===== From sshaw@fas.harvard.edu: For the machinations that you had to go through with your people, were they worth it? The buildings look good (both well done and accurate), and perhaps time building up more of the city would have been good. What I have always found striking about the London fire is the amount of the city that burned, and that isn't really conveyed in this image of one street. ===== From jerry@hoboes.com: Perhaps its my 20th century mentality, but I think I'd like to see more destruction on the buildings! Really good job detailing them, though. ===== From jull43@ij.net: I read you description but I doubt I could have figured it out without your desciption. The central point, the fire, is the least obvious thing in the picture. ===== From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de: The sky and the streekt texture have way too high contrast. They look like, well, just like a sloppily done POV texture. The main illumination should come from the fires in a scene like this, but it does not. ===== From jaime@ctav.es: Nice image. The image shows a dissaster, but looks funny, cartoonish. ===== From gmccarter@hotmail.com: Nice authentic architecture. Ground looks awfully soupy. ===== From ethelm@bigfoot.com: Nice image. Good composition. The human figures, as usual in ray tracing, are the weakest points. The subject is certainly History without a doubt. ===== From 101741.541@compuserve.com: Fire should produce _light_, warm light. An appropriate lighting would bring thickness in the image. Good point of view. Try to respect wood veins direction...