=====
From BigTrav2001@chartermi.net:
Funny description, and nice image.
=====
From babouche13@YAHOO.fr:

good idea
=====
From pixel_guy@hotmail.com:
rock on Blender!
nice image, but next time do your own modelling ;P

=====
From StephenF@whoever.com:
This has a nice look to it.  The grass looks really good, 
and the fence works well.  The scene itself has a very 
real feel to me, much more than the sum of its individual 
parts.

=====
From marlo.steed@home.com:
Nice concept.  The details are not quite convincing... too rigid (e.g. trees are
too straight and bees are all in same position).

=====
From marcelocarvajal@ieee.org:
Artistic? Not, at all. Technical? I expected more realistic trees and insects.
The concept is original, but I don't think is a good interpretation of the
theme. You should work harder with lights. 


=====
From lrwii@janics.com:
The grass looks real. The use blender to animated  the 
bees make them look all the same. 

=====
From delfeld@mailcity.com:
Nice work.  

Try using lighting (contrast between hues and values) to direct the eye to the
important parts of the image.  Reference Caravagio's paintings and Raphael's
work.  

This is a general note for everyone who entered a realistic image this contest,
since IRTC has problems with "Additional Comments": 
Realism is nice, but why is realism significant artistically?  Is there any
other way(s) to represent more accurately, or more beautifully, which are not
realistic methods?


=====
From file:
The trees seem a bit barren to me - the branches are too straight.  Other than
that nice scene.


=====
From file:
not bad but your background needs some work


=====
From file:
Notable for textures, composition, originality