Thanks a lot! Glad you guys liked it!
And you've brought up some interesting questions.
my personal impression is to say 'screw it' about the water-reflection critique... not because it's not valid (and I'm loving the awesome critique and discussion about it), but because the end result you have now is very visually appealing regardless. removing the reflections from under the front-most monster breaks the water-effect you have going on. In this particular case I'd say art before science
Well, it doesn't look as if I'll be making any radical changes. It's the first time I've drawn something like this, though, so I'm just happy to look into it. I've been feeling that I didn't quite know what I was doing, so I think it's needed.
shouldn't those reflections from second monster's eyes' be little higher?
I thought that the fog would block the light in that part, but I don't know if it actually would. I've been trying to find some photos of reflections with mist on top, but I haven't had much luck. Would it be the same as if the eyes themselves were there, or would the light be too dispersed? Edit: I don't think looking at the reflection of the sun in the water is as bad as looking at the sun itself, so I think that answers it.
For the monster on the right i think the eyes should only be reflected close to the beach because thats what i saw one night with the moon's reflection.
I think the water would have to be more still for the reflection to taper that much away from the center.
But this also depends on how sunken in the thing's eyes are. It looks to me like the light wouldn't reach the water because it's hitting the... strands, or whatever, surrounding the eyes. So, I don't think there should be a reflection, but not for the reason Dusty stated.
Good point, but I didn't imagine the eyes to be that sunken in. The idea is that you'd see some of the light reflected in the surrounding tissue.
I wonder changing one of the light hole's angle downwards, towards their prey would make more sense 
. Since the reflected light makes the picture better.
I don't imagine the creatures would see the two men as prey. More like a few ants on a path. You'll crush them without knowing they were even there. Of course, if you go too close to the ant hill, they might start bothering you, and you might even decide to have them removed if they're in the spot you've been going to for picnics or whatever.
Yes, it does (well, it'll refract, in this case). Which backs up ndchristie's point that the lights should light up the fog some. That much fog would result in a noticeable halo effect around point lights.
I think what you would be seeing, if the eyes were luminescent enough, would be a cone of illuminated fog/mist, which from the front would look like the halo you describe. I don't know if the fog here is thick enough for that, at least not for the closest creature. Maybe the second one, but the eyes would have to give off a lot of light for that to happen. On the other hand, if these creatures hunt in the depths of the sea, that might not be such a bad idea. However, something subtle might be tricky to pull off with the current palette.
I also tried to explain how the ripples reflect the light. Not quite precise, but you get the idea. On each of these ripple tops, there's a spot where the angle is such that the light is reflected towards you.
Hope that clears something up.
