=====
From sshaw@fas.harvard.edu:
Yes, the processing of the image after rendering makes for a nice picture. 
However, it is explicitly against the rules for the competition.  Though I
could interpret this image as some pre-historic scene, without any connection
being drawn for me in your description I have to assume that there is none.

=====
From sammy@cube.net:
Off-Topic, too much postprocessing.

=====
From Martin.Magnusson.7121@student.uu.se:
I'm not sure if the rules allow for this much post-processing, with grain and
all, but it *is* a striking image. The only thing that seems odd is the clouds,
they look dark like rain clouds, but rain clouds are usually a lot thicker,
aren't they? And actually, I don't think that the image speaks for itself.
Where is the history?



=====
From klynn@uswest.net:
I like the image; it captures that feeling of black & white photos taken with
old box cameras.  The comnbination of techniques used is very effective.
But...
It violates the post-processing rules of the competition.  Rule 1.c, 5.g.  Also,
some description of how you intend for the image to relate to the current topic
would be helpful.  Is it representative of historic photography?  Historic
boulders?

=====
From jull43@ij.net:
Afraid that it doesn't speak for itself. I do not see history in 
it at all. This is as you describe a grey scale (imaginary) 
landscape. While good the scoring is to keep it out of the 
ratings of images that have history involved. 





=====
From rguillard@claranet.fr:
Sorry but i'm not fooled ! Your image should not have been accepted because no
postprocessing is allowed ! Go back to fool other people with your pictures not
related in any to the topic which is history 1

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
Adding grain is illegal post processing, as it alters neighboring pixels
differently. Removing color _after_ rendering is complete is also considered
illegal. I cannot give any points for technical merit.
Also I don't find it immediately apparent what 'history' in this image, nice
though the image as such may be.

=====
From karl@pemail.net:
Nice picture, except that most of the effect was created using an art
package, not a raytracer

=====
From tlyons@gnn.com:

history???????
=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Well... a bit of post-procesing, but not very hard. Beatiful landscape...

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Fine, tasteful image.  But how does it relate to "History"?

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Very graphic as black and white photos can be. The 
relevance to 'History' is not quite clear so the image 
didn't speak for itself really.

=====
From 101741.541@compuserve.com:
"topicality" is on the edge...  I like the bw/grainy aspect 
very much,
but I must tell you that it's against the IRTC rules ("no 
postprocessing")

that said, I like that image very much...

=====
From lowellr@globaldialog.com:
> IMAGE DESCRIPTION: 

>    Speaks for itself

and it asks "What do I have to do with history?"

=====
From bobfranke@halcyon.com:
I agree, landscapes often look better in black and white.  
Artistically I really like this image but it seems a bit weak 
on concept.  It could be today or 2000 years ago.  I 
gave a severe reduction with the technical score.  
There are a couple major rule violations. This is a 
heavily post processed previous image.  Post processing 
is not allowed and the image must be created 
specifically for the competition.  The information on your 
web seems to indicate the pre-existence of this image. 
Please check out the rules of the competition before 
entering the next round.

=====
From skywise@fix.net:
Urgh, I really liked this image, but unfortunately felt obliged to take off some
points for post-processing and for being so off-topic... Still, 'twas a great
looking 
image...

=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
Sounds as though your editing is _just_ legal under the IRTC rules.  I don't
know if Bryce will let you do that as part of the rendering - other programs
can - but that would be more in keeping with the IRTC rules.


=====
From r@pluto.icom-solutions.com:
Looks just like a photo. The graininess really adds to the picture but probably
counts as illegal post processing.
Notable for textures, composition, lighting


=====
From r@dialup81-1-37.swipnet.se:
Notable for lighting