=====
From rgow@lanset.com:
Oooh, that looks GOOD! Lighting is excellent! Grass looks a little strange but
everything else looks great.


=====
From leoszilard@yahoo.com:

Window shapes are good, the glass reflects a bit much, I think.  Grass looks a
bit flat, and the background image breaks up a little.  Otherwise, I fought the
same problems with my house, and I think wound up with the same problems. 
Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for how to ix any of these issues, since I
didn't know either.
=====
From klynn@telefish.net:
Nice lighting.
=====
From maarten_hofman@hotmail.com:
Pity the trees in the background aren't as crisp as those in the foreground.
Luckily the image just fit my screen, and it looks quite good that way... I
also like the intricate roof design.

=====
From raytracing@grayproductions.net:
The lighting is strictly superb.
=====
From tek@evilsuperbrain.com:
Great lighting, textures, and modelling. But the high up camera and choice of
backdrop make this look like a model house. If the background photo showed
things on a smaller scale (that tree is gigantic) and if the camera was placed
at eye-level above the ground this would look much more like a real house.

=====
From halebl@yahoo.com:

Great Work!
=====
From xilo_m@hotpop.com:


You're on the right track to make beautiful images, but unfortunately you don't
seem to have an artistic sense...  An artistic image would have movement, would
tell a story, have a past and a future...  and all this in a still image... 
When looking at your picture, I see a very nice render of a blue-print!  Try
working on the concept of you future IRTC submissions!
=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
I found this image stunning.  The line sort of pop out.  The textures (roof)
work well. The color scheme compliments the scene.  The lighting is superb! -
nice secondary shadows.  The modeling on the railing adds detail.  One little
nit picky thing:  the grass has no structure the eye picks that up in places
where the grass is up against the wall.  The other small detail is that the
stone is obviously a texture pasted on - the shadows just don't match (yes, I
know the work you would have to go to but that is the difference betwen good
and spectacular) - but still overall a good image.
=====
From hildurka@simnet.is:
127 lights! That is a lot of lights to position in one scene! How do you keep
track of all of them? How do you mange to control the shadows? Well, I don_t
know your renderer and there must be functions I_m not aware of, because your
scene looks good to me. Very realistic. The building with all details looks
almost photo-realistic apart from the light color on the walls, it seemes a
little "vaxlike". The shadows on the house walls add to this realism along with
a nicely arranged garden with trees and flowers. The only obvious weakness is
probably the trees on the background bitmap. These trees are completely out of
proportion with the rest of the scene especially the one to the right. Apart
from that I like this scene very much. Good work!
=====
From fergie_2002_@msn.com:

one thing spoils it is the slightly obvious blend between map and model
=====
From chris_hormann@gmx.de:
Good modelling of the house.  The uniform blur of the shadows looks 
quite strange at a lot of places.  The blur should normally increase with 
the distance from the object casting the shadow.  The background - apart
from the fact that you should have mentioned it is a photo it looks quite 
painted.

=====
From p_chan@shaw.ca:
The textures fit in fairly well, but do have a slightly 
artificial feel to them.  The only texture that really 
doesn't fit in is the grass, which seems more flat that 
"grasslike."  My guess is that the background is a 
separate picture used as an image map, and because it 
is blurred but the parts of the house in the distance are 
not, it seems out of place.  The level of detail in 
modelling the house is very good.


=====
From r@laurin.komtel.net:
very good Pic! 
Notable for composition, modelling


=====
From r@215-241.opf.slu.cz:
Very nice.