=====
From ekaiser@camden.tds.net:
Cool. Nice shrubs and building. Textures need work, though

=====
From bobfranke@halcyon.com:
Nathan, it looks a bit rushed.   I hope the new job is not 
taking too much of you time.  The background is kind of 
flat; it needs something to give the feeling of depth. 
Nice job on the foreground ruin and plant placement.  
Gilles does make a nice tree.

=====
From whhale@nvl.army.mil:
As usual youve captured the essence of the Ruins Round.  One comment though...No erosion.  The blocks look perfect for being exposed for centuries.

=====
From chris@bluelectrode.com:
Except for the otherwise distracting title bars, great image.

=====
From ddombrow@vt.edu:
I guess the only suggestion I could make would be to say that the building blocks are a little too perfect. I'd like to see a little more weathering. Great image overall though.

=====
From white@rational.com:
Nice image.  I thought the mountains looked a little flat and blended in 
too much with the building.

=====
From marlo.steed@uleth.ca:
I liked the look of this one... very realist looking...photorealism is high.

=====
From mibmlr@hotmail.com:
Great Image! I'd like to see the photograph. Near the bottom, the grass does not look quite right where it meets the brick road. Great Job!



=====
From taymac@peaknet.net:
the felling of ruins comes across bueatifully in this work. the blending of the lost and ruined temple
with the plants overtakin and thriving on the once great structure..great technical work

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
Fantastic composition. Yes, a very good submission.

=====
From jouni@mikrobitti.fi:
All right Nathan, you did what we expected of you. Architectural design 
is your game, and the structure looks fairly nice. Though I wonder, why not 
even the sharpest edges have cracks on them. This bothers me especially 
when looking at the protrusion above the doorways. I think that stone 
would normally crumble down in somewhat smaller chunks that it had done in 
your image. Is the stone is a bit too mottled, as well? I would've 
expected a bit more worn-out look. 

Plants on the foreground are cool, too bad that they suffer seriously from 
the 800x600 resolution. Despite the explanation you gave, the bare naked
tree fits pretty badly into a green-shaded scene. Lovely background you 
made out of it. BTW, have to wonder why did you choose to use such  
prominent frames for the image. I was prepared to find the legendary 13 
engraved into the stone base of some building. ;-)

Having said all that, it's time to give the praise: it's definitely one of
the best and most solid images this round. A good total score should propel 
you up the ranks again. 

=====
From chris_darcy@yahoo.com:
Great. Composition needs a little work. The tree needs to be off to the left or probably the right. The mountains need to contrast the stone a little more. Top picture.

=====
From webmaster@freegraphics.com:
This is, without doubt, the best *presentation* of an image 
that I have seen in the IRTC.  Very nicely done.



=====
From StephenF@whoever.com:
Nice work... the plants and tree really help the scene 
work.  Buildings are good too, although I think the 
pieces of the building could use a more decayed look.  
Also, I personally found the border to be distracting.

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
Very productive hollidays! Great architecture, as usual. Perhaps the tree is
too central on the composition, but being a Giles' tree, it's not a pain.



=====
From clem@dhol.org:
The ruins are good, but the clipped aspect damages them 
and putting a bogus fake frame in the wasted space adds 
insult to injury.  The plants are very good.  The mountain 
texture doesn't really work.  The look more like mounds of 
dirty sugar candy.  Oddly, this seems to be the only case 
of "weed choked ruins" that comes to mind this round.  I 
like that effect.  The rocks in the near background are also 
quite good.

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
Very nicely detailed. The tree looks a bit unreal though, and the hills in
the background seem somehow flat, like a painted backdrop just a metre or
so behind the walls. Still, you can't argue with that foreground.

=====
From sjlen@ndirect.co.uk:
This is a well presented image.  The bolders aren't easy to make out, they 
look like soil.  I'm sure those mountains in the background should be more
yellow and brown than gray.  Real nice work with the vegetation.  
I'd also expect to see some rubbish here like cigarette boxes, coke can's and
empty Evian bottles etc.