Agree what the image must prove before reviewing its beauty.
Architectural visualisations serve different purposes. A competition view may need to explain the massing and public space; a planning image may need to be precise about the surrounding context; a residential marketing image may focus on the experience of a room. The review criteria should follow the intended use, not a generic desire for a more dramatic image.
At the beginning of a review, write down the audience, image use, design revision and approval owner. Identify which elements are confirmed and which are still provisional. If a proposed landscape or furniture arrangement is only illustrative, do not silently turn it into a construction promise during the image review.
The view ID and project are fictional. Their purpose is to show the information needed for a decision, not to describe an Atmosferi commission.
Before the first render, the separate BIM and CAD handover guide
Separate a correction from a new design decision.
Not all comments have the same consequence. A misplaced door is different from a request to redesign the door, and both are different from asking for softer evening light. Labelling the type of request makes it easier to assess dependencies and decide what must be approved before the next render.
| Type | Example request | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy correction | “The opening in EX-02 does not match elevation A-12.” | Compare with the agreed source revision and correct the discrepancy. |
| Design change | “Move the opening to the right in the architectural model.” | Obtain the new approved drawing or decision; check affected views. |
| Art direction | “Reduce the warm colour cast without changing the façade finish.” | Keep geometry and material specification fixed; adjust the image. |
| New scope | “Add a night view from the opposite side.” | Confirm whether a new camera, modelling or output is required. |
| Open question | “Which railing detail is approved?” | Assign a decision owner instead of inventing a detail. |
These categories are practical review labels, not contractual definitions. A studio and its visualisation partner should agree how substantial changes are handled. What matters is that a new architectural decision does not arrive disguised as a small Photoshop correction.
One markup should describe one observable change.
A screenshot with a red circle is useful only when the note explains what should happen inside it. Refer to the view ID and preview version, point to the precise region, state the requested change and include the authoritative reference if the instruction concerns accuracy.
Instead of “make the entrance better,” say what is missing: “EX-03 / preview 02: the recessed entrance is visually lost; keep the opening and camera position, but increase the contrast between the passage and the adjacent façade. Do not add new lighting fixtures.” The second note gives a direction and a boundary.
Too vague: “The garden is strange. Make it more realistic.”
Actionable: “EX-03 / preview 02 / lower-left garden: replace the tall ornamental grasses with low planting and short-cut lawn. Keep the paved path and site boundary in their current positions. Landscape species remain illustrative pending approval.”
The scene and instruction are fictional examples, not a record of a client request.
A good markup usually contains a location, a verb, a constraint and a reference. If you cannot tell whether a note requests a correction or a design change, clarify that with the architect before sending it to production.
Keep references attached to the relevant comment.
A material sample, elevation excerpt or approved reference photograph should be named in the same issue as the instruction it supports. A link to an unlabelled folder of inspiration images leaves the artist guessing which reference is authoritative. Check the right to share third-party material and avoid treating inspiration imagery as permission to reproduce it.
Review the image in the order changes become expensive.
It is inefficient to perfect cushions, plants or reflections while the building volume and camera remain unresolved. Use review gates that match the decisions still open. The exact number of previews depends on the project, but the sequence below prevents late cosmetic decisions from masking structural problems.
- Geometry and camera: building proportions, openings, levels, site context, perspective, visible boundaries and whether the chosen view tells the intended story.
- Materials and atmosphere: approved finishes, texture scale, light direction, colour balance, glazing, vegetation character and furnishing concept.
- Detail and delivery: small artefacts, entourage, retouching, image crops, resolution, file naming and any presentation labels.
Do not interpret a stage gate as a ban on necessary corrections. If a geometry error is discovered late, correct it. But record that it may require re-rendering, re-lighting or rechecking other views. A review process should reveal dependencies, not hide them.
Collect comments into one reviewable decision log.
When the architect, developer, marketing team and client all send separate comments, the rendering artist should not have to decide whose instruction wins. Nominate one person to consolidate the notes, resolve contradictions and submit a single approved list for the round. Keep unresolved decisions visible instead of silently picking the latest email.
These IDs, finishes and documents are fictional. A real register should also link each note to its annotated image, record when it was resolved and identify the preview in which the result was checked.
Useful statuses are open, needs decision, approved for change, implemented and verified. “Implemented” is not the same as “approved”: the reviewer still needs to check that the updated image matches the instruction. When a comment is withdrawn, keep its history so it does not reappear in the next round.
Protect the camera and architectural proportions.
A request to show more of the left-hand courtyard may sound minor, but moving the camera can change perspective, visible façades, reflections and what sits behind the building. If the camera is approved, say explicitly whether it may move. A crop adjustment is not equivalent to a camera move, and neither should be used to conceal a design discrepancy.
When checking a render against drawings, compare recognisable elements: window spacing, parapet height, door position, slab edges and neighbouring volumes. If a wall appears too short, first establish whether it is a geometry error, a perspective effect or an intentional composition. “Make the room bigger” is not a valid rendering instruction when the dimensions must remain unchanged.
For a proposed development, avoid adjusting the viewpoint or surroundings to imply views, sunlight or spatial relationships that the verified project information does not support. If the scene is conceptual, label it as such where it is published.
Discuss materials, light and realism separately.
“The timber is too orange” can mean the specified wood tone is wrong, the lighting is too warm or the overall colour grade is pushing everything toward yellow. Those require different changes. First identify the approved finish, then judge it under the intended light and on a reasonably consistent display. A screenshot taken through a messaging app is not a reliable colour reference by itself.
For glazing, decide whether the concern is transparency, reflection strength, interior visibility or a missing frame. For vegetation, specify density, height, season and where planting is permitted. For people, state whether they are needed for scale, activity or neither; do not use entourage to distract from an unresolved architectural problem.
Use words such as more neutral, less saturated, softer contrast alongside a reference and the element to which they apply. “More photorealistic” is a desired outcome, not a testable instruction. The useful question is which surface, edge, shadow, scale cue or texture currently breaks the illusion.
Check changes across the whole image set.
A project rarely has just one view. A new balcony railing, glazing division or façade colour may appear in an exterior, a courtyard image and an interior looking outside. Record the affected view IDs in the same decision, even if only one preview first revealed the issue.
Keep a simple cross-view checklist for repeated elements: façade palette, door handing, landscape boundaries, visible furniture, daylight direction and the status of neighbouring buildings. If two images intentionally show different times of day, say so. If they depict different design revisions, do not present them as one coherent approved proposal.
For sales websites, this consistency matters beyond the rendering files. The final imagery must agree with the verified plans, unit information and development status
Approve the deliverables, not only the last preview.
A low-resolution review image can look correct while the final export contains a different crop, missing retouching or an outdated version. Before closing the review, check the actual deliverables at their intended size and confirm which files are approved for which uses.
- Every image has a stable view ID and a clearly identified final revision.
- Approved geometry and material decisions match the referenced design documents.
- Open design questions are resolved or explicitly marked as provisional.
- All consolidated comments are verified or intentionally closed with a recorded reason.
- Changes affecting multiple views have been checked everywhere they appear.
- People, planting, furniture and neighbouring context are appropriate to the intended use.
- Final crop, aspect ratio, pixel dimensions and colour treatment match the agreed outputs.
- Required visualisation disclaimers, credits and image-use permissions are confirmed by the responsible parties.
- The delivered files can be identified without relying on “final-final-v2” filenames.
- The client knows which image revision is approved for publication, print or presentation.
Keep a dated approval note naming the view IDs and file versions. That is more useful than a generic “looks good” message when a drawing changes later. The aim is not to make feedback bureaucratic; it is to make architectural decisions traceable while leaving room for visual craft.