Two thoughts about architectural photography:
1) Architects are a picky bunch. They do not want to see buildings falling backwards or warped interiors (the ceiling & floor in the first restaurant photo are out of alignment);
2) The images look over-processed. Either the clarity is set too high or the HDR is too aggressive.
Maybe a good direction for you is to shoot architecture in black and white. That would certainly distinguish you from the rest of the pack. I am being brutally honest. I greatly admire your nude studies; they are extraordinary.
Well, speaking as an architect...
Architects tend to feel about buildings the way photographers feel about photographs - we give a damn. However, that does not mean that everyone's taste is the same - we are, by definition, all different. The old adage about having three architects in a room and therefore at least four opinions is very true.
There is also a huge amount of cultural baggage - architectural photography which is liked in the USA is very often disliked in Europe. I can see why (I'm European) - some years ago I had the misfortune to brief an architectural photographer who felt he knew my building better than I did (he was commissioned by the client - not me). He turned up with a huge amount of lighting gear and lectured me about how useless the light in the building was - I had only spent three years of my life designing it that way. Ouch. And his lurid taste in colours made me feel quite bilious - not at all what one needs to convey the essence of subtle natural materials finished with great care. Fortunately the client put his photos in a drawer and used mine instead (and I'm certainly not a professional photographer) - the only place you can see his photos are on his own website - and hardly anyone recognises the building (phew!).
That's the danger of presenting other people's creative endeavours - you have to listen and understand to be welcome, and architecture is a much larger and culturally more complex field than photography. It also has 2,000+ years of theoretical background. However, many architects also love photography as a creative thing in its own right, and are more than happy to encourage photographers to use their buildings for that purpose. Just be clear about what you are trying to present - their building or your photographs. Know your audience and what you are trying to achieve - that's all.
There are lots of architectural photos in the "Recent format agnostic professional" thread in "Digital cameras & shooting techniques" which are worth looking at. However, the majority are simply too perfect as photographs for me - they leave me absolutely cold. But then I wouldn't work for some of the architects shown even if they paid me a fortune - life is just too short. I give a damn, you see...
Chris Valites' shot in reply 740 here is very much to current European taste - lovely.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=56053.740Keith Laban's shots of Morocco are gorgeous as well: reply 28:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101927.20 and here at the beginning:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101927.0. Interestingly, neither present themselves as specifically architectural photos, and are mercifully free from post-processing - worth thinking about, that.
I do like your shot of the Flatiron building, and the one of the Empire State (minus the van), but they are a bit over-worked. Don't be afraid of shadow where appropriate, and avoid over-sharpening, as it just looks unnatural.
HTH - and good luck. We are a picky bunch!!
