Rendering of that water is like

wait. You said constructive criticism only. I got nothing.

I like the first, more filled in, version better.

I would recommend getting rid of all the drop shadows. They looks a little on the cheesy side. The symbols on the table of contents type page also would be better without drop shadows. Maybe those symbols could also be simplified? I prefer the whitespace version.

definitely lose the drop shadows... there's no crying in baseball and there's no drop shadows in architecture...

and i think that the white space version is stronger...

the white space version is hands down better, in my opinion - but its just an opinion.

It seems short, and the perspective images for your budapest project seem a little redundant. I just perceive swirly green when I look at the spread as a whole. Maybe focus some time on one image specifically and populate it with some more 'life'. More entourage, trees, cars, - activity, period.

It is also a little distracting when I immediately recognize the same scale figure in the images. It demonstrates a lack of effort which may not be what you are going for.

Dude, you better have rich parents.

I guess I'm in the minority on liking the dark space version better. For starters, there is an additional project shown in there that showcases your skills not seen in other projects. I like the playfulness of the project titles in the dark version. I like all the transparencies as well. I do agree that the drop shadow needs to be changed. You don't have to completely drop it, but it needs to be toned down to a point where it's not noticeable at all. Also, Budapest project text runs out of the boundary.

Thank you all for your replies, your comments have been helpful.

@steelstuds: the water on the first is hand drawn with colored pencils on mylar. So that's why it doesn't look "rendered".

@Laurem and Phillip: I will lose the drop shadows, Thanks!

@awkeytect: I see what you're saying about the people! I'll change that right away

@zen maker: Thanks, I'll work on that.

A few thoughts... you've got these little icons that represent each project, but it's not entirely clear what they are, save an abstraction of some geometry present in the work. I might tweak them (or add a word or two) to communicate an issue or topic you've explored... it'll make them more relevant, and also help give the viewer an point of entry into the work... the idea might be as simple as "circulation", "landscape" or whatever, but at the moment it's a little hard to understand at first glance what the driving concept is for each project, and the icons might be an opportunity to help. Check out the website for Lorcan O'Herlihy (http://www.loharchitects.com/)- they have tags that label each project, giving some helpful information immediately.

Also, when describing an image, avoid a self-evident caption like "section" or "concept sketch"... if the text isn't adding to the understanding of the image it's probably superfluous... and if the concept isn't clearly communicated without an elaborate caption, it's not doing it's job.

Lastly, it's worth keeping in mind that this will be flipped through in about 5 minutes... there probably won't be time for extensive reading especially if your images don't communicate the most interesting aspects of each project immediately... I guess I'm just saying to myself "well ok I see what you've done, but I'm left wondering why?" .

Anyway, good luck!

Thank you Blanco Teko!

I am working on your comments, they were very helpful. Would it be okay for me to email you with any questions if they come up as I continue to polish my portfolio?