===== From luisvaloyes@malditasea.zzn.com: wonderful texture for the wings... ===== From BigTrav2001@chartermi.net: Excellent. The textures look great, and the models are plenty detailed. Nice work. ===== From StephenF@whoever.com: Really like the patterning and color on the butterfly. ===== From marlo.steed@home.com: Really nice image. Textures are great... like the depth of field look.... there is something there that doesn't quite fit form me.... hard to put my fingure on it. ===== From marcelocarvajal@ieee.org: It's obvious that you used the same texture for all the plants. The wing texture is pretty nice, but you should work harder in modeling. The low mark for concept is because you could have been more original and show more insects or a more complex scene. ===== From jhiggins@mooseworld.net: I like the painting on the leaves that make them look slightly damaged. ===== From lrwii@janics.com: Nice and balance. ===== From delfeld@mailcity.com: Good work with the textures. The butterfly seems malformed, however. It looks like the wings are on one side of its body. This is a generic note about realism: Realism is nice, but why is realism significant artistically? Is there any other way(s) to represent more accurately, or more beautifully, which are not realistic methods? ===== From file: Very nice textures, and the scene is not too 'full' nor too 'empty'. The lighting seems a bit wrong though - perhaps too much ambient light? Notable for textures, composition ===== From file: cool pic but you need some more work on the body if you used povray you probably wouldve gotten better results Notable for modelling ===== From file: cool pic but you need some more work on the body if you used povray you probably wouldve gotten better results Notable for modelling ===== From file: If I didn't know it was animation, I could have bet money it was real. Notable for composition ===== From file: If you haven't cheated and this is not a photo this is outstanding ===== From file: Notable for textures, modelling