suggest images for the final cut. There is no way that a conflict of interest can arise. Even if the editors did make some suggestion for the final cut, like if they wanted to be sure that one of their friends was included (implying a kickback for a true conflict of interest), there is no way to force the publisher to take the suggestion. The publisher always has the final say. A conflict of interest cannot and does not happen. By agreement between the editor and publisher, the publisher is required to include one image from the editor in the final cut. That's how the editor is paid. The editors do not decide which of their own images are to be included in the final cut. Terry Wright is full of crap on this one and anyone who buys into his conflict of interest/self jury theory is an idiot.

Speaking of idiots, the equation 400+200=600 is too complicated for Terry Wright. One of his burning questions in his open letter to the publisher was why I was paid $600 for my images in the 2009 calendar. I know that this is complicated, at least for some people, so I'll do my best to explain it: I have two images in the 2009 calendar. One is on the cover. The publisher pays an extra $200 for cover images, so that is $200 for one image plus $200 for the other one plus $200 for one of those images to be on the cover. That's 200+200+200=600, or (200+200)+200=600, or 400+200=600. I'm not sure that Wright has the brain power to comprehend this complex math so if he has access to a first grader he might ask him for help.

It is obvious that the publisher prefers a specific style for what they put in the calendar. The calendar is mostly consistent from year to year. "Mostly" because it does change, but slowly.

Whether or not you or I like the style of the art in the calendar is irrelevant. The publisher runs the business of the calendar. They pay the artists and print, market and distribute the calendar. They also profit from it. The calendar is not a community, club or democracy. It is a business. The publishers have found something that works for them and they are sticking with it. In spite of what anyone thinks, they can do that. It's their business.

Most of the people who submit images to the editors are observant enough to see the style of the calendar, so that is what they submit. With a few exceptions, most of what the editors have to choose from is that style. The editors can and do select images that are exceptions, but let's face it, the publisher will probably not select those images for the final cut.

None of the images that I submitted this year made it into the 2010 calendar. I did not provide what they were looking for. So much for Wright's accusation of insider trading between current editors, the publisher and former editors.

Because I was a 2009 editor, the publisher was obligated to pick one of my images, but not the second image. The second image was a derivative of an image that made it into the 2005 calendar, four years before I was an editor. For the 2009 calendar I submitted at least one image that was consistent with the calendar style. The publisher selected it in addition to one that they were obligated to select. I did not suggest to them what their first selection should be, nor did I negotiate with them or force them to select a second image from me. I also did not suggest which image to put on the cover. I don't know how to make this any clearer: The final 13 calendar images are not self juried. There is no potential for a conflict of interest.

It is obvious that some of the same people do make into the calendar from year to year. Some are former editors, some are not. I don't know why the publisher does that and I am not going to speculate on why. One might ask why there is a public call for images at all - why not just privately solicit images from the ones who consistently make it in? The publishers would be well within their rights to conduct their business that way, so why not do it that way? I don't know, but I am glad that there is a call for images because there are also new artists in the calendar every year. It's not black and white. There is a mix of former and new artists in every calendar.

Ken Childress has written a detailed response to Orbit Trap's accusations about the calendar. Like me, Ken does not speak for the publisher or editor but what he says he makes a lot of sense to me. It's right in line with what I have just said here and he doesn't have the insider's view that I have. It's amazing what a little common sense can do.

Fractal quiet

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:19:00 +0000

I have been wondering about the current state of fractal art. It seems to me that much of the enthusiasm that used to swirl around it has faded out. I have to be careful though. I don't wonder about my enthusiasm for it. I know that my interest in it is all but gone, so I have to be careful to not confuse my personal world with what is happening in the fractal world.

It's weird for me to say that about fractal art. It's like watching an old, strong friendship fade away. I have put enough into it that I almost feel guilty about letting it slip away, but it is anyway.

I gauge fractal art interest by what I see happening in the community sites and forums. My forum is dead, but that's not saying much. It wasn't super active to begin with. The Fracfan forum also seems quiet to me. I just read that the UF group on DeviantArt is falling apart. There is only a little discussion happening in the Renderosity fractal forum. It just seems like everyone has stopped talking about fractal art.

I am not paying attention to the Apophysis world. It could be that most of the discussion has moved into that. I know that lots of Apophysis images are still being posted on the community sites, so enthusiasm must still be running high for it. That should be expected. It is free and it makes some very cool images. That's a good combination.

Maybe the old issues are settled so they are no longer issues. No one seems to be concerned about fractals as art, post processing and fractal purity, or what the definition of fractal art is. That's good, because that stuff doesn't matter. It never really did matter, but it seemed important at the time.

I wonder if we are in a fractal art recession - that maybe the fractal bubble has burst. Maybe fractal art is fading out. Or maybe it's just me.

Unfair Advantage - Update

noreply@blogger.com (Dzeni) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:44:00 +0000

The whole "Vote for my Art" situation has not changed that much since yesterday but I learned something quite important today that is relevant.

Turns out that the paper which published the article I was complaining about in my last post acted totally appropriately. In fact, the issue lies with my local newspaper which had access to the same information as the paper from "Out West". Both publications were encouraged to publish news about the competition and the various entries by the competition organisers - only one of them did.

To make matter worse, when I contacted my local rag and asked for their assistance late yesterday, their chief reporter politely informed me that it was too late as Friday's paper has already been "put to bed". You can imagine my frustration when I learned that my local paper had in fact known about the competition for almost a month and, despite being encouraged to report on it, had failed to do so.

The situation is still rather unfair but any blame should be leveled at my local paper which failed to act. At this point I'm wondering why they even have an art reporter.

Of course I still need votes - now more than ever! It will be interesting to see which piece wins as clearly this contest is less about art than exposure - which is a fairly regrettable state of affairs.

Edit: This competition has now closed. The official results will be announced in March to coincide with the publication of the Auckland White Pages. I'll let you all know the result in due course.

Unfair Advantage

noreply@blogger.com (Dzeni) — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:20:00 +0000

In a recent post, I shared how one of my works, Woven Together, which features a fractal background has been selected as a finalist in the Yellow Pages Art Awards.

All was going well until tonight when my dance buddies pointed me in the direction of the article below:

You might notice that my image is conspicuously missing! Worst of all, the voting closes on Friday (NZ time). This means that being able to drum up sufficient support for my image may not be an option.

Is it just me or is publishing information about only two of the finalists in a *free* local newspaper with quite a large circulation inconsistent with the idea of a fair competition open to public voting?

Anyhow, if you want to help balance the scales / right the wrong, feel free to visit the voting page and vote for "Woven Together". Or not. After all if the contest was really fair, you'd be presented with all the options and *hopefully* be left to make up your own mind.

At it Again

noreply@blogger.com (Dzeni) — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:30:00 +0000

After being shortlisted for the YPG Art Awards, I was encouraged to enter another competition. This one involves designing a Cabin bag for Air New Zealand.

The result was incorporated into the wallpaper below:

Just like the last time, I need public support to advance my design in the competition. Here's the link / voting instructions:

1. Go to www.designabag.co.nz
2. Click the register link and fill in all the fields.
3. Once you have registered, click on this link: www.designabag.co.nz/entry/103/Home_Coming
4. You will see a row of stars which is partially coloured in, click on the fifth star so that all the stars are orange
5. Click the submit button

Thanks in advance

Edit: This competition has now closed. Thanks to everyone's support, my design "made it" into the shortlist. Sadly it did not win. Never mind. I do appreciate everyone's votes and have recycled the design into an artwork that will hopefully grace the walls of the new "Middle School Learning Center" at the school where I work.

Hunting the hidden dimension

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:33:00 +0000

I just finished watching the NOVA program Hunting the hidden dimension on PBS. It was great to see all of the practical applications for fractal geometry, like measuring coast lines and rain forests. It was especially cool to see that fractal geometry has made cell phone antennas possible.

The show was cool but I couldn't help but feel a little frustration when I realized that they were not going to mention that fractals are a valid art form. I guess that they sort of did, but they did so in a way that gave credit to traditional artists who created fractal art and architecture before fractal math and technology was invented. Today there are probably thousands more fractal artists in the world than there are scientists and engineers who are creating practical applications for fractal geometry. Why not give the artists a little recognition?

On the other hand, I guess that we have to follow the money. If someone can use fractal geometry to make a cell phone antenna or save a rain forest, that is where the attention will be.

Traditional artists make art by expressing the feelings that nature presents to them. So do fractal artists. Fractals are natural and the NOVA program does a great job of illustrating that point. We might not use a canvas and paint brush to do it, but the way that we express ourselves is just as valid as the way that a traditional artist does it.

The organic, natural shapes in fractals are why they are beautiful to us. We see them every day, all around us. That's why fractals can be art.

Exciting Art News

noreply@blogger.com (Dzeni) — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:52:00 +0000

I've been meaning to blog about my exciting news for a few days - so here it is.

A while ago I entered the Yellow Pages Group Art Awards and to cut a long story short my work has been short listed. What this means is that if (when) my piece wins, it will feature on the front page of our local phone book. Given that Auckland is New Zealand's largest city, this is quite exciting.

What makes it even more exciting is that the piece in question features an apophysis fractal as a background.

The image in question is this one.

Here's where I need help. The next step in the process if to ask pretty much everyone I know to vote for the piece. Thus what was once an art competition has become a rather interesting networking exercise / popularity contest.

Its all for a good cause though. Should the image "make it", Project K will be $10,000 better off.

So here is the official plea for your vote. Hopefully this is where the fractal community can really shine - in a way, this one is for all of us!

Did I mention that the work will be auctioned off for charity at some stage? Hopefully this next auction experience will be better than my last. At any rate, the auction is a long way away (the piece gets auctioned as its a finalist) - so of course, I'll blog about that experience in due course.

Edit: Voting has now closed. I'd like to thank everyone who voted for my piece. Your support is greatly appreciated!

More unfair use

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:52:00 +0000

"EXQUISITE IMAGES! Thank you for sharing your beautiful art.
Do you mind if I print a slide or two to hang on my wall?"

That is one of the comments on another slide show that is packed full of my art. At least the person asking the question had the integrity to ask for permission before printing "a slide or two", even though the slide show creator has no authority to grant that permission.

There are a few other slide shows on slideshare.com with my art as well, but that list is getting smaller.

My first discovery of my art on slideshare.net was in Kapitán József's gallery. After some conversation, Kapitán and I agreed on what he could put in his show. I explained to Kapitán that I wanted him to say that he used my art with my permission. That was important to me because I did not want to give the impression that my art is free for anyone to take. That's a valid concern because it is exactly what happened on at least one other slide show. That slide show, now removed, was copied from another slide show.

What's happening here is that people are innocently thinking that the art in these slide shows is art that is in the public domain. I mean, I used to do it all the time. I would get an e-mail with a cool slide show or pictures and forward it on without a second thought.

When I looked at the stats for one of the slide shows on slideshare.net, I found that it was embedded on a 5th grade school teacher's web site. That teacher was showing her students my ripped off art. What am I supposed to do with that?

I have the same concern about my images that appear on blogs or websites under the fair use doctrine. I don't want people to assume that they have automatic permission take whatever they want from my galleries just because one small piece appears in a blog.

Home Grown

noreply@blogger.com (Dzeni) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:52:00 +0000

Its been too long since my last post and I finally have something to share. My latest series of wallpapers all use components from a recent project.

The project in question was an entry for a competition which involved designing a piece of art that would be suitable for the Auckland phone book (you can stop laughing now). This means that the design would need to feature images that Aucklanders can easily identify with.

Happily, I already had reference photos of two Auckland landmarks ready to make into illustrations. The background of my entry is, of course a fractal and it will be interesting to see how it is received by the judges. In the meantime, below are my "off cuts" - faithful readers of this blog may recall that I'm "into" digital recycling.

Aotearoa Dreaming

Harbour Bridge

Sky Tower

Click on the above images to go to the associated flickr pages and feel free to download the wallpaper version. These will of course feature on my personal blog at some point in the future.

So here's the challenge: Take something from your surroundings and make your own "home grown" image.

Ultrafractal 5

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:03:00 +0000

I have been having a lot of fun with Ultrafractal 5. It is a little daunting at first, but it's a great tool after you spend a little time on it. I think what I like most about it is the high level of control that you have at the trap level.

Being on the UF mailing list has helped to smooth out the learning curve. There are a few people who are willing to teach and lots who are willing to learn. If you do have UF 5 and are not on the mailing list, you'll spend a lot of time spinning your wheels. Sign up for it here.

A fractal is a fractal is a fractal, or is it?

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:45:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, I asked this question in my forum: What's new in fractal art? Ken Childress reminded me of that question when I read his blog entry: Outside the box??? Ken was responding to criticism that fractal artists have not been coming up with anything new. I agree with Ken's assessment of that particular criticism, but I also believe that the question of newness in fractal art is a good one to ask.

"Newness" is so subjective. I still remember anticipating the Fractint "bleep" when it indicated that the image was finished rendering. When I heard that, it meant that something new was ready to be viewed on the screen. Sometimes I wasn't impressed with what I saw, but most of the time what appeared was pretty cool. This page has some of what was new to me back then.

I make a living working on Catia, a high end CAD/CAM system. I learned about CAD systems on a system called Applicon back in 1983. What a thrill it was for me to see my first geometry appear on that big green CRT. I created a single line, and it was new and exciting to me.

I think that the same sort of thing happens in fractal art. As we learn how to touch the software knobs and buttons, we create things that we have never created before, so it's new and exciting to us. With fractal art, maybe thousands of other images have already been created with that single line, but it is still new to us.

I posed the newness question in my DeviantArt journal and someone was kind enough to reply with a list of what they thought was new or unusual. When I looked at that list, it looked familiar. See for yourself. The links on the left are new images and the ones on the right are ancient:

This and this

This and this

Can you see what I see? that the image couplets have the same basic structure? Don't get me wrong. I am not being critical of the person that provided me with the list of flames, nor am I slamming the flames themselves. They are beautiful, but even when you compare different fractal types, made with different software, in almost different decades, there are similarities.

Part of my problem with newness is the definition that I choose to give to "fractal art". Before I give it, I want to be very clear that this is just my definition and that I am not trying to impose it on anyone else. It is, that fractal art should have fractal elements in it. If it does not have fractal elements then it isn't fractal art. Fractal elements are self similar objects with repeating structure. The software that is used to create the image is irrelevant. If it does not look like a fractal, then it isn't fractal art.

I am not saying for a split second that art that is created with a fractal program, that doesn't look like a fractal, is bad art. Some of my favorite art was created with Ultrafractal, but it does not contain fractal elements. It's cool art, it's just not fractal art.

So, with that definition, it should be pretty easy to see why I am struggling to see anything new in fractal art. A fractal is a fractal, and after seeing a few thousand of them, they start looking the same.

I understand the advantages of using a fractal program, like UF, to create abstract art. I think that any software should be used in any way to create any thing that any one wants to create.

I just wonder if we have seen all that there is to see in fractal art and if that is a problem. It doesn't seem to be a problem in other types of art. For example, is there anything new in photography? Nope. Should we give up on Photography? No. What about watercolor or oil? Not much new there either. This lack of newness thing seems to be the nature of art. Does that make all newly created art bad, or ugly, or uncreative? I don't think so.

Unfair use

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:53:00 +0000

A few months ago, I got an e-mail that contained a sequence of images that showed an eagle attacking a swan. They were cool pictures. The e-mail gave credit to the photographer, but after so many Mars hoaxes, I have learned to not trust e-mail, so I googled the resort that was referenced in the e-mail. The Waterlily Bay Resort web site gave credit to a different photographer.

Why do people do that? Why copy a bunch of pictures to send around when a link to the original web site would do just fine, and why give the credit to somebody else?

I don't understand the e-mail hoax, but the most intriguing part of this story is that the original photographer removed his images from wherever they were stored, saying, "I removed the pictures off of pbase as I was worried that they would be taken and used without my consent." I can relate to that.

Apparently "fair use" means that any web image can be used on any web site or sent in any e-mail. The image sequence not only appears on the Waterlily Bay Resort web site, but it also appears on this blog. Considering that it was flying around the world in an e-mail, who knows where else that it ended up?

I occasionally do a search on my name and today I found this and this.

Both slide shows have several images that were taken directly from my web site. I am not sure of how the slide show web site is supposed to work, but it looks like a way of sharing slide shows with music, or whatever. The slide shows can be viewed, downloaded (to send in e-mail) and embedded on a web site.

It's the slideshare.net terms of use that really bugs me. They go about stating the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT NOTICE PROCEDURES, but then they follow it up with this:

Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and
attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is
infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/
for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking
removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was
ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over
$100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online
infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

Did they just say that I should pay an attorney for a consultation before I complain about an infringement? That's just a nasty attitude on the part of slideshare.net. Whatever happened to common courtesy? On top of that, why jump through all of the paper hoops, even if it is the requirement by law? How about accepting an e-mail with some links? It seems that common courtesy has become as uncommon as common sense.

I haven't decided what I am going to do about the slide shows. The whole thing just bugs me. I don't understand how someone could be satisfied by taking images from a web site without permission and packing them into a slide show, blog or e-mail, and I don't like that I need an attorney to get a little courtesy.

Update

I cross posted this on my personal blog and I got a very quick response from Rashmi from slideshare.com. He said that I could contact them with the feedback form on their web site. That's the courtesy that I was looking for :)

Update 2

I have been in contact with the slide show creator and we have agreed upon which images of mine that he can use. There is no need for slideshare to take any action.

This is a happy ending.

What's new in fractal art?

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:33:00 +0000

Please read about it there and reply there or here

http://idreamincolor.com/forum/index.php?topic=74.0

Fuchsia WIP

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:06:00 +0000

Here's another one with some interesting potential. Check out these flowers with a hummingbird checking them out.

More on Ultrafractal 5

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:05:00 +0000

I still haven't spent enough time on it, but every time that I do use it I like it more and more.

I think that the class doohickeys and image import capabilities sort of distract from the powerful new features of global modifications of common parameters in multiple layers and layer grouping.

For example, the bird in this image consists of three layers. I had to play around with the Julia seeds and trap location parameters to get the birds located in a decent location and orientation. The old way would have been to change a parameter in one layer and then copy and paste into the other two. That's a PITA. The new way is to select multiple layers with a control-click and modify the parameter with the explore window. Only one layer appears in the explore window, but the common parameters in the other selected layers are changed along with it. That's more efficient.

I had to remove some birds around edges. To do that I like to use layer masking. The old way would have required 3 identical layer masks applied to each layer. The new way is to group the 3 layers together and then apply a single mask to the group.

UF 5 is good stuff. Hopefully I'll be able to do more with it when I don't have so many other priorities.

Hummingbird WIP

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:17:00 +0000

This has potential. The original image came from here

Dahlia 3

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:11:00 +0000

Playing with the image import functionality in Ultrafractal 5. This is the same flower that was used for the images in this blog

Fractal Art

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:36:00 +0000

This is the time of year that I think about submitting fractal art to one of the big fairs in my area. I am not going to do it this year. My fractal flame has dimmed a lot, but I still like to reflect back on past experience with that fair. Here are some random thoughts about it.

It's a pretty big art show. I don't remember the exact number, but I think that last year there was around around 600 entries accepted. It does not include a photography category but it does have oil, sculpting, watercolor and several others, including computer art. Again, I am not sure of the exact numbers, but I think that the computer art category had around 30 entries, so it was about 5% of the total show. Out of the 30, there might have been 2 or 3 fractal based pieces, so let's say that fractal art comprised of less than 1% of the entire show.

I have told this story before, but I think it is worth repeating... I'll never forget the time that I had a fractal based print in that show. I was standing next to it when a couple approached it. The first thing that the man said was, "that's just Photoshop". He was a pen and ink artist and it was obvious to me that he didn't have a lot of respect for "computer art". I had heard about that computer-did-all-of-the-work attitude before and that day I saw it face to face.

Let's face it, when it comes to fractal art, the computer does do a lot of the work. I wonder what impact that has on fractal art being accepted as legitimate art? I am thinking, probably not as much impact as that less than 1% number. Out of 600 accepted entries, only 2 or 3 were fractal based.

What is fractal art anyway? I don't know. I don't think that there is a clear definition. I also don't care. I am content with a computer category. At least there is one of those. Besides, with only 2 or 3 entries per year it would not make sense to create a separate category for fractal art.

Fractal art is a tiny spec on that world of art. It practically doesn't exist. It seems like there are thousands of fractals posted every day on the community sites, so how can I say that fractal art practically does not exist? I am looking at it based on my (limited) experience in context with traditional art.

I still believe that the best thing that anyone can do to promote the art of fractals is to get it printed and out there where it can be seen sitting next to traditional art. I still do not believe that the Internet is the best way to promote it. The community site are especially ineffective at promotion, at least outside of the community.

Last year I noticed a fractal in the judges section of the gallery. It was just a simple black and white Mandelbrot. At least that judge knew what a fractal was, but I think that he is an exception. Most people do not know what a fractal is . Even those of us in the middle of it cannot put a definition on "fractal art".

I'm OK with that. It's wide open. We can define fractal art as we go along. The people who do print and promote their own art have little to no competition. Take advantage of it.

Ultrafractal 5 - a little overwhelming

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:52:00 +0000

I bought the animation edition of UF 5 and I have spent a couple of hours trying understand the new object oriented formulas. They are a new way of thinking that is going to take some getting used to. There are many combinations and I find that I am second guessing myself all the time, wondering if I am using the classes in the way that they are intended to be used. They sort of remind me of Toby's monster coloring formulas. With so many parameters, it takes a while to find a combination that works.

I am getting the impression from the formula writers that the idea is to do a lot of exploration and try all sorts of combinations. This could open up things that have never been seen before.

My biggest complaint is that the pull down menus have been replaced by classes. For example, with trap shapes I like to scroll through a long pull down menu by highlighting it and then using the up or down arrow keys to find what I like. It takes a couple of mouse clicks to pick an object oriented trap shape.

Obviously there is a trade off between new possibilities and the old way of doing things and I don't have the experience to make a good judgement on that trade off. Overall though, I am excited about the new possibilities.

I have played some with the image importing capabilities. I'll write something on that later.

Shooting Hummingbirds

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:27:00 +0000

My backyard hummingbird feeders have been claimed by a beautiful mature male Rufous hummingbird. I have had the feeders up for almost three years and I have never seen one like it until this year. I want to show a good shot of it to you, but the little devil won't let me get the correct exposure.

That bird is smart. I can tell when it is in the back yard because I can hear it fly from branch to branch. It doesn't hum like other hummers. It has a distinct whistle in its wings. When I hear it, I grab my camera and get positioned to take some shots at the most visible feeder. I have seen it there before, but it refuses to go there while I am waiting for it. I can feel its eyes on me as it hides in the tree but I sure can't see it, so we wait, and wait. I have even tried faking it out by turning my back on it, but it doesn't buy into that. All I have to do is put the camera down and start doing some yard work and it will appear. It must know how to work a camera because it refuses to show itself unless it's sure that I'll shoot it with the wrong exposure.

This Rufous has a cousin with a cloaking device. It's a male Anna's and it is much harder to see than the Rufous. That's probably because they hate each other. Even though the Rufous is smaller than the Anna's, it has the upper hand in a territorial fight, so the Anna's has to sneak in while the Rufous isn't watching.

As far as I can tell, that bird is always watching, so it has been a challenge to capture a shot of the Anna's.

This shot is proof that this Anna's hummingbird has a cloaking device. I managed to catch it just before it disappeared.

Here's the same bird hiding in the shadows behind the feeder.

Maybe I'll shoot them with a 12 gauge shotgun. Just kidding. I love those cute little spawns of Satan. I am going to keep trying to get a decent shot of both of them. They usually don't hang around for long so I had better get them while I can.

Cross posted here

Keith

Data center fire

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:34:00 +0000

There was a fire in the data center that has the server for this web site, so the site was down over the weekend. It looks like it is up and running now.

I'm thinking about pulling the plug

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Tue, 27 May 2008 18:40:00 +0000

Before I say this I will say that I appreciate all of the contributions that have been made here...

I have lost interest in this blog and I want to call it quits - as in, delete it. Same for the forum.

Your thoughts?

A couple of calendar images

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:25:00 +0000

Here are some images that I submitted to Panny for the Fractal Universe Calendar

Today is the deadline :)

Experience and advice about the Calendar

noreply@blogger.com (Keith) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:22:00 +0000

If you are thinking about submitting images to the Fractal Universe Calendar, I would like to encourage you to do so. It's fun to have an image in the calendar.

My first submission to the calendar was for the year 2004. In 2002, when the image was submitted, I considered myself a beginning fractal artist. I did not think that I was good enough to make it into the calendar. I was asked by the editors to submit a specific image. It was a real confidence booster (maybe too much) to be asked for an image then have it make it into the calendar. It was cool to walk into a retail store and see my image sitting on the shelf. When my brother found out about it, he bought several copies as Christmas gifts for his family. It was a lot of fun. The fact that I made it into the calendar told me that anyone could.

I submitted 10 images for the 2005 calendar and made it in again. Cool. Don't tell anyone, but the image that made it is not my favorite - not by a long shot. It was still fun to have a calendar hanging on my wall at work and pointing out my month to my coworkers.

I thought that I had a lock on the calendar for 2006. I made it for 2 years in a row so it was bound to happen again, right? Nope. It was very disappointing to not make it in. So much so that I almost didn't submit images for the next one. I was encouraged by my friends to try it again for 2007, so I did. That one didn't happened either. Neither did the next one. I was in for 2 years and out for 3.

Last year I was an editor for the 2009 calendar. That was a great experience. It was cool to feel the excitement from all of the submitters. I learned that I wasn't the only one having fun with it.

The relationship between the publisher and the editors was one of respect and professionalism. I looked at the publishers as my boss. They do, after all, pay for the images, layout, printing and distribution of the calendar. They also make a business decision each year to publish the calendar or not. There is never a guarantee that they will publish one.

My advice now is to participate in the calendar for the fun of it. Don't do it for the money. I mean, it's $200, or $400 for a cover image. That's not enough to quit your day job.

Don't do what I did and wait around to become "good enough". Give it a try, now.

Take a look at past images that have made it into the calendar and submit images like those. I gave that advice a few years ago and it is still good advice. If you don't normally make images like those then submit what you do make. I am confident that Panny will show the publishers what's out there by providing them with a range of fractal styles. The editor and publisher needs to see what is available.

If you do have a question or concern about the calendar, contact the editor privately. That is the right and proper way to do it.

Give the calendar a try. There is still time. It fun to make it in and only slightly disappointing if you don't.

Should we ditch the 'net???

noreply@blogger.com (Rykk) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:12:00 +0000

Boneyard

I just read a VERY disturbing article on a new copyright law wending its typically boneheaded, all-about-business profits-and-artist-be-damned way thru our fallacious form of "representative government" that seems to be a big scam to make a ton of $$ for a few "registry houses" by essentially requiring (in typically governmental double-talk) artists to register for copyright - for a fee of course! - with multiple registry companies in order to prevent their work from being deemed "orphan works" and being used for profit by any and all who happen upon them. Here's a link for those who don't follow the mailing lists - http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=Columns&column=MindBiz&article_no=3605 - (it's kinda slow - give it time...)

Do y'all think maybe this site where I have registered some of my sold pieces might be one of those that would benefit hugely from this legislation? - http//www.fineartregistry.com/members/tags.php

I remember when I started to get my first pieces professionally printed for an upcoming art show in Atlanta that my printer - a man who has supported himself thru art festival selling for FORTY YEARS - was disturbed that I had galleries of basically all of my very best (read "showable to anyone other than my good ol' doggie bud, Lars") on the internet at Renderosity and DeviantArt. And on my own - stalled for the time being - website. He said I was just begging for image theft that way and his advice was to remove everything immediately, the sooner the better, and to show NOTHING on the internet.

Of course, vanity and the need to show my work to someone with less than four legs - lol - precluded this action and I did nothing and just continued doing what I was doing. Seemed to work out ok. I got lots of encouragement, which went a long way to firing up my enthusiasm, made a few sales - some for pretty decent $$ - and was able to have my work seen by thousands of folks who like that sort of thing. And now this - along with the creepy feeling I've gotten about DA in reading things that some artists have said on various mail lists and blogs.

So what do y'all think? As digital artists, imho, we're pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place in respect to showing on the 'net the fruits of our creative endeavors and to delete our galleries would be "suicide" as far as any real avenues to get our work seen. Very few of us - myself included - have the away time from our grinding work tediums to be able to hit the road and show at festivals. At least enough of them to make anything other than "play money". I'm thinking you either have to have enormous cojones (or whatever women have that is comparable - lol j/k) to be able to ditch it all and quit the day job, unwavering faith/hope in the commercial viability/worth of your art and it probably helps to be retired with plenty of free time on your hands to be able to do this sort of thing. And that is something that bugs me to no end because I like my steady paycheck and smoke like a freaken stack and have reached a point in life (the mid-life crisis thing) where I'm thinking in terms of time left to accomplish whatever and it doesn't look to me like I'll see any social security checks and long lazy days on the beach in Sanibel. Sorry - kinda morbid, huh - I'll quit. Here's something more optimistic...

The Good Life

There's got to be some way to do this fractal art thing "seriously" and/or show your art safely but I can't for the life of me get my head around it and figure it out. Too much brain damage, I guess. (but, as Tolkein said, "that is another story" - and nothing to do with drugs if you wonder - lol) Anybody got any ideas about where to go from here - or if maybe this article is just hyperbole? Do y'all think this legislation might force a lot of us who are trying to make something other than just a beloved hobby of our artwork to get our stuff out of the way b4 we get run over by some corporate truck?

Free as a Bird

c-ya!
Rick