=====
From digitalburn@totalise.co.uk:
nice idea
the rules don't say it has to look 3d, only that it has to be 'algorithmically
generated."

=====
From elvish_archer@mailcity.com:
I think this image is great for a farewell card

=====
From darwallace@earthlink.net:
Techically, this image is nothing but a series of painted planes... not much

=====
From pbourke@swin.edu.au:
Not too bad an idea but not what I'm looking for in a raytracing 
competition.

=====
From a.vannini@mclink.it:
SUPERB!!!

=====
From dvnss@mega.ist.utl.pt:
Very original, but is a bit waste of rendering capabilities

=====
From douge@nls.net:
Actually, I think this is one of the better entries this round.  I don't frown
on the use of image maps at all (besides, you made them yourself).  Everyone
seems stuck on the idea of doing everything within POV, and I don't see the
point of that... nice images like this one would never be made otherwise.

=====
From tony@j4tb.com:
I am familar w/ the poem one of my favs. A unique use of Pov-Ray. You are quite
an oil painter. 
=====
From gregj56590@aol.com:
Kudos for trying something different. I think from your description you scanned
in some paper which you had painted with oil. 
If you had had exactly the same effect here but made the colors with some kind
of algorithm, or even a paint program, I'd be a little bit more impressed for
THIS contest.
=====
From vereb@mines.u-nancy.fr:
It is nice, and it is original. Does it really matter that it is not exactly a
3D rendering?
=====
From bbowen@cswnet.com:
Not often someone shoots for originality in the technical arena. Way to go! I
can see accomplishing these exact effects in any 2D paint program supporting
layers though. Using POV might be overkill, but highly creative anyway.

=====
From alun.thomas@convergys.com:
Interesting idea. The final result works quite well.
Although its hard to shake the feeling that this isn't "really" ray-tracing.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
A brilliant idea, I really love it.
Maybe you could have done with some more tricks, like I don't know,
maybe a proper frame around the picture, and a pov generated one at
that.

=====
From StephenF@whoever.com:
Very interesting in both concept and execution.  I think 
it would be better if the text didn't cast shadows.

=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
It's definitely different... hard to vote on though.

=====
From sjlen@ndirect.co.uk:
This is a refreshing change.  It maybe could have done without the red text,
but the white at the bottom looks good and by itself is a good comentry. 
The red text just looks like your little brother's been writing on your
picture,
and spoiled it all.  Nice work.  

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
Hmmmm. When I first saw this, I thought it was brillant - somebody else had
tried to emulate the look of traditional artistic media, and succeeded
brilliantly... But then I read the text file and sadly saw that the technique
used is very close to breaking the spirit of the rules. High artistic score
from me - this is the sort of image I like to see - but technically this is
quite simple and I must penalise somewhere for using a rules loophole.

=====
From delfeld@mailcity.com:
Excellent image.  Great sense of motion.  One comment: there is a dichotomy
between the idea of "painted ship on a painted ocean" and the curl and active
idea of the wave you have in the image.  It is hard to tell if that is
intentional or not, but either way it is something that made me stop and ponder
it a bit.  Also, it's not really painted, is it?


=====
From file:
I would have preferred that the scene relied less on external image sources, and
contained more modeled elements.