
I'd just changed my desktop at work to one of those new hubble images, I may have to change it again!
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:42,
archived)

The Hubble pictures are simply gorgeous.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:44,
archived)

/lovely, by the way :)
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:43,
archived)

the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows! the shadows!
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:43,
archived)

Answered you down there v btw, Catnippppp is spamming like a good 'un again.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:46,
archived)

They're all cuddlesome and gleeful and happy to see each other.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:49,
archived)

but not these ones, Maxi. These ones are all live and eeeeee.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:51,
archived)

I do have a desire to have prawns for dinner though now. I may have to make myself a hot prawn salad.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:53,
archived)

Have surf and turf, actually, the way I do it:
steak
breaded scampi
colcannon
sweetcorn
gravy.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:53,
archived)
steak
breaded scampi
colcannon
sweetcorn
gravy.

and it's perfectly the same as the traditional dutch dish of stamppot. Good call.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:03,
archived)

Today I've eaten 3 sweets and a biscuit.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:23,
archived)

Thats the first thing I thought when I saw this
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:44,
archived)

;p luv ya JPG.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:45,
archived)

'he who must be spat on' can comment if he likes.
;-)
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:48,
archived)
;-)

I just picked things up with JPG trying to avoid a flounce :)
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:51,
archived)

www.b3ta.com/board/7663181
...and refer back to it for a chuckle every so often.
Vintage flouncing.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:56,
archived)
...and refer back to it for a chuckle every so often.
Vintage flouncing.

Edit: And beautifully topped off with Dixon's Golden Flounce Award, too.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:58,
archived)

So that's all good. Thanks, sir!
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 15:53,
archived)


I like your thinking, sir.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:08,
archived)

Whats going on with your 2d generated stuff? It looks like you've just been loading code from the gallery, clicking render, and posting the variation on b3ta?
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=15
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=53
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=107
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=122
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=137
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=421
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:06,
archived)
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=15
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=53
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=107
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=122
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=137
www.contextfreeart.org/gallery/view.php?id=421

it is common to assume that it was started 'from scratch'.
JPG, as I think this sort of assumption is quite common, could I suggest that a lot of misunderstanding could be avoided by pointing out -- when you post -- if that isn't the case?
Adding that information doesn't make the result anything less to appreciate. Omitting it causes rather a shock, on the occasions when it turns out that the assumption was wildly wrong.
(FWIW, I think it equally applies to images traced from photos, or with colours sampled from a photo -- when looking at a work (ooh, get me), it really helps to understand what it's built on).
EDIT: ...This is all so weird. Perhaps there is some other explanation. Perhaps JPG is unaware that these are all pre-published works in the gallery? Perhaps the parameters / code / whatever are listed -- unattributed -- in some other place that JPG found (like a manual or tutorial or something)?
I really thought that http://b3ta.com/board/9401211 was all JPG's invention. Am I stupid for not 'just knowing' that this is (apparently) Lagroue's rendering (gallery 53) of Akiyoshi's 'rollers' illusion? It's not half a bump coming down to earth from that one.
( ,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:38,
archived)
JPG, as I think this sort of assumption is quite common, could I suggest that a lot of misunderstanding could be avoided by pointing out -- when you post -- if that isn't the case?
Adding that information doesn't make the result anything less to appreciate. Omitting it causes rather a shock, on the occasions when it turns out that the assumption was wildly wrong.
(FWIW, I think it equally applies to images traced from photos, or with colours sampled from a photo -- when looking at a work (ooh, get me), it really helps to understand what it's built on).
EDIT: ...This is all so weird. Perhaps there is some other explanation. Perhaps JPG is unaware that these are all pre-published works in the gallery? Perhaps the parameters / code / whatever are listed -- unattributed -- in some other place that JPG found (like a manual or tutorial or something)?
I really thought that http://b3ta.com/board/9401211 was all JPG's invention. Am I stupid for not 'just knowing' that this is (apparently) Lagroue's rendering (gallery 53) of Akiyoshi's 'rollers' illusion? It's not half a bump coming down to earth from that one.