-- 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)