Thank you, the architect who gave me this project to render wanted to highlight these elements.

As I am not an architect, I only generate the architectural visualization, I expect specific feedback for the Renderings.
Thanks for your opinion. But I don't agree that realism is foolish. In fact, these houses were only sold due to the impact of these images. The objective of the Renderings in this specific case was the sale of the properties.
I will pay attention to the tips you gave me about light and materials. I thank you in advance for your opinion.

"In fact, these houses were only sold due to the impact of these images. The objective of the Renderings in this specific case was the sale of the properties." This is objectively not true. The sale is based on the value of the asset and the image is to help articulate the value of that asset. How do your rendering articulate the value of the asset? Good View? Location? Configuration? High End Materials? These rendering do not convey anything of substantial value to me. they could be anywhere, made of out anything and the construction could be executed poorly. the closer you can get to photo realism does nothing to help further articulate the value of the design you are rendering or presenting.

I understand your opinion and respect it. Thank you for your opinion. But I believe renderings have value in the real estate market. If this were not the case, this niche would not exist. People are often convinced when they see something more concrete, and renderings help with that. This specific project was like that. This residence was just one of the others in that village. It was a pleasure to participate in the marketing process. And as I want to evolve, I like to hear feedback.

I'm not trying to be overly critical. They have a value surely, I'm trying to help you understand that value. It is not just that it is a shiny image, its that its a shiny image of something. The more you can understand what that something is and highlight it or make that the focus of the image the better job that image can do. Things like incorrect contrasts, overly distorted perspective at the edges, a repeating material, catch the eye and draw your focus away from what the rendering is intended to convey. This means bringing a composition and focal point to your image. Adjusting lighting, shadows contrast and levels so that it reinforces that value of the deigns rather than trying to make it as real as possible. This is the difference between okay renderings and rendering that approach Art.

As the visual artist you should be asking your self and answering; Where does the eye go first and how easily? How does it move through the image? What does it naturally discover next? Is there an increasing level of detail or interest as the eye moves to create continued engagement? Do each of these things, the first place you look, the way your eye travels as you look at it reinforce the value of the object you are depicting?

Thank you for the tips. I am aware of these details. I keep studying and trying to apply these details. However, sometimes as an artist we have to follow the client's tastes. And in this project I was guided by the architect. For example, the camera lens, he wanted a wider millimeter, like a wide angle, to give the feeling that the space is large, as that was what was being sold. So I had to do it even though I knew it would be distorted. And he approved. What I mean is that we often have to follow what the customer wants, after all, they are paying for it. And I'm sorry if I expressed myself at some point wrong, it's just that I'm not fluent in English. I live in a country where the native language is not that.

Also, the second interior view angle is much better than the first. One-point perspective is only a drawing convention because it's easier and faster for hand-sketching. Computers don't care about that, so go full 3D.

Thank you very much friend. I'll pay attention to that. I also missed the color contrast.

Good observation, thank you. Regarding the angles, I agree with you. However, I did it from these angles, including the perspective from one point, by choice of the architect for whom I made the representations. But of course during the process of studying the cameras I sent more options.

In terms of lighting, as I followed a reference with a sun behind that appeared on the camera, there was no direct light on the facade. If direct light touched the facade there would be a more beautiful contrast. However, I opted for the visible sun, something that wouldn't happen if I positioned the sun at 45 degrees from the camera.

I agree with gwharton. Residential architect should be warmer in color of paints, and other finishes, and light. Juxtaposing some slightly cold (near neutral) color with warmer color so there is a balance. As in, not too warm and not too cold. Generally, residences are intended for sleeping and people want to feel warm when they sleep because people naturally are going to feel more susceptible to chills while sleeping. Usually, are sleeping, or sitting but not necessarily a lot of running or movement as much except the dash in the morning to get ready and out the door. At work, you might be busy a lot and moving a bit. This means your body is on average about a degree warmer than it would be when idle and just that difference makes a lot of difference in terms of comfort. Additionally, in office and work places we want people to be comfortable but not too comfortable. We might have the temperature dialed down a degree or two to what we would at home before we go to sleep. This is so we don't get too comfortable and sleep at work. Great work places also have a mix use of warm and cold color paint and/or finishes. You might see 60% of the space using near-neutral off-white (either slightly on the warm or cold side) and then use of slightly warmer colors throughout the space with 40% mildly warm colors and mixed in with full-spectrum natural light with windows. Enough juxtaposition for the contrast. Houses tend to possess a little bit of a different percentage. Say 50-50 or the inverse ratio. You may see more warmer finishes like use of wood in the higher luxury. Current modern trend for interior is lighter colors. Even if the exterior uses some darker colors juxtaposed with a lighter or medium color finish. I seen some nice, cool stuff over the years. Contemporary modern architecture isn't white like they may have been in the 50s. They may be black mixed with natural colors like wood, or stone or some other color combinations. This is what I am seeing in this era. This would be the exterior. The interior may be different. However, houses with more tradition-style inspired design, may have quite a palette to work from. There are certain colors that are popular but also they tend to be medium to light colors not dark colors other than maybe a natural stone foundation color. I think your design is too white-washed for contemporary clients in many places unless your proposed project would be in a hotter, maybe humid environment. Since this is a rendering, you can simulate different paints, paint textures, as well as finishes types. You can simulate wood paneling and the like, for example, as well as different color paints and paint texture.

You can even simulate the light bulb temperature as you would if you had those LED fixtures with selectable temperature light.

I appreciate your tips. Really rich in knowledge. I really like this idea of ​​chromatic contrast. Have elements with warm and cold colors. This becomes enjoyable. Unfortunately, in this project I had no control over finishes and colors. In fact, many materials were replaced to make the value of the property more affordable. But this came at a design cost. I like the study of colors. Such as the use of the color wheel, such as complementary, analogous colors, etc. Taking advantage of your experience, how would you make these color adjustments to make the architecture more pleasant? I really like this network. Thanks.

I even suggested something like this to the architect I was working with, but in the end it was his decision. But I have to study this too. Not just the software. That's why I appreciate feedback so much.

If you lookat the renderings I posted in this thread: https://archinect.com/forum/thread/150403480/integrated-business-models-architect-as-developer-contractor

You will notice that the exterior finishes are very cold/neutral, but the renderings feel very warm and inviting. That's what I meant above. Remember, these are artistic representations, not photographs. You have complete control over camera and light.

You will also notice that we do not use mid-day environment lighting. We always set the sun to an hour or two from sunrise or sunset.

OK. Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, I will see the link.

I understand your opinion. Thanks. Beautiful lighting references. However, in these specific renders, in the interiors, I used more diffuse lighting, like a cloudy day. It doesn't have direct sunlight like in your references. However, I really liked this type of images from your references. I will follow this lighting in my next work.