Flight through time

Chaz Photos

Chaz Photos

Jack Elam
Messages
6,282
Name
Chaz
Edit My Images
Yes
7228620090_f51418db69_o.jpg
 
Hey Chaz, Quite a bit of work gone into this, I really like the idea behind this, it works quite well and one gets a real depth to the project, I like that you have all the shadows in the correct position, however i do feel small parts let it down slightly.

1; The top of the bush in the stream needs to be darked
2; The Owl stands out a little to much.
3; the whole image may look better a little darker or sepia.

Just my thoughts.(y)
 
Is there any particular message you're trying to get across here?
Why have you put each element in?

TBH mate, as nice as I try and put things...I feel I've been licking a rather big book of stamps laced with LSD.
 
Marcel said:
Is there any particular message you're trying to get across here?
Why have you put each element in?

TBH mate, as nice as I try and put things...I feel I've been licking a rather big book of stamps laced with LSD.
Click to expand...

The message is the one You see :shrug:, not the one I have.........
 
Rocket said:
Hey Chaz, Quite a bit of work gone into this, I really like the idea behind this, it works quite well and one gets a real depth to the project, I like that you have all the shadows in the correct position, however i do feel small parts let it down slightly.

1; The top of the bush in the stream needs to be darked
2; The Owl stands out a little to much.
3; the whole image may look better a little darker or sepia.

Just my thoughts.(y)
Click to expand...

Thanks for you comments.
I agree the trees do need some work on, as to the colours I did it like this, the bird in full colour and the rest in a muted colours as its the flight through time, both past and future.
 
Chaz Photos said:
The message is the one You see :shrug:, not the one I have.........
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, but what message do you see? I ask because I'm not really seeing one at all; it feels like there's something very clever going on that I just don't get!

I think "it's what you get out of it that counts" is all well and good, except that this one has too many specifics (the clock on the tombstone, or the banners which I can't read for example?) for you not to have had some idea what you were trying to say?

I think also that "no message in particular" is equally OK, but then the image has to be pleasing on a purely aesthetic level, and this one isn't. That doesn't make it bad; it just means it needs a message :)
 
Southdowns said:
That's fair enough, but what message do you see? I ask because I'm not really seeing one at all; it feels like there's something very clever going on that I just don't get!

I think "it's what you get out of it that counts" is all well and good, except that this one has too many specifics (the clock on the tombstone, or the banners which I can't read for example?) for you not to have had some idea what you were trying to say?

I think also that "no message in particular" is equally OK, but then the image has to be pleasing on a purely aesthetic level, and this one isn't. That doesn't make it bad; it just means it needs a message :)
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like most of my cartoon drawings, really. :D :LOL: :)

Regarding the OP's image, I very quickly came to the conclusion that it really isn't photography as we know and like but more like digital photoshop-type art. While I like to think that does have it's own place in the media world - this particular one I have found myself struggling to get to grips with it.

And so with that in mind . . . " I'm out".
 
Last edited:
I think it's quite cool, a bit like an album cover
 
Southdowns said:
That's fair enough, but what message do you see? I ask because I'm not really seeing one at all; it feels like there's something very clever going on that I just don't get!

I think "it's what you get out of it that counts" is all well and good, except that this one has too many specifics (the clock on the tombstone, or the banners which I can't read for example?) for you not to have had some idea what you were trying to say?

I think also that "no message in particular" is equally OK, but then the image has to be pleasing on a purely aesthetic level, and this one isn't. That doesn't make it bad; it just means it needs a message :)
Click to expand...

Well OK my view on it
water = life .... looking into the future ..... the owl is kind of symbolic ....
I also have called this "The river of life", elsewhere, but was not sure which fits better. As for the Cross and clock well Life and death are all part of Life cycle, the person in the passage way is walking towards somewhere else may be another dimension or life. The river is Life and many associates owls with wisdom This link goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece.
AS for Photoshop Art??? well I was doing things like this in my darkroom back in the 70's maybe not as many images together, but still the same Imagery yes it is Surreal art but what is wrong with that. Does photography have to be just record shots?
 
Chaz Photos said:
AS for Photoshop Art??? well I was doing things like this in my darkroom back in the 70's maybe not as many images together, but still the same Imagery yes it is Surreal art but what is wrong with that. Does photography have to be just record shots?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite (and I don't often do this). A photograph is light that has been captured on paper - I guess it's like having frozen that moment in time.
Can you say the same for your image? It's really more as a statement, or you trying to describe something - which is closer to art (just like my cartoon drawings).
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate a bit of art -even of the surreal type - as I have dabbled in some experimental digital stuff, but I wouldn't dream of putting it a photography forum because I know it would look out of place. Still, you have recieved a couple of positive comments in here, so it might be me missing something.
Bear in mind that I am both a long-time amateur cartoonist as well as being into digital photography so I'm only just expressing my opinions. Mind you, I do show my cartoons in here so I guess I'm no different.
 
Last edited:
Ian D J said:
Okay, I'll bite (and I don't often do this). A photograph is light that has been captured on paper - I guess it's like having frozen that moment in time.
Can you say the same for your image? It's really more as a statement, or you trying to describe something - which is closer to art (just like my cartoon drawings).
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate a bit of art -even of the surreal type - as I have dabbled in some experimental digital stuff, but I wouldn't dream of putting it a photography forum because I know it would look out of place. Still, you have recieved a couple of positive comments in here, so it might be me missing something.
Bear in mind that I am both a long-time amateur cartoonist as well as being into digital photography so I'm only just expressing my opinions. Mind you, I do show my cartoons in here so I guess I'm no different.
Click to expand...
All in this image is my photos so I have taking all of the image at different times and places, as many photos are, but done in a way as the view dose not know.
As for you description of 'photography', I don't think it is correct ....Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light File had a invisible latent image which had to have PP, Slides had not paper printing and is projected so I think this fail your comments of what 'photography' is....
The word photography derives from the Greek φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".
 
Chaz Photos said:
All in this image is my photos so I have taking all of the image at different times and places, as many photos are, but done in a way as the view dose not know.
As for you description of 'photography', I don't think it is correct ....Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light File had a invisible latent image which had to have PP, Slides had not paper printing and is projected so I think this fail your comments of what 'photography' is....
The word photography derives from the Greek φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".
Click to expand...

Quite like this.
I think the problem is people still think photography / photo is the end result but now with digital it's the starting point. The digital image is now your canvas that you can build on.
 
I think this is (a form of) photography. These days a photograph is the finished image, not what comes out of the camera. There is a blurred line between photography and digital art, and pure digital art wouldn't belong on here, but it's difficult to say where photography stops and digital art begins.

I might perhaps question whether this belongs in this section though, because I think creative photography implies creative use of the camera, and the PP section might be more apropriate?

As to the picture, each to thier own, but I'm afraid I don't like it. The actual PP work isn't that good, in that you can "see the joins", like a collage of bits cut out from magazines. That might not matter if it told a story (even if the story was up to the viewer to interpret), but I don't think it does. There's no flow to it (no beginning and end, which the title suggests it should have), and most if not all of the clues are extremely criptic.

So sorry, but conceptually I think it's disjointed and doesn't work, and aesthetically it's not pleasing.

IMHO of course, and anyway it wouldn't be art if everyone liked it :)
 
it wouldn't be so bad if the photoshopping wasn't so terrible... That dial on the cross looks like a 5 yr old did it.

If you have to go down the route of blending photographs / digital files, to create such a monster, then maybe a consistent light source to give even tones, and some subtle blending of layers, together with good positioning and angles... i,e, the cross is taken at a completely different angle to the dial, so that will always look odd..
 
:|

I'd like to say I've seen worse, but I flatly refuse to lie.....:shake:

I guess if you like it, Chaz, then that's all that matters!! (y)
 
Im a big fan of surrealist art and can look at it for hours trying to decipher the artists intent or message, breaking the image down to read through it or just appreciating it for what it is.
This however doesn't cut it for me sorry. Its just too cut and paste with no effort, scale is out, perspective is out colour tone and shade is out.
It looks as if a child has put it together, however, all is not lost. I like the concept, but i feel for any sort of viewer interacting with this image they will struggle to understand what your trying to achieve or know the real meaning behind each element.
Would love to see some hand print composites that you mentioned though. That would be awesome!
 
Lynton said:
it wouldn't be so bad if the photoshopping wasn't so terrible... That dial on the cross looks like a 5 yr old did it.

If you have to go down the route of blending photographs / digital files, to create such a monster, then maybe a consistent light source to give even tones, and some subtle blending of layers, together with good positioning and angles... i,e, the cross is taken at a completely different angle to the dial, so that will always look odd..
Click to expand...

To be fair, we don't know what the OP's level of experience is, or at least I don't! My first attempt at anything involving cut and paste would have been even worse than this. I agree with what you're saying (hence my comment above about it not being aesthetically pleasing), just maybe not the way you said it?

I don't think today I could do a lot better given the components used in this shot, but what I have learned is what does and doesn't work, and that if it's not going to look good, and you don't have the skills to fix it, it's better to move on to something else.

But I don't see any problem with posting it; we all have to start somewhere, and should expect feedback that takes account of our experience.
 
I don't like it. I think it is really poorly done. The concept is poor, the application is poor, there is no redeeming quality about it at all.

Apart from the fact you have tried to produce something different, well done for that, but I find it hard to say that without being patronising, it's the kind of thing I would say to my 3 year old daughter when she makes random marks on piece of paper with hand paints. You know it's rubbish, but you congratulate her anyway because of her age and skill level.
 
Slimbert said:
Yes we do....he runs his own Photoshop tuition workshops!! :help:
Click to expand...

You are joking right? If that's true, then I withdraw ALL of the "lets be fair" stuff, and attempts to phrase criticism nicely, and apologise to those who've posted harsh comments.

I've only been into "proper" photography for 6 months, including using PS (well actually Pixelmator) for more than red eye removal, but already would be embarrassed if I produced something like this. If I went on a course and this was the standard of work, I'd want my money back.

I'm off to have a look at his site to see if there are redeeming examples of better work, but to be honest the fact he thought this was worth posting calls his qualifications to run courses into question all on its own.
 
Last edited:
OK that didn't help! There's nothing on there to judge his ability by!

Chaz seriously, for your own good you need to get that web site sorted out. If I was looking for a pro photographer that site wouldn't just make me prefer others, it'd actively turn me away from you regardless of what else I could find. You're selling something aesthetic; don't you think your site should have aesthetic value, not to mention actual examples of your work?
 
Well it's not very often I will say this...but I simply don't "get" it.

There isn't a single element in the image which gels or even relates to another element.

I can't read the banners....I had to read the comments to even realise that the centre element was a guy going through a door/passageway, and the owl looks like it was just slapped in as an afterthought.

I've never subscribed to the theory that every image must tell a story; however the semi enigmatic message of "Oh it's what you see, not what I show you" is such a cop-out.
 
right everyone - can we concentrate on the photograph/ digital artwork please, and STOP concerning ourselves with the OP's website or other activities PLEASE!

Any more and this thread will be closing! Please behave yourselves and offer critique or hints where things could improve - I will NOT tolerate people just lining up to give the OP a shoe-ing!
 
Slimbert said:
Yes we do....he runs his own Photoshop tuition workshops!! :help:
Click to expand...
Yes but not on this work.
This is a first attempt after having a workshop with Mark Mumford FRPS to all that are saying how poor it is Can I see your work of this kinds please
 
sorry Chaz... I've not any compositions like this either , (the only ones were when caught without an ND filter - 2 pics, i exposed for land, one exposed for sky, and then blended in CS5 later) so that's a no from me as well.

I do have , however, literally hundreds of pics up on here, so feel free to C&C on any of them as you feel fit..

(y)

There has been a lot of comment on it, most of it suggesting the same thing, so maybe, take a step back and take it on board... (y)
 
Well Chaz, I have to say, I don't exactly hold with the "you've got to have done something better than my work if you want to criticise mine" - it goes against all the principles I keep banging on about on here - after all, I've NEVER shot photo's of (say) these light-trail orbs for example, but I can see when the shot works or doesn't. Equally, I don't expect anyone who gives me feedback on (say) my still life shots to have spent some (or any) time studying Dutch Golden Age Painting for example.

For what it's worth, I think there are some interesting ideas in the shot, but I don't actually like the gritty/speckly appearance of the sky - looks a little like a "bleach bypass" film effect that didn't quite take.

Also, as mentioned by someone above, the cross and the clock look to be taken under wildly differing lighting - the shadows on the clock hands for example are at odds with the shadows dropped in for all the other items - hence the clock doesn't really work.

I'd also add the face of the clock doesn't appear to be on the same plane as the cross, hence it just looks "plonked on" - perhaps a little tweak in the transform tool could "twist it into place" :thinking:

I'd like to be able to read all the lettering on the plackards - though I'll admit, that on a larger size version it'd probably be legible.

I remember the original B&W shot of the bloke walking down the ginnel (or alleyway for non-northerners ;)) and I quite liked that, but in this shot, I think it's a) slightly lost due to it's size, and b) I don't get why there are black and white houses and sky under a bank of earth...

So - as I said - some interesting Ideas, but IMO they're a really, really long way away from where they're ready for a public audience.



(and as I've no doubt now given you what you probably consider a unfounded and unqualified critique, I've had a little trawl around my stuff, and nearest I can get - a couple of composite shots are here, here and here, knock yourself out!)
 
i said i wouldn't... but this is 100% genuinely meant with fun.........

you have the edit box ticked......


I've added a few more..

chazzinated.jpg
 
Lynton said:
i said i wouldn't... but this is 100% genuinely meant with fun.........

you have the edit box ticked......

I've added a few more..
Click to expand...

Seriously Lynton....lord Lucan is in Africa..
 
matty said:
Seriously Lynton....lord Lucan is in Africa..
Click to expand...

Tonight, Matthew, he is in Devonshire........... :LOL: along with Shergar
 
i wouldn't mind guessing the op is near suicidal by now. so as mentioned earlier it would be nice to offer some advice and help or examples of our own attempts. i was forced into doing things like this on a course i did last year in college, reluctantly i put together three composites, had to write a tutorial on each one too :geek: our lecturer loved montage by the way :cautious:

http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af125/s-drop/storminagiantteacup.jpg - storm in a giant teacup
http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af125/s-drop/cyberattack.jpg - cyber attack
http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af125/s-drop/comeonpilgrim.jpg - levitate me

the last one is something i wanted to do rather than be forced into lol
its more of an exclusion than a composite but it is made up from two images and has the pixies "come on pilgrim" as inspiration


(mod edit - images broken to links - I know the OP invited shots, but it's bad form to "take over" a thread with your own images - links are fine though)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ummm.....Salvador dali on an acid trip:thinking::thinking:, alot of work on this but it sort of makes my head hurt somewhat:shrug:
 
I really like the levitation one.(y) Quite spooky.

I did a similar one last year in an old chapel up here a kind of play on the Crucified Skinhead theme (as per my Signature logo). Never posted it tho, the PP was a bit naff but the same idea as yours.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top