=====
From rgow@lanset.com:
Good job on the modelling. A little more to the image would be good.

=====
From leoszilard@yahoo.com:

The modelling it clean.  Some of th textures need work, and I'ld like to see
more building and less sky.
=====
From maarten_hofman@hotmail.com:
I wonder why the camera is aimed at such a high point... It would've been nice
to see more of the basilica. The "colour" of the picture is quite nice, though,
with fun yellow details.
=====
From p.gibellini@teinos.com:
Nice, but the sky is solarized

=====
From tek@evilsuperbrain.com:
The church is very realistic, but the angle we're viewing it from makes it look
like you're trying to avoid having to build any scenery. I particularly like
the material you've used, it feels really solid. I'm also impressed by the use
of such a variety of modelling tools.


=====
From xilo_m@hotpop.com:


You're on the right track to make beautiful images, but unfortunately you don't
seem to have an artistic sense...  An artistic image would have movement, would
tell a story, have a past and a future...  and all this in a still image... 
When looking at your picture, I see a very nice render of a blue-print!  Try
working on the concept of you future IRTC submissions!
=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
This image is stunning!  Nice angle on the camera and the textures and detail in
the model really show off.  I wasn't sure about the statue like blobs stuck on
top - I couldn't make out what they were suppose to be. - still a nice job.
=====
From hildurka@simnet.is:
There are lots of nice details in this scene. The statue of Mary looks
convincing from this distance and the ornaments look good.  But you should have
rendered it bigger and in different proportions, maybe 768x1024 or 864x1152 to
get rid of all that sky ("portrait" proportions instead of "landscape"). Then
the tower would be more visible and clear. The materials look good and the
lighting is great. Very good work.
=====
From jjaguar@worldnet.att.net:
I like the lighting, it looks quite natural.

=====
From chris_hormann@gmx.de:
Good work on modelling and lighting but somewhat sparse in total.
Including the basis of the building would have been a good idea IMO.

=====
From p_chan@shaw.ca:
The level of detail for the basilica is very good, but 
seems to be too much for the distance the building is 
away from the camera.  I would recommend using a 
different aspect ratio for the image, (possible something 
like 600x800) and moving the camera closer to the 
basilica.

=====
From intertek@one.net:

I almost want to say that this is off topic because it's such a strong =
religious image. The angle you chose makes the church more a part of the =
heavens than part of this earth. But that is not at all a bad thing. I =
like it. I wish the church was brighter against a slightly darker sky. =
But I like it.

I couldn't find any good pictures of the church at the web site you =
mentioned. Fact it was hard to find any pictures at all of it. I found =
some here: http://www.sacredsites.com/december2001pages/fatima.htm


=====
From slone@hiwaay.net:
Beautiful building, though it looks a little washed out.


=====
From r@215-241.opf.slu.cz:
Good and nice.
Notable for composition, modelling


=====
From file:
Fantastic realism, excellent lighting and a good use  of a slight texture for
the sky. The picture does not stand out, but only because when you look at it
you think it could be a photo. I had several people look at this and think it
was a photo
Notable for lighting, composition, modelling


=====
From file:
Fantastic realism, excellent lighting and a good use  of a slight texture for
the sky. The picture does not stand out, but only because when you look at it
you think it could be a photo. I had several people look at this and think it
was a photo
Notable for lighting, composition, modelling