> Why is a paintbrush the first tool to try when we are talking about > photographs not painting here? Are you one of those photo purists that > cannot stand a photo being turned into something other then a photograph? > Not being defensive just trying to understand your perspective... Oh dear I thought I had been blunt enough. Here goes. 1) I thought the treatment presented LOOKED crap. That's where the message ends. Why does it look crap? The "painterly effect" filters just don't work for me, period. They look artificial, probably because they are automatic, that is they carry no artistic flair. 2) A real paintbrush in the hands of a real artist produces a totally different result for sure. But I am talking about photography, specifically about painting OVER a photograph. That does not need a real artist, but the level of skill/eye in all of us. The result is no longer predictable and automatic but has some of the "soul" of the author in it. Furthermore, and more importantly, the result would no longer look machine made and visually predictable. "Are you one of those photo purists that cannot stand a photo being turned into something other then a photograph" Possibly, but I prefer photos to be turned into something better. Merely applying a filter is not creativity. Bob
