=====
From rgow@lanset.com:
Very moody. Good composition & I like the way the colors contrast. The
perspective plays some tricks with scale in a couple of spots, but nothing
serious.



=====
From maarten_hofman@hotmail.com:
Strange, but nicely detailed and functionally coloured.
=====
From tek@evilsuperbrain.com:
The amount of detail in this scene is impressive, and the lighting and shadows
are nice and add interest to the scene. But it's spoiled by some very flat
textures. There seems to only be 3 different colours in the scene, which makes
it look very unnatural and flat.

=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
The image itself doesn't appeal to me - not sure why.  I can tell you did a
suberb job of modeling lots of detail but somehow the image deemphasizes the
work you have done.  Not sure how to suggest improvements but maybe something
in the lighting although you clearly have paid attention to that as well. 
Perhaps grundge and dirt and a more dramatic camera angle.  I just took another
look I think it might be the monotous textures you used perhaps add more
variety to the the bump maps.
=====
From hildurka@simnet.is:
Lots of details, quite complicated scene. What I miss is probably some definite
point of interest. I find myself looking for something specific to look at in
this scene, but not succeding. Building dreams is good, but what is the dream
really about, what is the point of the dream? Good modelling skills. The
textures might have more variation, to create more depth in the scene. But
there is no doubt, this is a great composition of classical architectural
elements. Well done!

=====
From chris_hormann@gmx.de:
Very nice composition, well modelled.  The major problem is the lighting
and texturing, improving these could much improve the image.

=====
From p_chan@shaw.ca:
The level of detail is very good, especially given the 
fact that it's all hand coded.  The only improvement I 
can think of is to add some variation in colour for the 
individual stones.

=====
From intertek@one.net:

Man I LOVE that etching!!! I've loved it all my life! In fact, I thought =
about doing it too! Piranese's great gloomy spaces show doom and gloom =
but at the same time a fascination - even a love of it all. He's great. =
Your image doesn't have the same energy. You've got all the right stuff =
it's just you made it look flat and short and gray and - forgive me - =
dull. Maybe that's to harsh. It's really hard to get a spontaneous, =
fresh, exuberant image when it takes weeks of work. The sketchiness of =
the original gives it an atmosphere. Objects seem to dissolve in it. His =
use of light and dark areas is nothing short of jaw dropping. Look how =
the pier at left foreground is silhouetted and the block and tackle =
attached to it shoots up like a comet - you got it in yours but it =
doesn't do the same thing. Yours looks so still. Your pier is the same =
value as the rest of the image so it doesn't pop forward into the =
foreground as Piranese's does. We are like rats crawling though the bows =
of Pirenese's edifice (Actually, I think this is a sketch of a prison). =
It's dirty and smelly and way the hell up over our heads. Yours is more =
stately. We are not rats in yours. Yours is clean and nice smelling and =
we are standing back at a confortable distance observing the space. In =
practical terms you need to increase the viewing angle of your camera, =
drop it almost to the ground, pick up the contrast and do what ever you =
need to do to get same distribution of lights and darks. It's THOSE =
details that are missing in yours, not a chain or a window, it's the =
drama that's missing.

I hope so much that you continue to work on this one. It's a great idea =
and such a great topic. If you do, could you show me? Here's another =
site with some more of Piranese's work:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/marincazaou/regarts/piranese.html

http://piranesi.free.fr/carceri.htm

Piranese kicks butt



=====
From r@215-241.opf.slu.cz:
Good idea, but could be better modelling and more exact lighting.
Notable for composition