=====
From chris@bluelectrode.com:
Great image...even though I did see this image on your site four months ago. 
Aren't you supposed to use recent work.

Still, a beautiful image.

=====
From clintona@ibm.net:
Simple, yet very elegant and beautiful.  A very convincing render.
=====
From trioker@wanadoo.fr:
Very Cute, though I think  the center part of the flower looks a little bit too
metallic.


=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
stunningly elegant, a idealized photo

=====
From YaelParis@operamail.com:
I especially love the texture of the petals (those used for leafs are good too).
The focal blur is well used. The modelling is rather simple but the subject
don't allow more... 


=====
From whhale@nvl.army.mil:
Looks so real I thought you had scanned a photo and mapped it to a block.  Not
too shabby.

=====
From eallen@highway1.com:
Nice final image. I would have scored you higher if you hadn't used so many
image maps for textures and background.

=====
From emediez@emediez.com:
Awesome image, and excellent textures too. From now on, I will keep an eye on my
St Augustine remnants. :-) Congratulations.



=====
From tom@tomandlu.force9.co.uk:
Beautifully done - would have scored more, but the concept was fairly
straight-forward.

=====
From CHRIS_DARCY@YAHOO.COM:
This is what it is all about.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
It does look real alright, but there seems to be so much taken from
photography,
that ther is very seldom any work left for a renderer to work on.
This picture is almost of photographic quality but the main reason is probably
the textures borrowed from the real world + the backdrop, I personnaly call
that
cheating.
It's a nice picture though, so well done to you.

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Very great looking. Only at a second look I can notice the fixed blur, it
seems "real" at first impression. Very good modelling.

=====
From wozzeck@club-internet.fr:
Magnificent attempt... but several things could be improved.
There are many artifacts on the petals which look a bit bumpy.
The other point is that this photorealistic picture does not look at all like a
macrophotography picture. In this very case, you usually need a lot of flash
light to compensate the narrow aperture needed to get some depth of field and
the resulting excessive exposure time. This implies an underexposition of the
background which should be darker then the rest.
Nice picture anyway.

=====
From albiaprime@aol.com:
Technical - Very Good!
Artistic - Good use of a lot of scanned material, nicely done.
Theme - a single flower in the grass unfortunately is NOT a garden

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
This is a very nice image. The detail in the modelling and texturing of the
flower
and blades of grass is evident and it's been put together beautifully, with
just
the right focal blurring. The only complaint I have is the big empty white area
in
the top left background - seeing *something* there, blurred beyond recognition
of
course, would help the realism. Nevertheless, a fine image.


=====
From file:
I have never really liked RDS but this image impresses me.  It is unfortunate
that the gausean blur you used spoiled the illusion of reality here.  The blur
shadow around some of the grass leaves is the only real thing I see here thats
wrong.  The textures are dead nuts on. (Ex-Floridean here)
Notable for textures, lighting, modelling, composition