=====
From uwezi@geocities.com:
I really like the interpretation of an invisible landmark !!!
A little different perspective might have improved the image
=====
From scarmig@ohmss.com:
The landmark you can't see!  :)

=====
From bobfranke@halcyon.com:
Pretty good ants, but the connection to the topic seems 
to be missing.

=====
From rbenjam2@tampabay.rr.com:
I really like this image.  I think there could be more texture to the sand, but
I really like the simplicity.

=====
From ct@westmarch.com:
could realy use a tree or two
=====
From tglover@nettally.com:
Nice ants <grin>  Looks a lot like mine (antfoil.jpg).  Guess we had
similiar thoughts.

I watched several ants for about a half hour before I started modelling
mine -- your's is good, but they need to have different leg positions on
different ants -- that's why there's only one in my entry <grin>

Sand looks good -- what about a sharper horizon?



=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
Is that called wit ?
Interesting.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
I don't get it -- you're showing us an invisible landmark?
Good modelling on the ants, and nice subtle texture on the ground.

=====
From clem@dhol.com:
Good ants.  Good sand.  Excellent job of addition by 
subtraction.  The invisible landmark idea is clever.

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
Lovely minimalist concept, which works well artistically. Some mild bumps
in the terrain may not have spoiled the effect, though. Ants are good, but
I think they should have some legs raised in mid-step.