| Replies
|
|
|
cutie2
|
Posted at 6:10 pm on Dec. 4, 2008 |
| Absolutely not the filter. It is interesting but looks amateur. The original photo is so nice, why muck with it? (haha, 'muck' - like, you know, mucking horses... cos that looks a bit like a stable right? yeah) |
|
|
dreamweaver
|
Posted at 7:52 pm on Dec. 3, 2008 |
| Makes it almost abstract, than realism then. |
|
|
fedoragirl
|
Posted at 5:32 pm on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| I don't like the filter. It makes it look more amateurish and like you are uncomfortable with your work. |
|
|
Gaelle
|
Posted at 9:19 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
Quote: from Skip at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008
the filter adds a bit of shadiness it is interesting
I agree, but it also makes it look a bit more amateur. |
|
|
SoaringFalcon2010
|
Posted at 9:17 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| original |
|
|
friendlyfrenchfry
|
Posted at 9:13 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
original |
|
|
NEGATIVE0
|
Posted at 9:12 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| filters are lame. and it's not as grainy? loool. no fucking shit. |
|
|
santana 08
|
Posted at 9:12 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| original |
|
|
SpottedTiger
|
Posted at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| I prefer the original. |
|
|
Lally
|
Posted at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| original. Its not as grainy. |
|
|
Skip
|
Posted at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| the filter adds a bit of shadiness it is interesting |
|
|
scout123
|
Posted at 9:09 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| original |
|
|
hiddenfromlove91
|
Posted at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| i like the original |
|
|
Teenie1
|
Posted at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| Original is better. |
|
|
decoyyydown
|
Posted at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008 |
| no filter! |
|
|
Most recent 15 of 18 previous replies displayed. |