===== From chipr@niestu.com: Gorgeous, intricate image. Banding on stonework is a bit too contrasty for a church, IMHO. Patterns on windows are a bit too small--detail is lost. ===== From sroberts@learn.senecac.on.ca: WOW. Very cool. 20-20-20 ===== From seppo.halonen@hut.fi: More to the architecture.. And the lightning is too bright. Looks like the building was blasted with a light caster, or something. ===== From cgallego@nordnet.fr: A lot of work in this... Good picture... http://home.nordnet.fr/~cgallego ===== From bjmjcgl@wantree.com.au: Wow... the stained glass windows look great..not to leave out the rest of the image! Just glad I wasnt the one creating this! ===== From tholal@bga.com: Amazing! ===== From bill.marrs@pureatria.com: Wow! ...it remonds me of that "mosque" winner in the Architecture round (old comp). ===== From klynn@minn.net: Would love to see it rendered as you intended. Is everything there in the zip file? ===== From jjanger@mail.cspp.edu: In a word, stunning. The stained glass windows are a marvel in and of themselves. I would be interested in seeing it with the atmosphere, but four months is a little long to render something, no matter how nice. ===== From 93semeno@scar.utoronto.ca: The atmospheric effects would have helped. This image would have fared better in an architecture competition, not a glass one. It's stunning nonetheless. ===== From federico@nuclecu.unam.mx: *very* nice scene!!! ===== From ucoakc00@mcl.ucsb.edu: A bit too glossy ===== From danclegg@uniserve.com: Complexity doesn't always make images nice to look at. ===== From Matthew_L_Ziegler@hill-top.com: I like the way the light from the stained glass appears on the floor, however, I would have like to have seen more light coming in from BEHIND the window. Very nice though, I like it very much. ===== From schmij3@rpi.edu: Beautiful picture. ===== From mbrown@spry.com: Twice in a row.. you in my mind are as good if not better than Dan Farmer. Love the archetecture.. ===== From daxrembo@bcl.net: When I first saw this image, I thought "All this needs is some moody atmosphere". I hope you get to see it rendered the way you wanted. ===== From rea@st-and.ac.uk: Not too bad. Unfortunately, some of the non-window textures are a bit plastic-feeling, lending the result a slightly `dolls-house' feeling. ===== From amarok@geocities.com: Great details! One bad thing: I don't really like the big highlight over the cross. ===== From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de: The illumination seems rather unnatural with one bright central light. Brilliant work everything else! ===== From uvasst00@mcl.ucsb.edu: I like the cathedral, but I think that you are right that atmospheric effects would have added alot to the image. The only thing I didn't really like was the really bright reflection of the light in the center of the image. Other than that though, great image! ===== From quinet@gamers.org: I like this picture very much. The white spot under the main window is a bit distracting, though. The reflections on the stones should not be as strong as they are in the pictures (it looks like all stones are covered with ten layers of varnish). Even if rendering would be slower, I think that some grainy bumpmap would improve the appearance of the stones. ===== From ptdawson@voicenet.com: This is excellent! It would look better with some atmosphere, but as you said in your text file, 120 days (estimated) is a long time! ===== From lpurple@netcom.com: Excellent work. Very refreshing to see something besides vases and drinking glasses! ===== From dick@buckosoft.com: I love the shape of the big round window in the middle. Good artistic marks, i couldn't rate you higher technically because you admitted to 'borrowing' the design. From web_user@173-127-214.ipt.aol.com: Notable for composition, modelling From web_user@p5-01.z03.glo.be: Notable for modelling From web_user@tonyv.aztec.co.za: Wonderful Detail Notable for composition, lighting, modelling