=====
From darwallace@earthlink.net:
Just add a really bright light ( or a cluster of lesser ones ) far above the
water and use very low absorption.  An interior ior might help as well.
=====
From pbourke@swin.edu.au:
Not bad gloom but I didn't like the submarine....too perfect and
what's with the large name? Comment by the author regarding the
light source will taken.

=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
Nice concept... needed more realism.

=====
From bbowen@cswnet.com:
I wholeheartedly agree with assesment #2.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
What about scattering and/or absorbing media with different colour
components ?

=====
From jrcsurvey@aol.com:
It's a nicely modelled shark but wrong for this picture and its somber inten=
t.  Would have left out the fish and spotlight also.

=====
From StephenF@whoever.com:
The fish look good here, as does the sandy seabed.  
The submarine looks decent, but most of the details are 
in the shadowed part and do not show up well, and 
overall it looks rather flat and one-dimensional.  Not a 
bad scene overall, though.

=====
From sjlen@ndirect.co.uk:
Great image, you've managed to get a sence of lonelyness in there some how, 
maybe helped by the colour of the sea and if you made it more blue it might
lose this remote feeling.  The underwater atmosphere as it is is possibly the
best in the competition, I'm fed up of typing "but sea water has bits in it",
you've included the bits but I've typed it anyway (no rest for the wickid:-).  

=====
From delfeld@mailcity.com:
I wouldn't color the water for realism's sake, as you mentioned in your text
file.  Water _is_ black at the sea floor.  You are one of the few people who
have it right (and it was by accident)!  Assumptions about the light source can
be left unsaid, since it is obviously a placed light, and not an area light as
from the sun.  
There does seem to be one question I can think of. . . the composition is
weighted to the left - very strongly - with the sharp contrast of the light and
fish.  Why?