if this is to serve as the project overview and photometry paper there are some glaring omissions, for example no discussion of how the distances and sample membership were determined (or references to where you find that information), no external comparisons to fluxes from IRAS or other surveys, and not a single Spitzer image-- somewhat incongruous for a paper with "Infrared Imaging" in its title.

--Information on the distances has been added, plus we now point to Kennicutt et al. (2008) for more details on the distances.  Sample membership is discussed.  IRAS fluxes have been added to the figure of SEDs, and I have added two six-panel GALEX/Halpha/Spitzer mosaics.

1.  p2, Introduction, par 2, line 7:  "... (Kennicutt et al. 2008) of all known star-forming galaxies..."  I suggest deleting "all", because we didn't manage to observe every single galaxy.

--Done

2.  p3, second par, first line:  "by the LVL team" --> "by LVL" I suggest that just to indicate that other groups might end up doing some of this science with our data.

--Done

3.  p3, Sec 2, first par:  We may need a few sentences in here about the subtle differences between the various samples in Halpha, UV, and IR.  I think Janice offered to provide that, otherwise I can help whenever needed.

--Janice helped me rewrite Sections 1 and 2, and thus addressed this issue.

4.  p4, top lines, where you give the morphological type breakdowns:  These numbers can't be right, because they seem to exclude the dSph galaxies in ANGST.

--Fixed (I didn't realize that T=-3 meant dSph...)

5.  p5, top line, "this data" --> "these data" or "this information"

--Thanks

6.  p5, Sec 3.2, par 2, first few lines:  It might be useful to provide information on the effective resolution (PSF) in addition to pixel scales.  Ditto for MIPS.

--That information was already in the text for IRAC; I've added it for MIPS.

7.  p6, Sec 3.3:  It probably would be helpful to add a few words on if/how the LVL data products for SINGS galaxies differ from the corresponding last-release SINGS data products.

--Done.  The LVL/SINGS processing is identical for MIPS except for a modified correction formular for 70um non-linearity.  For IRAC they are also essentially the same, though Cliff started with MOPEX and Regan made his own MOPEX-like package.

8.  p6, Sec 4, first par:  At first I wrote down that you need to include more information here on aperture corrections, background, upper limits, etc. -- then reading on I realized this was covered later.  I guess the text is fine as it is, but you might want to mention in this intro paragraph what is to follow in the section.  Ignore this for sure if you disagree-- I am not even sure myself if this is needed!

--Done

9.  p7, first par of Sec 4.2.1 and 4.2.2:  I found the discussion of background removal a little bit confusing.  As I understand it there are at least 3 components, resolved background galaxies, a diffuse component from scattered light, and a real diffuse background (e.g., zodi at short wavelengths or cirrus at long wavelengths).  The text covers the first two of these reasonably well but not the third, and there is some risk the reader confuses the various sources of diffuse background.  Is it possible to clarify this?

--Sky subtraction is described in Section 3.1, whereas the process for accounting for background galaxies and foreground stars is discussed in Section 4.2, and IRAC aperture corrections are presented in Section 4.3.  These various topics seemed different enough to merit their separated appearances in the text.  However, your confusion means that I should improve the description, and so I've reminded the reader that the sky subtraction differs from the scattered light issue that goes into the IRAC aperture correction.

10.  p8 bottom, and Fig 3:  Just a placeholder comment that it is not easy to check text when the key figures are missing--obviously a TBD for later.

--Fixed

11.  p9 top:  Were you planning to compare LVL and IRAS fluxes for the galaxies that are detected by IRAS?  Seems like a good thing to do.

--Added a section and figure(s) on this.

12.  p9, Sec 5.2:  Since the SEDs presented include UV and optical and near-IR data we probably have to devote some space to describing these data sources, at least a basic discussion, even if there are future papers that present them in depth.

--I've added a blurb here.  Also, the UV data are now given a basic introduction in Sections 1 and 2.  2MASS data are already fairly well described.  There are no optical data presented in the panchromatic SEDs.

13.  p11, Sec 5.4, Figs 6-7 (IRX-beta discussion):  Again we need Figure 7 at some stage.  A couple of (probably dumb) questions:

Are the Kong, Calzetti, and LVL definitions of L(IR) and beta consistent with each other?  I worry especially about TIR.  Just checking...

--Kong uses the IRAS-based 3-1100um prescription from Dale & Helou (2002), and I use Kong's beta_GALEX equation (which Kong shows to be consistent with Calzetti's IUE-based value).  As for the Calzetti data, she gave me 
[ 3-1100um TIR / 1500AA ] data, consistent with what the plot implies.  Daniela also explicitly gave me the FUV/NUV ratio both in terms of beta and 1500/2300; I plot using the latter UV quantity, a ratio which she says is "definitely correct."

You might want to check on residuals against inclination as well, it won't work for the dwarfs but we have lots of edge-on spirals and might well see some effect for them.

--Nothing interesting is seen in a plot of residuals vs disk inclination (it's evenly distributed as a function of inclination).

14.  p12, same section:  Just a thought, we do have spectra for at least the SINGS galaxies and quite a few LVL as well, and it might be interesting to measure D(4000) for those and correlate with the IRX-beta residuals as well.  Probably not for this paper (unless we have the D(4000) data in hand), but might make for a nice student project.

--Agreed.  I've added Ha equivalent widths vs IRX-beta residuals, and that's probably enough for this paper.  But D(4000) should also be checked.

15.  Figures:  Since this is now the project description paper should we have at least one example of images, or a small gallery?

--Two UV, Halpha, IRAC, MIPS mosaics have been added.  One for a beautiful spiral and the other for an irregular.

16.  Desiderata:  Since the paper got me to thinking about applications of these SED data, here are a few ideas to keep in mind.  Even if they are not appropriate for this paper they might make for interesting follow-ons later.

The luminosity function of nearby galaxies for every wavelength from 0.15 to 160 microns.  Remember we have a volume-limited sample!

--My hunch is to reserve this for another paper, as discussed in Long Beach.

IRX vs beta residuals vs stellar population index (e.g., V-K or D(4000))-- same comment as above.

--I've added instead residuals vs EW(Halpha).

Fraction of starlight absorbed by dust vs luminosity, etc.  This can easily be included in the SF demographics paper that I am supposed to lead, but it could be done in a more generic way here too.

Composite SED templates, binned by type, mass, etc.  I am not sure this is worth (re)doing but I mention it for completeness.

Repeat your analysis from Dale etal (2007) on nuclear emission fractions, taking advantage of the larger and complete sample, and possibly looking at it at different wavelengths.   The more I think about it this is probably worth a small paper in its own right.

17.  Table 1:  We need to indicate the sources for some of the data listed, for example magnitudes, types, redshifts, distances, etc.  Probably it is easiest to cite the relevant papers in the text where the table is described, otherwise as footnotes in the table itself.

--I added a table note.

18.  Figure 6:  A nice addition, if you think it won't make the plot too busy, would be to add arrows showing the directions of increased reddening and stellar age.

--I added a reddening vector, but devising an age vector would be more controversial, particularly for TIR/FUV.