# How to get these airy bright photos?



## photogirl1 (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months

I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?


----------



## CarolynB28 (Jul 11, 2014)

It's all about the lighting! Looks like natural morning light coming through the windows  Also they tend to use a high key sort of style using mostly light colored scenes and almost overexposed (but not quite). Hope this helps!


----------



## Proulxski (Jul 11, 2014)

^This

All about the lighting. Also, there is a good chance that some of it is 'bumped up' in post processing.


----------



## photogirl1 (Jul 11, 2014)

Thanks guys! I've been trying to do that too...wondering what do you mean by "bumped up" in post processing, specifically? I've tried to play with contrast and exposure on the computer, but it can be difficult to maintain the definition and sharpness of the images by doing such. :/ For example, in this image: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2921/14587849232_152c4b123d_o.jpg I haven't been able to get the text to to show up well in that kind of image. Do you think she adds opaque layers or any special filters afterwards?


----------



## CarolynB28 (Jul 11, 2014)

Maybe shadows/highlights, whites, and curves.


----------



## Proulxski (Jul 11, 2014)

I wish I could write a definitive answer for you. But I myself, am learning. I also don't play around to much in photoshop/lightroom, minus some minor adjustments here and there. But just like there are a thousand different ways to photography the same thing, there is a thousand different ways of editing things going into the post processing phase!

If you're not already, shoot in RAW. You will have more versatility with your edits. I wish you luck, and if you do figure out the sweet spot, be sure to share it here


----------



## photogirl1 (Jul 11, 2014)

Thank you so much! I will keep practicing and will definitely let you know if I learn any tricks!


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Look in to curves adjustments in your photo editing software. Lift up the middle part of the curve. Possibly push the bottom part down slightly to preserve the darkest tones.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

Something tells me the photographer accidentally set the camera to EV+2.0 and just went with it.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 11, 2014)

meh....
not seeing any real "high key" here.
all im seeing is a lot of overexposure and blown highlights. 
she has lost all detail on everything white in every image.
good focus on most, composition is kinda iffy on a lot of them, poor exposure control on almost all of them. 
maybe it was done in camera, or maybe she just jacked the highlight slider all the way up in post... i have no idea, but to _*me*_ it screams "i just want bright pictures, and to hell with highlights and color". 

if  you want to replicate that, (for some strange reason) you can set  your exposure compenstation to +2 or so, and/or you can adjust the exposure and highlights with an editing program. Fast lenses that let in more light will help as well.


----------



## sscarmack (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm going with Braineack here. Just overexpose your images.


----------



## Igtocru (Jul 11, 2014)

Be careful when you take a high key photo because you can overexpose it and lose information. Better you take it in RAW and use the post process to high the lights. It's my opinion.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

Igtocru said:


> Be careful when you take a high key photo because you can overexpose it and lose information.



case and point: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 11, 2014)

With all due respect, it's like you people can't see.

The darkest tones are placed normally. This indicates that the exposure is more or less OK, dynamic range considerations aside. The midtones are gone, hence my curves suggestion.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 11, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> With all due respect, it's like you people can't see.
> 
> The darkest tones are placed normally. This indicates that the exposure is more or less OK, dynamic range considerations aside. The midtones are gone, hence my curves suggestion.



nobody said your curves suggestion wouldn't work.


----------



## Theo2 (Jul 11, 2014)

Paris is not about shoes and clothing... Paris is about food! And butter!


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 11, 2014)

Let me jump on the minority bandwagon... Wait, there isn't one. My opinion evidently differs with all except for maybe photoguy. Carin, perhaps obviously only to me, is a seasoned professional with her own signature style. Her work is imaginative, appropriate to the situation, and in vogue in the geographical area that she lives and works.

Others have answered the OP's technical questions. What I may add, photogirl, is that you will not achieve these results with a software fix. Look at Carin's total website. She is very talented, creative, intelligent in her communication skills, and did not learn any of this on a photography forum. The fact that you are asking your question on this thread could be the beginning of a learning process. Just don't expect the answers today.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Yeah, my point I'd that simply overexposing will not work.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> With all due respect, it's like you people can't see.
> 
> The darkest tones are placed normally. This indicates that the exposure is more or less OK, dynamic range considerations aside. The midtones are gone, hence my curves suggestion.



No you're probably right.  I my suggestion wasn't serious and was making an aggro "attack" on the photos.

honestly, like every other good photographer out there, she probably just runs the entire set through a free LR plug-in she downloaded and doesn't ever think twice.  It looks like the whites get clipped and the mids are bumped, and yes, probably with curves.

similar results:





her photos are hard to look at.  literally, like its hurting my eyes to look at most the shots.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 11, 2014)

Basically the OP will have to experiment with various techniques as in some photos it was with a backdrop which was blown out(single person), or not (shoes) ... and the variations go on and on.  Each photo had specific techniques but definitely alot of lost detail of the few I looked at briefly.


----------



## photogirl1 (Jul 11, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> Let me jump on the minority bandwagon... Wait, there isn't one. My opinion evidently differs with all except for maybe photoguy. Carin, perhaps obviously only to me, is a seasoned professional with her own signature style. Her work is imaginative, appropriate to the situation, and in vogue in the geographical area that she lives and works.
> 
> Others have answered the OP's technical questions. What I may add, photogirl, is that you will not achieve these results with a software fix. Look at Carin's total website. She is very talented, creative, intelligent in her communication skills, and did not learn any of this on a photography forum. The fact that you are asking your question on this thread could be the beginning of a learning process. Just don't expect the answers today.



Thank you very much! I agree that I have a lot to learn and the direction you guys have pointed in has helped me a lot. I'm not a photographer like Carin, nor do I plan to be as good as her overnight, but since I do run a blog that requires visuals, it's nice to learn little things here and there that can help my photos. I use Carin as an example because her style is similar to my own and I only wish to express that style not just through my blog design and writing as I already have, but also through the photos I post. You're the only one who has understood why she does what she does and why her photos are so "overexposed" as everyone keeps saying. It's part of a theme and story line she's created and I have to say that most of her blog followers adore her photography the way it is. 

And thank you photoguy for the curves suggestions, I've been trying it out and it's great!


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

:taped sh:


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 11, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Something tells me the photographer accidentally set the camera to EV+2.0 and just went with it.


LOL. When I saw the pictures that was my thought or either it was crazy bright and he had a slow shutter speed. I felt my eyes squinting. Guess this is some peoples thing though.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 11, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> With all due respect, it's like you people can't see.
> 
> The darkest tones are placed normally. This indicates that the exposure is more or less OK, dynamic range considerations aside. The midtones are gone, hence my curves suggestion.


I can't see because it's so bright. :Joker:


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Your monitors may be set too bright. Consider switching from arc light driven to more modern LCD panels for better color fidelity.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Your monitors may be set too bright. Consider switching from arc light driven to more modern LCD panels for better color fidelity.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 11, 2014)

ohhhhh it was actually a picture of a pair of boxers on a white bed sheet!



:crazy:


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 11, 2014)

Braineack said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Your monitors may be set too bright. Consider switching from arc light driven to more modern LCD panels for better color fidelity.
> ...


thanks for the good laughs man.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 11, 2014)

photogirl1 said:


> I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months  I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?



What you are seeing is diffused lighting either through a white translucent curtain or from a strobe with a large rectangular soft box. I'm not so sure about the house. Unless your original image has even lighting it's hard to replicate in post.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 11, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Your monitors may be set too bright. Consider switching from arc light driven to more modern LCD panels for better color fidelity.



28" calibrated IPS monitor here.


----------



## Mashburn (Jul 11, 2014)

not meaning to derail the thread. but does anyone have a good link or program to calibrate the monitor?


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 11, 2014)

Mashburn said:


> not meaning to derail the thread. but does anyone have a good link or program to calibrate the monitor?



If you have a Mac there's a software in it to do that. However calibration is only as good as if your ambient lighting remains the same.


----------



## CarolynB28 (Jul 12, 2014)

I use Spyder4Pro, it really makes a huge difference to calibrate your screen!


----------



## hombredelmar (Jul 13, 2014)

Her pictures are lovely, she uses Canon 5d Mark III , about 3 prime lenses and post processing.


----------



## sscarmack (Jul 13, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > not meaning to derail the thread. but does anyone have a good link or program to calibrate the monitor?
> ...



I have a mac and never have used this....Any more info?


----------



## hombredelmar (Jul 13, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> photogirl1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?
> ...



It is interesting you mentioned a soft box, that is the impression I got from seeing many product and close ups, she has nice even light so in addition to her post processing she is using light boxes even though on her site she mentioned that she is using canon mark 3 and about 3 prime lenses 
I actually love her style, compositions and of cause her lighting


----------



## hombredelmar (Jul 13, 2014)

It is interesting you mentioned a soft box, that is the impression I got from seeing many product and close ups, she has nice even light so in addition to her post processing she is using light boxes even though on her site she mentioned that she is using canon mark 3 and about 3 prime lenses 
I actually love her style, compositions and of cause her lighting


----------



## Braineack (Jul 13, 2014)

She's also _very smart_ about shooting white things, or things against white.  Notice that all her pictures are primarily white, that includes the subjects and backgrounds.

I was able to mimic the style in a few of my shots.  It really only worked in pictures on a white backdrop or with white lights/sky.


example - 


her's - 



mine - 

Not the greatest shot by me, but the first that came to mind of colors on white.


again- 

her's:



and my bad shot:





Applying the same technique to another more typical shot:

Here's her's:



and my very similar shot edited to her "style"

 

This is nothing like how I'd edit my photo, but I think I was able to mimic it pretty well.


I'd edit her's more like this:



another -

before: 



after, doing the same curves adjustment above, and also recovering highlights:




She definitely has go-to presets she uses.  Probably starts with the basic curve and then will go from there, looks like a lot will "matte" the blacks as well.

 I think she has a lot of stellar shots that are ruined form her one-click button edits.


----------



## Proulxski (Jul 13, 2014)

While I still don't have a defenitive answer, I do believe there is more to this than just over-exposed image, and post processing. Many of the more knowledgable photographers have shed their insight.

I would not be suprised, if soft boxes, or some sort of external light is being used. If it was over exposed, it would look overly washed out. Yes, this artists style is to wash things out, but it is done in such a soft manner.

Playing with the curves, whites and blacks in post processing, will also help. And I'm sure she has it down to a T by this point.

I personally enjoyed her photos, it's not my thing, but that doesn't make them bad!


----------



## Braineack (Jul 14, 2014)

She's probably using flash in _some_ of her staged photos, but not the majority on her blog.  She looks to only may be using flash in the staged shots that introduce a new blog entry. 

and she's not really over exposing the images--that was a joke--she's taking a picture and clicking a button in LR.

I just demonstrated how to get the same look, I could even make it a LR preset for you that would be a pretty damn close starting-off point.  It's mainly in the curves, with a bit of highlights/whites/shadow slider to fine tune.  That's really about it. 

It was easy to "fix" her photos by simply inverting the curves as I showed.

But also as I mentioned, she's very careful about what she's taking pictures of--lots of back lighting, lots of natural light, lots of white subjects, lots of black subjects on white, lots of white walls, lots of white flowers, white curtains, white buildings, white gravel, white table cloths, etc.

If you look at her first few pictures, she's inside her hotel room taking pictures of shoes.  she placed them near a window for light--there's no flash involved.  Zoom in on the pictures, you can see her holding the camera above the shoes and you can see how close in proximity they are to the window as the light source.  She exposes for the subject and that in itself already throws the surrounding white bg/wall very bright.  she then amps up the whites in post.

In the shots that don't have a lot of white, like the greenery shots, she looks to use a subtle matte/vintage color-toned LR preset.


But man, if I was the new creative director for Dior responsible for draping all those millions of flowers at the Dior fashion shows, and then i saw this girl completely wash them out in all her pictures, i'd be more than annoyed.


----------



## hombredelmar (Jul 14, 2014)

I dont care what people say but she is great. Her pictures are simple and even though some of the pictures are washed out they still look like pictures from reputable magazine. She definitely has her own style that is hard to replicate. I absolutely love the fact that she does not saturate the pictures with color and is confident with her blown out skies.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 14, 2014)

sscarmack said:


> I have a mac and never have used this....Any more info?



It's under System Preference > Display > Color > Calibrate


----------



## limr (Jul 14, 2014)

I think her pictures are nice, but honestly, they're not really distinctive. It seems very very familiar to me. The folks who are commenting in this thread are probably not reading Vogue or In Style, but a flip through any fashion mag of substance (I'm not talking Cosmo or anything) will show that this kind of processing is fairly common. You'll see it a lot in design magazines as well, and it's also showing up in magazines like Food and Wine.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jul 14, 2014)

limr said:


> I think her pictures are nice, but honestly, they're not really distinctive. It seems very very familiar to me. The folks who are commenting in this thread are probably not reading Vogue or In Style, but a flip through any fashion mag of substance (I'm not talking Cosmo or anything) will show that this kind of processing is fairly common. You'll see it a lot in design magazines as well, and it's also showing up in magazines like Food and Wine.



I remember this style being around even before digital photography.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

photogirl1 said:


> I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months
> 
> I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?



Expose normally, then in software raise the exposure a good deal, then use either the curves tool to blow out at least the very highest highlights, or nearly blow them. Or use the curves tool to make the highlights very,very bright.

These are not over-exposed in-camera, these are fairly good, but normal exposures, but she's making SURE that the higher tonal values are pushed verrrrrrrrry far to the right.

There are a number of Lightroom pre-sets that can accomplish this. Exactly how the brightening is done depends on your software: for example, on older versions of Lighreoom, in the Recovery slider, you would use MINUS recovery, to make the highlights wayyy too bright, as opposed to using it to recover blown highlight detail. The curves tool is probably going to be the easiest for most people to use, along with the exposure slider.

This is sort of *a post-processing stage high-key effect used as a bludgeon*...she just keeps HAMMERING away, frame after frame after blown frame with detail-free highlights, almost as if she's just become enamored of this effect rather recently. After about the tenth shot, it grew a bit tedious to me. 

But that's kind of what happens these days when it's so so easy to ONE-CLICK or batch process huge batches of images using ACR or Lightroom or whatever...we become accustomed to a "look", and normalcy takes a vacation, and rather tedious and outlandish "normal" looks starts to be considered to be "okay" or even good. Again, this is I think, because our minds and brains can adapt rather easily AND, this is the big thing, we now have the ability to process an image and then BATCH process or "paste settings" en mass, and *since the batch processing approach took hold, we've seen more and more people who start relying on a go-to look or a go-to preset* quite repeatedly. 

The thing is, if you have much of a visual sense of style, seeing scenes that are in NO WAY high-key subject matter being "Paste Settings" processed looks rather newbish and trite. As Braineack mentioned without maybe being fully aware of exactly WHY, you cannot take dark-toned objects and scenes and slap on a "high key pre-set" or crank the top end of the curves skyward, and not have it end up looking like crap. It's like a singer singing wayyyyy out of key. But hey...we have Autotune these days!


----------



## limr (Jul 14, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I think her pictures are nice, but honestly, they're not really distinctive. It seems very very familiar to me. The folks who are commenting in this thread are probably not reading Vogue or In Style, but a flip through any fashion mag of substance (I'm not talking Cosmo or anything) will show that this kind of processing is fairly common. You'll see it a lot in design magazines as well, and it's also showing up in magazines like Food and Wine.
> ...



Yeah, it's not really a new style.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

limr said:


> Vince.1551 said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Indeed, this is not a new style of working. But the way the actual results look **is new** compared to what we've seen for the prior 140 years. The HUGE, and major differene is the way high key and bright imags are rendered on FILM as opposed to the way digital sensors render highlight and bright tones. When done with B&W negative film, or color negative film, the highlights have a glorious, delicious transition from the upper mid-tones and into the highlights, all through the highlight value range, and even the just-below-paper-white highlights can show some differentiation of close tonal or color values. With almost all digital sensors, there is a sudden, abrupt, UGLY transition to the brightest tones, and then there is a lot of nothingness...like the huge wall of orchids...that looks like crap on digital. It might have looked fabulous if it had been shot on a color negative film stock. 

The exceptions to the abrupt, ugly highlight cut-off were from the Fuji S3 and S5 cameras with their special "dual-pixel design" sensor technology invented and made by FujiFilm, with their separate, small, hard-to-saturate "S-pixel" wells that ONLY register very bright tones).

Yes, light, bright, airy images have been around a long,long time, and when shot on FILM, like B&W neg or color negative, they can look fabulous. Even on color transparency film, there is still a very nice,long "shoulder area" which makes these kinds of pictures look very beautiful. In the digital era, the look is not very pretty, compared to the way it can be accomplished using film. I really LOVE delicate, high-key work done by somebody who knows the best way to do it--on film or with a Fuji S3 or S5. This isn't it, but it's the kind of stuff we're seeing now that most people are shooting digitally. I "get where" she's headed, but I've seen this done better before, many,many times. This is exactly the kind of work that looks pretty harsh when shot on digital. The lure is the smooooth, gradual transition from the light tones to the very brightest tones to the paper-white (255) values...this stuff  is just "clipped". A lot. Over big areas. It's not the ideal way, or even a good way, to render this kind of a look. But it does command attention. It gets noticed.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

photogirl1 said:


> I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months
> 
> I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?



Buy yourself a used FujiFilm S5 Pro digital SLR camera. Not kidding. I just took mine out of storage after five years...I am anxious to use it more for high-key, really BRIGHT, airy looks.


----------



## limr (Jul 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Vince.1551 said:
> ...



I was hoping you'd weigh in on this. I knew this was the kind of thing that film generally does better, but you explain the reasons a lot better than I can  Interesting about the Fuji digital system, too.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 14, 2014)

I looked it up, interesting indeed.


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Vince.1551 said:
> ...


I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info. I used to shoot bridal portraits in the 80s and early 90s with a Mamiya 645 and a filter holder with different clear and white filters with the center cut out. VPS 100 I think. Very in demand back then. Nevertheless, high key has never been my style. I do love the femininity that she brings to this style and she seems to have found a niche for her work.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

Here's an example of the way the Fuji S5 Pro can hold the highlights while still holding some shadow detail...and this is at a less-than-optimal ISO of 320. This was the very first day I took this five-year-old, stored camera out of my equipment closet and tried it out. I'm NOT used to seeing the sun rendered as a round object like this on a digital capture...this is with only 300% extended Dynamic Range setting dialed into the camera's menu...it goes up to 400%!







[    DSCF0152_Fuji S5 Pro.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]






[   DSCF0156_Fuji S5 Pro.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]


----------



## Braineack (Jul 14, 2014)

and an f-mount... interesting.


----------



## korreman (Jul 14, 2014)

Sorry for brawling in to the discussion after it's dead. You're all missing the colors and the temperature. 
Aside from the high key or increased mids (choose whichever), she modifies the temperature to exaggerate pinkish/orangish colors. Most of her photos contain pastel reds and warmer temperatures. Notice how she mainly photographs things that are black or yellow to red, with white backgrounds. And when greens and blues show up, they're quite suppressed, as not to pop out. The greys are also a bit orange or pink in general. She shows some skill in her awareness of color, and increasing the mids definitely has a purpose for the dreamy, white, pinkish effect she's trying to achieve. Her white background compliments this as well. The brightness is just overdone.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

Some of the stuff is just tedious...as I wrote earlier, she's using this fake high-key as a bludgeon. Over and over and over. We get it. Apparently she's enamored of it. The way early HDR and extreme tone-mapping people were utterly fascinated by their creations in Photomatix.
14342015451_25b7c24921_o.jpg
14342015161_cd669c8c3a_o.jpg
14412554814_97fd486b78_o.jpg
14258821570_3024108373_o.jpg
14079013939_59cee162a4_o.jpg
14190564094_88359ce612_o.jpg
13888736700_52636587ff_o.jpg
13901041708_d2174b0749_o.jpg
13930343302_e089e5e2f7_o.jpg
13953896914_a3cdc1fe6f_o.jpg
13953489913_f4d52fc2e2_o.jpg
13930334862_24bbee1f51_o.jpg
13953499603_9dd2d7292a_o.jpg


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 15, 2014)

A rose by any other name is still a rose and overexposed by any other name is still just overexposed.


----------



## korreman (Jul 16, 2014)

Not saying they're good photos because of the colors, just pointing out a factor that plays into the "airy bright" feel that the original poster was asking for. If one tried to achieve something similar with a less overdone brightness/high mids, the colors would be pretty essential to getting that feel.


----------



## AimeeLynC (Jul 24, 2014)

I remember "way back when" I used automatic instead of manual exposure all my photos looked like that... mmmmm :er:


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 24, 2014)

Tried my hand on these flowers growing through my pool fence. From my chaise.





[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## bp4life71 (Jul 24, 2014)

photogirl1 said:


> I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months
> 
> I've been playing with the exposure on my camera and get pretty bright photos through that, but not as bright as I'd like them to be like that photographer's photos. Any photo editing suggestions?



My first impression when looking at those photos was.....WHY?  They look like crap.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 31, 2014)

bp4life71 said:


> photogirl1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying imitate the effect achieved in the photos found on this site: Paris in Four Months |Paris in Four Months
> ...



 Her photos aren't bad. I much prefer it to the current HDR trend


----------



## greybeard (Aug 2, 2014)

expose for the shadows and let the whites blow out.  That is what I see in these photographs.


----------



## Tiller (Aug 2, 2014)

Sometimes its the imperfections that make a shot distinctive. As long as her style is consistent, I think they're perfectly ok.

I also think its a style that works because of what she's trying to portray. France, fun, summer, etc. If she was covering the Ukrainian crisis, I don't think it would be as effective.

As it is, I like them. But like limr said, I have seen the same style before. Her's isn't groundbreaking, but I don't think it's meant to be, and I enjoy them for what they are.


----------

