coo!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
(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
Bloop Fri 16 Jul, 22:10,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:06,
archived)
I think that, when the starting point for someone's work on an image is not explicitly stated,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.
(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.
Bee Nice |-|,
Fri 8 May 2009, 16:38,
archived)