I just looked in the Gallery yesterday. i thought it was better than it had been . Less of the nudity and more of the terrain. However, just to be a troublemaker. Because it contains nudity does it mean that it not a "real" peice of work? As I recall it's hard to make a sensual photo. Nudity or not. I think we may be punishing a photographer who applies themselves to create a beautiful work based upon a beautiful creation because or so called 'taboo" subjects. i mean really is the human form any less breathtaking than Mount Fuji, or the Arizona sands, or the Antartic expance? Bsteph