=====
From clintona@ibm.net:
This one is good for a laugh!  Neat symbolism, the image looks great too, though
a little dark.
=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
Nice use of shadow, the face looks very good.  The 
brain trees look a bit odd though.

=====
From YaelParis@operamail.com:
very nice interpretation ! the picture is a bit too dark, it remove some details
of the modelling.


=====
From whhale@nvl.army.mil:
good realism in the face but the hand looks a little flat.  Nice concept

=====
From tom@tomandlu.force9.co.uk:
Needs a lot more detail on the garden, which seems too incidental to the
scene.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
A very good concept.
The book looks too flat.
Gamma correction usualy does a good job of correcting the image, but there the
image was so dark that I cannot get a decent result. You're talking about hair
in your text, no matter how I tweak the intensity and contrast on that image I
see no hair whatsoever (or is it just the eyebrows you're talking about ?).
I don't know why but I was surprised when you talked about a she - although now
I can see the feminine side - there is more masculine in the features than
feminine. Mabe something about the eyes and cheeks, I'm not sure, I have never
made a head anyway.

=====
From albiaprime@aol.com:
Technical - 
Artistic - the message is certainly apparent
Theme - a unique interpretation of the theme

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
A good idea here, but I'm not keen on the overly dark setting. Some background
detail would help immensely - even a lamp showing where the concentrated light
is
coming from and some gloomy walls behind. The face and hand look quite good.
The
trees are okay, but something more realistic along the lines of some of the
other
images in this round would have been even better.


=====
From file:
the texture on the face could be better, but i like the concept
Notable for originality


=====
From file:
the texture on the face could be better, but i like the concept
Notable for originality