=====
From spanky@wpi.edu:

Good texturing work.
=====
From rotht@televar.com:
Interesting, but a little repetitious...

=====
From gregj56590@aol.com:
It would have been nice to get closer to the ants: they almost look 2D here.
=====
From d97ta@efd.lth.se:
the point of view is a bit bland. a more dramatic perspective maybe?

=====
From marc_w@ncx.com:
ants look really good

=====
From simon.davis@altavista.net:
The ants are too flat, otherwise I would have given it a higher mark.

=====
From buck@cs.byu.edu:
The ants and eggs are well modelled, but the image seems rather
monochrome.  Maybe the lighting could be different?

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Fine. Light is strange, but interseting. Nice modelling and texturing too.

=====
From djconnel@flash.net:
Nice job on the ants!  The eggs are a nice addition.  I am not
sure what to make of the "ground", though -- perhaps a more
interesting perspective would have added more depth and
feel to the image.


=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
I'm resisting the urge to stomp on my monitor with my boot.
 *grin*  nice job, though the ants seem to be placed to symetrically.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Different. Well done. Good ants. A bit "flat" as a picture.

=====
From 101741.541@compuserve.com:
A nice "scientific" look, a bit documentary.  Maybe the ground could have
more
shape and texture variations in it (what about some little rocks, a dead
insect,...)

=====
From fisher2@pobox.upenn.edu:
I took one off of the artistic score since the shadows around the ants
aren't quite as defined as I'd like them to be.  Perhaps a somewhat smaller
area light?  Otherwise a very nice image!

=====
From arcana@sinbad.net:
Nice effort, but at this close of a shot, you'd be able to pick out individual
grains of sand/dirt, rather than the crackled heightfield pattern. Of course,
that would have been a TON more work. <grin>

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Eeewww, gross.
Excellent ant(s) but not much variety in their positions.  The heightfield seems
to have exactly four levels.