> I prefer the corrected but blatantly satanic blue sky version. Greg I think I've made a mistake in messing about with other people's images. It was supposed to be by way of illustration - "a picture is worth a thousand..." and all that - but in a way it's treading on someone else's toes. Jim put his shot in the gallery because that's how HE liked it and ATEOTD it's his shot. Emily likes the hazy blacks-free look of her images. Steve no doubt likes the blown out highlights on his peppers. I'd thought about doing a review of the whole gallery but thinking about it ... well I could say WOW to Pini's shot (I really liked that). I could comment that I was drawn to something in Jeff's without understanding what it was. But the lesson is also - if the author has placed the shots there as they want them to be viewed what business is it of anyone else to tell them how they should have been done? I was tempted (as Vlad's insistence) to clone in a fluffy little dog onto Jeff's shot (to soften the harshness) but I think that would be missing the point ... Barnet
