>>1982154 lacked the red tint of >>1982150It was also too "regular".
The repetitive pattern of three stars in a row sticks out like a sore thumb.
Not the fault of the anon who did
>>1982154The same artificiality is obvious in the
>>1982150 original.
I cloned and then applied a random "scatter" filter to eliminate any possible pattern.
Apologies if the repetition was what attracted you in the first place.
