# Photo Back by Popular Demand.



## JustJazzie (Jan 25, 2015)

Thanks so much to everyone who helped on the edit! Especially @ronlane who suggested I move the burst to the heart chakra! What a great call. And @pgriz for helping me figure out the masking.  you guys are rock stars!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 25, 2015)

Holy shades of 1976 black velvet posters!



Well done Jazzie; not really my taste, but I think you did a very good job at this!


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 25, 2015)

I think it is well done ... but, (the big but) ... it is missing some element which would eliminate the idea that two images were sandwiched together. Don't get me wrong, for your first attempt this is wonderful ... but on your second attempt maybe there's a way of blending or define edge or layers that can take the sandwich out of the sandwich. (Then again maybe there isn't ... I don't know.)

Gary

PS- Nice haircut.
G


----------



## runnah (Jan 25, 2015)

That you? You are fit!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 25, 2015)

It's definitely not my style, but it's great to envision something in your own head and then to be able to create it.  IMHO, the slightly see through body makes it look like it has dirt particles.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 25, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Holy shades of 1976 black velvet posters!
> 
> 
> 
> Well done Jazzie; not really my taste, but I think you did a very good job at this!


I was thinking more like Zen music album cover.


Gary A. said:


> I think it is well done ... but, (the big but) ... it is missing some element which would eliminate the idea that two images were sandwiched together. Don't get me wrong, for your first attempt this is wonderful ... but on your second attempt maybe there's a way of blending or define edge or layers that can take the sandwich out of the sandwich. (Then again maybe there isn't ... I don't know.)
> 
> Gary
> 
> ...



Thanks for the thoughts. I'll have to figure out if there is a better way to blend it.



runnah said:


> That you? You are fit!


Don't I wish! Liquify really should have been named "the magic brush"


Vtec44 said:


> It's definitely not my style, but it's great to envision something in your own head and then to be able to create it.  IMHO, the slightly see through body makes it look like it has dirt particles.


 the original didn't have the star overlay but I thought it seemed more "enlightening" this way. Perhaps I should have upped the opacity to make it brighter and less dirt-y?


----------



## pgriz (Jan 25, 2015)

Needs a fill light.






Just kidding!  But inquiring minds want to know...  where was the remote?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 25, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Needs a fill light.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Self timer of course.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 25, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> the original didn't have the star overlay but I thought it seemed more "enlightening" this way. Perhaps I should have upped the opacity to make it brighter and less dirt-y?



Go with your instinct.  My opinion is just that... my own opinion. I always go with my own instinct when it comes to my work.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jan 25, 2015)

Missed it! But from tirediron's post, I figure it was something similar to this:

http://www.fauxami.de/event/Bright_08_WI_EXPO/Bright_08_FA_WI_Exhibition_21.jpg
(won't post the actual image, just the link)


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 25, 2015)

Glad I got to see it before you took it down.  Why not leave it up there for more opinions?   No need to delete, it's not like it was horrible or anything!  It was an interesting concept.  I was going to comment that I thought the levitating figure should be a little smaller to show the universe as the larger being.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 25, 2015)

I didn't comment when it was up.  I have a question about it, though: it looked like the stars were not just in the background, but on you as well.  Is this correct, or an illusion?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 25, 2015)

snowbear said:


> I didn't comment when it was up.  I have a question about it, though: it looked like the stars were not just in the background, but on you as well.  Is this correct, or an illusion?


Yes. I did an overlay with the brightest star over my sacral chakra.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 25, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't comment when it was up.  I have a question about it, though: it looked like the stars were not just in the background, but on you as well.  Is this correct, or an illusion?
> ...


OK.  Thanks.  I thought it was an interesting image, definitely "vintage."


----------



## Forkie (Jan 26, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't comment when it was up.  I have a question about it, though: it looked like the stars were not just in the background, but on you as well.  Is this correct, or an illusion?
> ...




A star over your what?!

What did I miss here?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

BrightByNature said:


> Missed it! But from tirediron's post, I figure it was something similar to this:
> 
> http://www.fauxami.de/event/Bright_08_WI_EXPO/Bright_08_FA_WI_Exhibition_21.jpg
> (won't post the actual image, just the link)



Not even close!



Forkie said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > snowbear said:
> ...



What did you miss? A levitation silhouette in a variation of sukhasana, with a nebula background. A second star overlay over the silhouette with a star burst concentrated over the sacral chakra. Any grey tones left in the shadow were converted to the same reds and blues in the star-scape background. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I sure thought it was pretty!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

I thought it was pretty neat too.  Maybe, Jazzie, you should put it back up.  As you already said, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it can certainly be discussed.  The speculations about what WAS there are probably much more extreme than the image actually is.


----------



## sm4him (Jan 26, 2015)

I feel slighted somehow, because I didn't get to see the picture!  And reading "A levitation silhouette in a variation of sukhasana, with a nebula background...over the sacral chakra…" really doesn't help because I'm an old fuddy-duddy who don't know nothin' bout no chakras and sukhasana; is that a type of fish??? 

I'm starting a petition to Jazzie to put the photo back up. SIGN the petition; vote "+1" to my post!!

NOTE: I was GONNA say, post the "This Thread is Worthless Without Pictures" emoticon but….where in the HECK did it go?!?!?!? TPF has hit a new low if we have lost our TTIWWP image!!


----------



## sm4him (Jan 26, 2015)

sm4him said:


> I feel slighted somehow, because I didn't get to see the picture!  And reading "A levitation silhouette in a variation of sukhasana, with a nebula background...over the sacral chakra…" really doesn't help because I'm an old fuddy-duddy who don't know nothin' bout no chakras and sukhasana; is that a type of fish???
> 
> I'm starting a petition to Jazzie to put the photo back up. SIGN the petition; vote "+1" to my post!!
> 
> NOTE: I was GONNA say, post the "This Thread is Worthless Without Pictures" emoticon but….where in the HECK did it go?!?!?!? TPF has hit a new low if we have lost our TTIWWP image!!



Err…my top-notch investigative reporting team has uncovered new information, and as a result, I hereby withdraw my petition in favor of letting the poor dead horse R.I.P.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

Uh oh.  There's a back channel.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Uh oh.  There's a back channel.


Haven't you ever read my signature? There always is! We just rarely get to watch it.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 26, 2015)

sm4him said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > I feel slighted somehow, because I didn't get to see the picture!  And reading "A levitation silhouette in a variation of sukhasana, with a nebula background...over the sacral chakra…" really doesn't help because I'm an old fuddy-duddy who don't know nothin' bout no chakras and sukhasana; is that a type of fish???
> ...



Oh, now I'm curious _and_ jealous!  I want to see, I want to see!  

Since you abandoned yours, I shall hereby start a new petition!

#1:  Forkie wants to see it.


----------



## weepete (Jan 26, 2015)

#2: Weepete wants to see it


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 26, 2015)

Me 3.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 26, 2015)

fear the mob.


----------



## Designer (Jan 26, 2015)

Me too!


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 26, 2015)

awe..i wanted to see it.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

Forkie said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > sm4him said:
> ...





weepete said:


> #2: Weepete wants to see it





JacaRanda said:


> Me 3.





Designer said:


> Me too!





pixmedic said:


> awe..i wanted to see it.



*sigh* majority rules.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 26, 2015)

Well dang

I actually think it's really cool.  Psychedelic, genie in/out of the bottle, hippie kinda vibe.

Thanks for reposting.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 26, 2015)

Okay, see that image makes me think.   Add some nice pungent incense, and put on Herbie Hancocks 'Chameleon' 



 
Oh yes, I can dig it!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

And the skywatcher in me is trying to figure out which nebula Jazzie is hiding.  Not to mention that the star pattern superimposed over the silhouette needs to be brighter.  As for the pose, I'm no expert but I think it's following proper form.    (hey, where's the tied-died emoticon???)


----------



## Designer (Jan 26, 2015)

I thought you superimposed a star over your sacral chackra.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 26, 2015)

Not going to lie, I had to Google "sacral chakra".


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Well dang
> 
> I actually think it's really cool.  Psychedelic, genie in/out of the bottle, hippie kinda vibe.
> 
> Thanks for reposting.


I knew if anyone would appreciate it it'd be you!



pgriz said:


> And the skywatcher in me is trying to figure out which nebula Jazzie is hiding.  Not to mention that the star pattern superimposed over the silhouette needs to be brighter.  As for the pose, I'm no expert but I think it's following proper form.    (hey, where's the tied-died emoticon???)


 carina nebula



Designer said:


> I thought you superimposed a star over your sacra chackra.


 I put the brightest burst there.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jan 26, 2015)

Trippy!!! now I LOL @ the comment about where the remote is!


----------



## sm4him (Jan 26, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> *sigh* majority rules.
> A PHOTO WAS HERE



Ah! Well, even though I'm an old fuddy-duddy, I think that's actually pretty creative and well done.

But I still don't know what a sukhasana or chakalaka suka hookie has to do with anything.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 26, 2015)

I really like the blue-left, red-right highlights.  Well done.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

pgriz said:


> As for the pose, I'm no expert but I think it's following proper form.    (hey, where's the tied-died emoticon???)



Actually the pose is a little off. Usually your arms are resting at your sides, but I was hopingthat lifting them a bit would add to the whole "zero gravity" concept.



BrightByNature said:


> Trippy!!! now I LOL @ the comment about where the remote is!


:giggle:


sm4him said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > *sigh* majority rules.
> ...


Sukhasana is "easy pose" a common meditation position.
The sacral chakra is your second chakra.
Sacral Chakra - 2nd Chakra


snowbear said:


> I really like the blue-left, red-right highlights.  Well done.


 thank you!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

Ah yes.  Carina, carina, you are my Dulcina...

Jazzie, I think your concept was/is pretty good.  I'd consider increasing the star overlay, because at present it's 'way too subtle (and your audience is anything but).  It may not be straight photography, but then Chris Crossley's stuff isn't straight photography either and we all love what he does.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Ah yes.  Carina, carina, you are my Dulcina...
> 
> Jazzie, I think your concept was/is pretty good.  I'd consider increasing the star overlay, because at present it's 'way too subtle (and your audience is anything but).  It may not be straight photography, but then Chris Crossley's stuff isn't straight photography either and we all love what he does.



How is this? I found on my other screens that I thought I should brighten it up, but thought it looked okay at 50% brightness on my desktop. I didn't want to take it too far and loose the silhouette......


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

Perhaps you need to apply a selective mask with 0% opacity in the interior regions of the silhouette, and 80-100% along the edges.  Don't know if that idea would work, but it just might...  That would then preserve the contours of the silhouette, while letting the star "interior" be more clear and distinct.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Perhaps you need to apply a selective mask with 0% opacity in the interior regions of the silhouette, and 80-100% along the edges.  Don't know if that idea would work, but it just might...  That would then preserve the contours of the silhouette, while letting the star "interior" be more clear and distinct.


Yeah, ill have to do some googling to figure out how to do that.... I agree with what you are saying. At one point I tried to brush in the "chakra star" at 100% but it just looked weird....so I'm just not sure HOW to acomplosh that.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

What software are you using for the image synthesis?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 26, 2015)

pgriz said:


> What software are you using for the image synthesis?


Cs6.... I have the background and the shadow (which unfortunately have been merged into one layer so those have to stay as is without a ton more work) and then the overlay with a mask around the figure. It has an opacity of 14% on the brighter image.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2015)

I'm no Photoshop expert, but I remember reading that the mask can be "painted" any tone from black to while, with black being 100% opaque and white being 100% clear.  Using the gradient tool, it is possible to set up the transition from white to black on the mask, which will then control how much of the associated layer gets displayed.  That may be the way to go.


----------



## oldhippy (Jan 26, 2015)

Nice half lotus or perfect posture. .  Like the idea a lot. Buy why wouldn't I.  Ed


----------



## weepete (Jan 27, 2015)

That's cool Jazzie, I like the concept and like the execution too.


----------



## Ray Hines (Jan 27, 2015)

Far out Baby, pass the bong. This really is the dawning of the age of aquarious, man.  Really, that is really well done.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 27, 2015)

Yay!!  I should start petitions everywhere!

@JustJazzie , that's really cool!  I can't figure out why you got rid of it in the first place.  It's a really cool concept and I think you've executed it really well!  I don't know if the pink/blue edge lighting was done in post or in your original lighting set up, but that attention to detail considering the colours of the background is actually excellent and either way, it's very subtly and nicely done.

I won't pretend to know anything about chakras and whatnot, but I totally "get it" from your image.  This is nice conceptual work   xx


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

pgriz said:


> I'm no Photoshop expert, but I remember reading that the mask can be "painted" any tone from black to while, with black being 100% opaque and white being 100% clear.  Using the gradient tool, it is possible to set up the transition from white to black on the mask, which will then control how much of the associated layer gets displayed.  That may be the way to go.



Okay, I tried a radial gradient centered over the star and I brushed it away from the edges completely. Is this more what you were thinking? Im still not sold on it, TBH. Right or wrong, its just not quite what I was going for, really. 








oldhippy said:


> Nice half lotus or perfect posture. .  Like the idea a lot. Buy why wouldn't I.  Ed


 Not quite half lotus! I never have been able to do that one comfortably. Practice, practice, practice, right? ;-)



weepete said:


> That's cool Jazzie, I like the concept and like the execution too.


Thank you!


Ray Hines said:


> Far out Baby, pass the bong. This really is the dawning of the age of aquarious, man.  Really, that is really well done.


Wait a second.....How did you guess my sign? 



Forkie said:


> Yay!!  I should start petitions everywhere!
> 
> @JustJazzie , that's really cool!  I can't figure out why you got rid of it in the first place.  It's a really cool concept and I think you've executed it really well!  I don't know if the pink/blue edge lighting was done in post or in your original lighting set up, but that attention to detail considering the colours of the background is actually excellent and either way, it's very subtly and nicely done.
> 
> I won't pretend to know anything about chakras and whatnot, but I totally "get it" from your image.  This is nice conceptual work   xx



As for why I pulled it, I promise you, its probably the last reason you've considered. 

The painting in the reds and blues was all done in post. I dont have any flash gells, so Really the only photography involved was getting the silhouette while carefully balanced on a beam that would be easy to edit out. Anyways, thank you for the kind thoughts!


----------



## ronlane (Jan 27, 2015)

@JustJazzie ,I see what you did on the last edit there and to me that is something to explore. Maybe just leaving a thin outline of the silhouette and the galaxy showing through the middle. Like you are becoming one. Maybe even add a little bit of a "glow" on the outside of the silhouette.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 27, 2015)

Jazzie, it's your vision.  I'm just enjoying seeing what you're coming up with.  However, the last edit is quite transcendental.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

ronlane said:


> @JustJazzie ,I see what you did on the last edit there and to me that is something to explore. Maybe just leaving a thin outline of the silhouette and the galaxy showing through the middle. Like you are becoming one. Maybe even add a little bit of a "glow" on the outside of the silhouette.


Ohh! A glow! I do like that idea. Not sure how to do it I'll have to look.


pgriz said:


> Jazzie, it's your vision.  I'm just enjoying seeing what you're coming up with.  However, the last edit is quite transcendental.



Noted guys! I've been staring at this one for a few days, so it's quite possible I've become "attached" to the original. I don't often, ever-actually spend this much time on a photo edit. Maybe after looking at it for a few days, the new one will grow on me. The original title was "One with the Universe" and I do logically understand how the brighter overlay may convey this better. Like I said, originally I wanted it brighter but it just didn't "feel" right. I'll keep working on it and see what happens!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

Now that I think about it, a better title (and what I REALLY want to convey) is "In tune with the universe" maybe not that "I am" only that I am attempting to accept and mirror it's energy. After all, no one could actually contain the energy of the universe within.

Does now that, at all change your idea of how the edit should look?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 27, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> Now that I think about it, a better title (and what I REALLY want to convey) is "In tune with the universe" maybe not that "I am" only that I am attempting to accept and mirror it's energy. After all, not one could actually contain the energy of the universe within.
> 
> Does now that, at all change your idea of how the edit should look?


Dang..
And here I thought you just wanted to show off how awesome your curves are.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > Now that I think about it, a better title (and what I REALLY want to convey) is "In tune with the universe" maybe not that "I am" only that I am attempting to accept and mirror it's energy. After all, not one could actually contain the energy of the universe within.
> ...



Oh, if only you knew how funny that really was!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

JustJazzie said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > @JustJazzie ,I see what you did on the last edit there and to me that is something to explore. Maybe just leaving a thin outline of the silhouette and the galaxy showing through the middle. Like you are becoming one. Maybe even add a little bit of a "glow" on the outside of the silhouette.
> ...



Okay- Lots and lots of extra masking. I was able to get the burst nearly up to 100%, but tone down everything else to the original intensity. Any thoughts on this edit? I think I like it!


----------



## pgriz (Jan 27, 2015)

Better slap a watermark on that.  Otherwise you might find it in a poster shop without getting due credit.  I really like it.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jan 27, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Better slap a watermark on that.  Otherwise you might find it in a poster shop without getting due credit.  I really like it.


 are you being serious there? Or just offering a nice compliment? :headscratch:
I thought posting it at low resolution was enough....then again I have seen some terribly questionable photography on greeting cards lately. :giggle:


----------



## beachrat (Jan 29, 2015)

Honestly,it makes me want to listen to Hendrix' Electric Ladyland. 
And I think I will.
Cool shot in my book.


----------

