>>4079
>You were just moving on aimlessly with it.
basically that.Again, I could make the explanation in a retrospective analysis of what adjustment I had modified the most between pictures but that´s a task which anyone can figure out from the eye itself.

>I thought you may have been aiming for something like that a little bit.
not even close, I only wanted to get rid of so much blue from the picture and get more dynamic by using the tone and the contrast. There were a little bit of a couple of effects in between and it escalated to a different variety of colors that didn´t go all that extreme. Now, that cost me to try literally everything just to guess what I wanted to do. It´s like shooting blind at random targets. Maybe I wanted to go further because it would be too predictable to deliver the same all the time.

By the way, that´s quite possibly the best take I have seen with the emboss filter in which it doesn´t get too weird or collapses the picture with the effect in its entirety. Also, I must say that Candy looks like she has come from an 80s (maybe early 90s graphics?) game in this case. The thumbnail at least makes her look like a sprite.

>>4080
>Though the original is a bit too dark I see it as tranquil. The edit feels more like a departure than an improvement, with several different contexts depending on the mood. From happy to actually a little creepy.
ufff that´s up to a personal interpretation from the viewer. You are onto something. While I am editing it especially when I do it aimlessly, sometimes I simply don´t focus so much on the meaning but on the visual aspects. In retrospective, after a certain undefined period, the user gets to see the meaning of it without being so biased.