you should give most of us tips xD

they're nice renderings... My only concern are the colors.. They're too strong for me... Try desaturating colours on areas that don't require so much attention; Save it for where its needed.  Its easier on the eyes and everything doesn't seem like they're competing against each other

These are good. I disagree with the above comment re: colors, except for image #4, which is definitely  way over-saturated.

#3 looks strange because the perspective is odd - you would expect this to have some degree of 3-point perspective because of the scale of the buildings, but the tower sides are not converging in the vertical direction. The buildings would actually get wider toward the top for an image like that to be accurate in terms of human vision, or a special lens would have to be used for photography. To me this 'problem' is compounded by the overall focus on the uppermost corner of the front tower - the eye doesn't really rest on the street level.

Actually, only #1 and #5 have a really well-balanced composition, in my opinion.

from a technical standpoint, the renderings look really nice. Personally I like my renderings to have a little more 'hand touch' to them; less photorealistic. I have found that the clients will respond more favorably to an image that leaves a little to the imagination, vs one that shows everything to the T. I think putting one of these renderings into Photoshop and playing around with some of the filters could be a good exersize

Thanks guys...That's really nice of you all. Over-saturated, noted. 

Yea...there were people told me that the graphics are a little bit too realistic. Especially some clients. I guess I really need to work on my Photoshop Skills. But some times it just makes me wonder, isn't that the point? To accurate reflect what would it be like when it actually built? 

Just curious what programs you were using to get these renderings? I've just begun to teach myself rendering and I'm trying to expose myself to a broad spectrum of work to get a better understanding of the processes. Cheers, they look great.

>But some times it just makes me wonder, isn't that the point? To accurate reflect what would it be like when it actually built? 

I think it depends on the rendering. Sometimes it's to reflect what's going to be built, but my favorite renderings usually have more to them then that. They tell a story, there's emotion behind the image, or they imply other possibilities for the building. I'm watching a video series by Jeremy Vickery called Efficient Cinematic Lighting. He's a lighting artist at Pixar, but a lot of the things in his work make me think more about renderings. This quote in particular is relevant:

"A lot of people focus on making realistic lighting. They want to make it look like reality. Over the years, I've found that that's not what I'm aiming at. I'm aiming for fantastic believability instead, which is so much better then realism. You get enough of realism. You can 3-D model a house, and it looks totally realistic but it's just not interesting. So add something with character and style. Make something that's better then reality. Make a world that people desire to go to."

Your renderings are good. Technically they are strong, but I feel like they lack a narrative. That's always my favorite part of producing an image. I even build up characters in my head that are using the space to drive the story forward. Maybe keep experimenting with the camera angles, lighting and Photoshop manipulation to make it more interesting. 

Also, feel free to post any tricks or advice that you've learned. The house is my favorite. 

A problem with making renderings too realistic is that sometimes it gives the clients the opportunity to focus on the details instead of overall project. If you show a very realistic rendered stone, for example, and the client doesnt like the color of the stone, he or she may  decided that they dont like the overall project. You are trying to sell the project, not the stone. 

I have found that providing a more ephemeral rendering and then a material board (or images of actual materials) can work much better than a rendering that shows all every material rendered to a T

another thing that I would mention is that there are too few people in the renderings. As a developer, I want to see my project full of people. One or two people walking around my 500,000 sq ft development isnt what I want to see

I would also maybe add some ducks or something in the water. Try to make the images come alive and show the client an idealized vision of what living in the project would be like

@ BenC 

I mainly use 3D Max. As part of exercise, I usually use V-ray render a project and then render the same project without v-ray. And try rendering the project under day light, night time, and cloudy scenarios. Then use Photoshop to further polish the rendering. But I'm no good with photoshoping though. Still working on it.

@ regulators

wow...Thanks for the quote.....it's really helpful. Pixar are legendary....Always wonder where are their secret source of imagination. That should be the right way to pursuit. After all, it's the imagination in one's work makes one an artist. I think the difficulty of shedding imagination into rendering is it's very hard to tell when it is too much. there is a very thin line there. one millimeter to the left is the work of genius. and one millimeter to the right, you just screwed it.  Hope I would be able to tell where the line lands in my foreseeable future.

@ mdler

I agree with your idea in general, like too realistic may lead clients attention to the trivial details. But I'm not sure about adding too much people into rendering would be a good idea. unless it's an commercial project or interior project. First problem would be it's hard to do when it is a skyscraper project. 2nd problem is, in most of the project, the building should still be the central role.Adding too much decorate may dilute the central role of the building. Architects are selling buildings to developers after all. But you are the developer. So I might be wrong about this one.

This thread is further proof that average architect/architecture student is barely literate. Did anyone read the actual post? NOT his renderings. In fact this thread is nothing more than advertising for the company he works for.

Glad someone finally said it...Thanks Rusty 
 

Rusty: how is it advertising?  He didn't post any link of the company, nor did he mention the company's name.  He asked for advice and I'm sure all the advices given do help him (and many of us) learn about rendering, regardless of who did the renderings.

frankly i thought it was spam, not a real post.  i get e-mails like this from china about 3 times a week.  same images just about.

it is impressive that it became real, whether it was intended to be or not...

Shall we back to the topic then

Image 1
I agree, either make the water more relevant (put in ducks or whatever) or crop away part of that area/ zoom in.
The stone texture of the building doesn’t look too right for that level of detailing. It looks a bit elementary still.
The reflectivity of the outer space flooring is quite high as if its been raining recently, which isn’t the case given the appearance of other materials. Furthermore, the lake or pond reflectivity sort of merges with that of the flooring. And again, the texture perhaps.
Put people on the first floor balconies to liven it up. And Think nice pool party perhaps.
The level of lighting in the pool and the very vivid colour…it might have been more real if it was later on in the evening, but it looks a bit much with the level of daylight still around.

  Image 2
Crop away part of the sky, too much sky. no, in fact crop away part of sky and the rather void roadways. Zoom in, bring forward the designed pedestrian area around your building. The expanse of asphalt and the lonesome cars and people – bit depressing.
More contrast between the curved screening envelope and sky, between the curved screening envelope and the glass. Actually, I think it might have been better to set the image at a later time in the evening, but still not when its too dark,  to bring out the pattern of that screen in contrast to the lit apertures.
Crop, zoom in

Image 3
The colours are too saturated, you can afford to lessen the saturation.
In this case, I actually like the cars and the roadway; it gives an urban punch and feels appropriate.
The central core that vertically divides the corner building  and the central mass that horizontally separates the two main masses of the building are lacking in detail and effectiveness; they look like elementary renderings compares to the level of detail elsewhere. This is a missed opportunity I think.
What is that black band at the very bottom of the image? Reading it with the portions of buildings on either side of the image, there’s a literal and weak frame. Not nice, remove it.
The corner building frames of the lower mass of the corner building (shopping/mall?) look a bit fuzzy to me but maybe I need to wipe my glasses :o)
Perhaps, you’ll gain a bit more by losing part of the sky area..not a lot..but enough.

Image 4
This is a very different kind of image, it says more like a gaming environment than an “architectural rendering”.  I’m not sure but it might be that it looks like something between an axonometric and a perspective. The level of detailing of the greenery (right hand corner) is overpowering and at the same time looks off kilter, unreal. The architecture is blandly represented in the picture compared to the greenery. Yes, looks like game environ. Not fond of it.

Image 5
Generally, the rendering of opaque building surfaces is elementary, ot enough texture.
Are the shadows right? Looking at the shadow of the roof and wall thrown on the glass wall and then comparing that with the shadow of trees? Also, the level of daylight and the ambience that comes across is that of near midday. You know, photographers don’t like midday, not enough contrast to bring out detail and texture.
 

They are nice renderings but they need some serious post production, some serious personality.  They lack deep atmosphere.  Rendering doesnt just happen in Vray or Maxwell, it also happens in photoshop.