Oh, ok, thanks for the clarification. :) Yea, the Lensbaby is a bit tough to work with. I don't use it much, so my skills with it aren't too great. I think I'd have to agree with you that a tad less effect down there would have been better. :) ~ Lonnit
Guest
11-Nov-2005 18:03
I didn't mean i didn't like the image. In my opinion I would have done the blur a little less intense, thats all. I love it otherwise. :)
Yes, I thoght the speech bubble made it more obvious that there was a face. When I said I forgot why I put it there, I meant that I didn't recall which previous challeng I did it for, if it was even for a challenge at all.
The bottom blur is a lensbaby effect. The look of movement was to support the personifiication, giving it life/motion. Of course I want your input! Having to explain my reasons for doing something clariifies it for me and gives further opportunity for you guys to get me back on track if my thoughts were misguided. Even If I'm 100% right, that still does not guarantee that everyone will like the image. As we see here, my reasoning here is valid, yet you still do not care for the results. :) Thanks soo much for your input! ~ Lonnit
Britt F
11-Nov-2005 13:16
I think that's probably why the speech bubble is on there. I personally don't like the movement (or intentional) blur on the bottom of the image. It's a bit much for me. If it was intentional I do understand why you did it, but think it's just a bit too much.... However, I love the angle of the tower. (Lonnit, I know you asked for honest opinions on your stuff so if mine are annoying you please say something and I will be happy to stuff them. :) I'm not one of those BLOKES who likes to poke at people. hehehe
Rod
11-Nov-2005 08:52
Maybe a burn to accentuate the face as I didn't see it until Yvonne mentioned it.
Lonnit, what a "funny face" on this tower, very cute. I think I would like to see it with the words below as title and the photo alone. The expression on the building does the work. Yvonne
