I don't think that using filters in general should be avoided, even if you can identify it afterwards as not being painted. I'm pointing this out because I used to have (and propagade) a similar opinion, too, until I realized that filters can very well be used as a tool.

E.g., if something looks to smudgy, I often use a sharpen filter on some area, maybe fade it and clean up the edges. I could have done the same with a 1px-brush in ten times the time, but why should I? If I'm not interested in vivid colors, I'm using dodge/burn to lighten and darken areas. Why bother with painting those manually? As long as it helps in creating my idea of the image, any tool is right.

Concerning the lens flares, I agree with you. But that's nothing to do with the filter!

You use the sharpen filter for an area or the sharpen tool? If you are using the sharpen filter, thats fine as long as you dont over-do it, because it isn't immediately recognizable as a filter. What I mean is if I look at a picture and the first thing I notice is the filter that was used, that is bad. Also, I wasn't aware of the burn and dodge filters, just the tools, but again if there are filters for those, it isn't immediately recognizable as a filter.

Nah, I'm referring to the dodge and burn brushes; but they are often depreciated, just like the filters, because you tend to create flat and boring highlights/shadows without any hue changes if you're just using these tools to do the lightning.

But just like the filters: Imo you should not abondon them completely because of that. Sometimes the effect you get is just right and what you wanted, and it's much faster than painting things manually.

I have no problem with dodge and burn tools. The main thing I have against (some) filters is the same thing I have against clipart, poser figures, or bryce 3d landscapes. Unoriginality.

I disagree in general, regarding unoriginality in the reuse of images. But, okay. Thanks for the comments.

I can't avoid adding one point to this long conversation. The primary goal of the quilts is to make a continuous seamless image. In order to do this there must be at least some degree of stylistic continuity between tiles. There are many styles of computer art out there that are just fine. However, here (and it seems with iCE in general) the prefered style is overwhelmingly painterly; I mean the artists simulate traditional materials as opposed to a distinctly digital look using primarily filters. Check out the main quilts and especially the invite only quilts. Notice that on them it is not obvious that anyone used filters; quite possibly, none of the artists used filters. Also note that all the artwork on the quilts made by experienced tilers appear to be original images.

In short, the issue isn't what is a viable way to create art but what will properly blend with the other tiles.