=====
From uwezi@geocities.com:
The clouds need work... especially in the upper right part

=====
From scarmig@ohmss.com:
Very well done!  I like the lighting and camera angles!

=====
From thedewitts@earthlink.net:
Nicely done, but too generic to be a landmark?

=====
From archangel@wxs.nl:
Really beautifull.. the only thing is the grass.. maybe you could have made a
heightfield or something like that, now it's really very flat... But it looks
fine anyway...

=====
From tglover@nettally.com:
Nice lighting and composition - very nice art.  Good use of lightinh to
minimize need for minute details -- this looks very good.

One suggestion -- the three potted plants in the foreground appear to be
exact duplicates of each other -- a slight rotation/scaling will make them
look different from each other, and still be allowed in groupings.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
Nice.
The sky would need more work I think (hard, I know).

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Good lighting.  How did you make the trees in the background?

=====
From clem@dhol.com:
The modelling is quite good, but the image is much too 
dark and gloomy to show the building to advantage.  This 
may be an attempt at adding atmosphere, but it didn't work 
out.  The plants look pretty good, but once again the poor 
choice of lighting and time of day reduces them to 
silhouettes.

=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
Maybe a figure partly-hidden behind one of the columns would show the size of
the building better.  I like this picture.


=====
From file:
Notable for composition, lighting, textures