===== From digitalburn@totalise.co.uk: the glare is *good* but the flare is *bad* ===== From darwallace@earthlink.net: The sky is one of the few things that really needs an image map to look good. I'd try a MegaPOV isosurface for the mountain. ===== From pbourke@swin.edu.au: Looking good, a good attempt at geometric detail. The sand and water are VERY good. Not too keen on the "white" cliffs. ===== From dvnss@mega.ist.utl.pt: Nice and cartoonish Interesting Composition ===== From marlo.steed@uleth.ca: Nie water... but the beach didn't seem to match up with the rest of the image. ===== From tony@j4tb.com: A very good first time IRTC entry. Your water looks too solid I would add a little translucency to it. Your lighthouse light looks nice except it seems to dominate the picture. I would tone it down some so focus is brought back on the beach toys. ===== From bbowen@cswnet.com: I like the localized effect of the lighthouse on the surrounding sky. Maybe some small deep textured spheres on the cliff foliage to give it some depth. Also, maybe some crand or a granite bump to give the sand some 'granularity' nearer the camera. Very nice ===== From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com: The sea is strangely (too ?) reflective. The sand shore and objects in this dark scene look very good, even brightning the image still preserves them pretty well, not the sea or sky. ===== From StephenF@whoever.com: I like the way the lighthouse draws the viewer's eye away from the main scene. The beach and foreground objects are very nice. The water has a bit of a 'molded plastic' feel to it, and the sky could use some work. ===== From peter@table76.demon.co.uk: I can't think of much to say - perhaps an object in the water, a lost beachball or something, could give a better idea of the distance to the cliff? ===== From sjlen@ndirect.co.uk: A great image for a first entry, but that lens flare's too much.