ah, not a good picture
original render:
http://endi.kerekperec.hu/katedral_ori.jpg
cool compositing, cool ideas in the design ( the tusk-like structures, the natural stone) but indeed a bit plain looking…did I mention the car? 
Roel
cool pic, your wire link points to the final version (edit: corrected)
“Not a good picture”??? Are you kidding? :< It kicks ass. Seriously. Don’t be so damn hard on yourself.
-Raseri
Not your best stuff but very good anyway. The textures look a bit repetitive imo. Especialy the bricks in the middle.
Keep it up.
-IS-
hey man this is beautiful work
however it think the car in the front looks very out of place
how about a render without the car
good work. what happend to youre usual yelowish blueish lighting?
I don’t think it would look good with the sky he used.
That’s a real great job and yet you say it’s not a good pic. I especially like the old car in the front.
My first impressions are in regards to the temple itself. I think having three different rock types (four, actually, now that I count the trim…) confuses its continuity and dimishes its look. They could be scaled down a bit to make the temple appear larger. I think that mixing curved elements with angular gothic ones doesn’t really work - it makes it confusing as to what the temple is for. Also, shouldn’t there be the main entrance at the top of the stairs, instead of walking all the way up only to face a rock wall? How do you get in? 'Round the back? I also agree about the car - doesn’t fit the scene… and how in the world did it get up there?
Also, maybe add some illumination behind the stained glass?
The render is good, tho!
The cathedral, the material, the light setup, the color theme… it looks very Shrek-ish and I like it a lot! 
How dare you post such crap here? :<
On a more serious tone (:P), if you wanted it to be photoreal, then yes, it’s not one of your best. But I, for one, really like this new style you’ve got going. That looks just great. Mind sharing those trees in the background ;)?
:o :o :o
By photorealism standard, yes, it is not so good, but otherwise it’s simply stunning. Perhaps a bit more intense lighting, and deeper bumpmapping can help. It looks more like a painting than a photo.
Nice looking architechture, but the textures need bit tweakig. And there’s something familiar about them, I’d reckon you’ve used them before?
Cool.
just one thing, camera look a bit ortho to me.
dude that roxors
realistic lighting and nice trees, a very good work overall 
gray stone textures is too flat, and maybe a door would help to use the temple…
If you think it’s not good then why do you post it?
Because he also thinks that it’s at least average, and also that he is done with it, and he doesn’t want to work on it, and why shouldn’t he show it when it’s done, no matter how bad it is, and why do you make comments such as this anyway, when people post much worse images around here every day, and this one is way above what the average blender user can do, and I for one am happy to see it, because it’s pretty cool compared to most, huh?
I would ask the same question as Nico. I don’t specifically know what Nico meant, but I would say the same thing only to illustrate that its a very bad habit as an artist to talk about your work that way. You should present you’re work and let people make there own observations and not give them any negativity to mull over while viewing it. Present your work with confidence, even you’re not 100% sure its your best. If you’re not comfortable doing that work on the image until its your best, although with that approach most artists would never show anything. 
erufalion:)