Just to live up to my reputation as "the one who pisses on everyone's chips" (entirely unwarranted, of course ;-)), I must point out that stubborn defence of Bryce can be as misplaced as snobbish attacks on it. It's just a useful tool, and intense arguments (both ways) about Bryce's merit are as sensible as those concerning flat-head vs posidrive screwdrivers. Yeah, Bryce is not an ideal tool for general, high-intensity commercial 3D work, though it remains quite suitable for certain professional applications. Big deal. 'High-end' 3D programs are not necessarily the ideal tools for artists to make art with, though their capacity can make them powerful applications for the technically minded artist. Big deal. Any program in the right hands can produce stunning results. We all know this. We all know arguing otherwise is the desperate redoubt of the feeble-minded. The reason I state the above is that some of the comments causing umbrage are not program specific, and I think those comments should be examined outside of the 'Bryce' issue - whereupon they might, or might not, be seen as fair criticism. I'm always reluctant to get involved in 'art' discussions, which is why I don't get involved with the 'gallery scene' here (or anywhere). But since I've dipped my toe in this water, what the hell... I feel a couple of the technical critiques of drawbridgep's image miss the point, and/or are just bollocks. The discussion of the 'over-exposed' sunlit areas is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't require any justification on 'artistic licence' grounds. Lack of dynamic range in photography is a well-known issue, and there are plenty of excellent photographs that 'suffer' from it. Not every photograph needs the Ansel Adams 'Zone System' approach to contrast to be successful, and likewise any 3D scene attempting photo-realism doesn't need to be 'perfect' in this regard. To my mind's eye, drawbridgep's lighting approach is entirely appropriate to simulating the illumination of a deep alleyway. One of the ways in which to 'judge' the success of an image is what I call the 'thumbnail' test (which, usefully, is the default for Renderosity, and some other galleries). Viewing an image in a way in which all the fine detail is made irrelevant is usually a good way of seeing whether the compositional, lighting and photorealism basics are right. Conversely, clicking on a good-looking thumbnail often reveals the failure of a 3D artist to capitalise on their mastery of the basics. For me, drawbridgep's image falls somewhere between the two. Reducing the image to a 30% size thumb reveals both its strengths and weaknesses. The lighting is very good, whereas the composition falls down - but not fundamentally. It's not that the stairs 'lead the eye out of the picture'; it's that there's nothing obvious in the picture to pin it down. To that effect, I would replace the bicycle with a better model (search 'Zippo' in the freestuff here), give it a bold colour to contrast with the pastels of the scene, and bring it forward slightly to make it less symmetrical around the window and more toward the 'two-thirds' ideal location. Imagine the image 'thumb' with such a strong key focus, and I believe it would make sense. Once that basis is there, improving the larger image becomes merely an exercise in attention to detail. More randomness in the textures and the models and the layout, and it would 'arrive'. Having a human figure just peeking out of a doorway in the background (or some such) would reward the eye for its 'outward' inclination, and be the icing on the cake.