=====
From cyber.mage@mailexcite.com:
No high vote without the info. Creative title! 8)

=====
From castlewrks@aol.com:
How did you do the man?

=====
From agage@mines.edu:
A few comments about the image.  First, since there was no text description
of what I'm looking at, I can't give much for points since I have no idea how
this was done or what it contributes to the competition or raytracing in
general.  Next, the lighting and modeling on the interior of the building
are superb, and the person is well done.  Some actual texture or normal
perturbation on the grass would have helped, as would some actual detail to
the sky.  It would also have helped if the light sources outside were visible,
like having small lights sticking out of the grass.

I would have rated this image very favorably had I only known more about it.

=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
The centre of the building and the man look great, but the walls are a bit
undetailed.
Still - good-looking.



=====
From jjanger@mail.cspp.edu:
   Good work on the lighting.

=====
From dormammu@erols.com:
not bad, but I'd reccomend you put at least some descriptive info into your
txt file, because most judges would probably deduct some points for no real txt
file.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
We have pondered over this image for some time. Either the program the image was
created in is exceptionally good or the submitter of this image is being very
naughty. As we can not decide because of the lack of text file with a
description of how the image was made we have given the benefit of the doubt,
and given 10 for tech points.
If we have done this image an injustice by doing so, perhaps the submitter of
the image, will spare a thought for the voters in the future and submit a
proper text file so we have the information needed to make a decision on the
technical quality.

=====
From djconnel@flash.net:
These images don't have much to do with night.  The buildings
are well modelled, but really stess architecture, not the subject.
Also, the multiplicity of your submissions are clearly not
a good idea.

Note by not including any description of how the image was generated
is quite a bad idea, as voters are likely to assume the models are
not original work for this contest.



=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
I like all three of your images, but why no descriptions in the text files?


=====
From r@207.232.193.166:
VERY realistic.  Had to take you forever.  (I feel sorry for that guy going to
work so late!)
Notable for lighting, composition, textures, modelling


=====
From r@client836b.globalnet.co.uk:
Notable for modelling


=====
From r@dial-up30.webbernet.net:
Off topic.  Not a bad building.  Not enough information to judge the image. 
This comment by clem@dhol.com.