Hi Scott, sounds like the discussion we had months ago... again.  You
mentioned the term "world class" for quite a number of times, I am just
curious to know what's your meaning of world class. It appears that you'd
consider photorealistic images to be world class, as compared to something
that looks more "computer generated". And you are probably correct, as I
don't think
there is a right/wrong way to interpret something like this. And too I
believe "The Kitchen" is also worthy of the first prize for the superb
lighting, texture and detail, which are things that you consider as
elements to a world class image. (I do, for a fact, respect the way the
images were judged).

My interpretation of a world class image is somewhat different, largely due
to the kind of works I have been seeing around the 3D community for the
past years.  As the graphics software gets better and better, the artists
can often generate photorealist images that resembles closer and closer to
our physical world. They are very pretty indeed, as I am often amazed at
what CG can do nowadays. But photorealism has a limit, how real can you
make your image when? Until a point when you can no longer distinguish
between a photograph and CG?  Centries ago people don't have the luxury to
do floating point or radiosity calculation on their canvas or oil paints,
but why do people spend thosands of dollar to buy these paintings? My point
is, photorealism does not necessarily equal to an world class image (no
offense to any winning entries), it is an
element that the artist can choose to use to express his/her ideas.  I enjoy
watching graphics in fantasy/mystical games as they often depict worlds
that look real (lighting and physics), yet you as an observer, knows that
it is something that cannot exist in our world. Images that show
originality (Victoria's World for example) and creativity in addition to
photorealism are, in my opinion, world class images.  In fact, I will be
pretty interested to see more abstract images made using CG. What makes
your image stands out from all these other images, when every image is
equally photorealist.

You mentioned "*how* it was created shouldn't have affected the judging or
the comments if it was truly an "image" competition" and you were "under
the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image POV
can create", aren't they a bit contradicting?

Anyhow, your points are valid, though, I would consider anything a waste of
my time if it does not have a purpose. As I mentioned before, my goal was
not to ultimately win anything, and my purpose was the .  When one can
accomplish something that is driven by a purpose in the broader scheme of
things, then it very rewarding as well.

Just another piece of thought
J