|
-- Posted by ReesesLuverx3 at 9:06 am on Dec. 1, 2008
but.. i dont know if i like ihs filter or not. Its a pastel filter and i like the original but i thought the filter was kind of interesting. thoughts.? Filter- orig.
-- Posted by roflfuckyou at 9:07 am on Dec. 1, 2008
no filter
-- Posted by The Fantasy at 9:07 am on Dec. 1, 2008
i prefer the original.
-- Posted by BodomChick at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008
i don't like the filter personally
-- Posted by decoyyydown at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008
no filter!
-- Posted by Teenie1 at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008
Original is better.
-- Posted by hiddenfromlove91 at 9:08 am on Dec. 1, 2008
i like the original
-- Posted by scout123 at 9:09 am on Dec. 1, 2008
original
-- Posted by Skip at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008
the filter adds a bit of shadiness it is interesting
-- Posted by Lally at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008
original. Its not as grainy.
-- Posted by SpottedTiger at 9:10 am on Dec. 1, 2008
I prefer the original.
-- Posted by santana 08 at 9:12 am on Dec. 1, 2008
original
-- Posted by NEGATIVE0 at 9:12 am on Dec. 1, 2008
filters are lame. and it's not as grainy? loool. no fucking shit.
-- Posted by friendlyfrenchfry at 9:13 am on Dec. 1, 2008
original
-- Posted by SoaringFalcon2010 at 9:17 am on Dec. 1, 2008
original
-- Posted by Gaelle 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.
-- Posted by fedoragirl 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.
-- Posted by dreamweaver at 7:52 pm on Dec. 3, 2008
Makes it almost abstract, than realism then.
-- Posted by cutie2 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)
|