=====
From rgow@lanset.com:
Some good stuff here, but more info in textfile is needed.  I'm not at all clear
on the mirrored spheres and the figure in the foreground.

=====
From maarten_hofman@hotmail.com:
I like the way the height shows in this picture, as well as the presence of the
statue and the cloths.

=====
From raytracing@grayproductions.net:
This is a gorgeous render, but I'm afraid I don't understand the use of the
mirrored spheres.  The textures are really terrific though.
=====
From tek@evilsuperbrain.com:
If you get rid of the figure in the foreground and those floating spheres this
image could look really realistic. Particularly notable for the hanging banners
and the lighting.


=====
From isaackulka@juno.com:
Stunning image, but how did you create it?

=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
Technically the background structures are great.  Very realistic and lots of
detail.  Then we come to the strange foreground objects, the statue and balls. 
These elements just don't fit with the rest of the image.  Maybe that is the
look you were after but  ....maybe if you had a source structure for the balls
that could have tied them into the backgroud better.
=====
From hildurka@simnet.is:
Here we have a great piece of architecture, lots of detailed modelling and
really great textures. You seem to be having some problems mapping the textures
correctly into the arches in the ceiling. The sunlight works well, the windows
look great, even if I_m unsure if there is any light coming in through them.
The figure also looks convincing. I feel this is a scene of strange
controversy, on the one hand you have great classical elements of good quality,
fitting directly into the topic, on the other hand, you seem to be inserting
sort of surreal elements like flying balls, this ghostly figure and this white
fabrik or whatever it is. I feel this very distorted camera view is not doing
any good. It somehow disturbs the harmony of the whole scene. Still, lot of
good details, great work on the church.

=====
From dajs100@york.ac.uk:
Wow. Some more info in the txt would have been nice...



=====
From chris_hormann@gmx.de:
Looks nice but the lack of description is a strong drawback. 

=====
From ralf@treuherz.de:
What is the explanation of the Bubbles ?
Otherwise, a great work.


=====
From r@215-241.opf.slu.cz:
Looks very nice, but some details are not enough good worked out.