Composition and Contrast: The Painterly Nature of Architectural Exterior Illumination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is likely relevant to the journal, although improvements should be made. The title is a little vague. The title should reflect the actual study by mentioning luminance distributions and subjective preference and responses, and eye tracking. Some of the other topics mentioned at the end (light pollution and energy consumption) come out of nowhere and not super relevant to the journal or the main research question. Either embed these into the research question and analyze them more in depth, or remove them (or briefly mention as limitations or other considerations). The abstract is also too long and out of format.

 

The research question being originated from the CIE makes the reasoning weaker, as most designers do not design by referring to CIE guidelines in the real world. I recommend the authors to restructure the introduction (and abstract ofcourse) to contextualize the study in terms of architectural lighting practice (maybe refer to guidelines such as CIE as an example, rather than the main motivator). Background mentions some floodlighting work, but the main literature that should be discussed (visual attention, preference, luminance distribution) lies in other applications. The literature review should focus on more relevant museum and artwork lighting studies. Authors should change the research question and focus of the study (and title) to the perception of facades specifically (as it is similarly 2D like a painting) to make that connection clearer. The 2D nature of facades and paintings should be highlighted early on both in abstract and introduction.

 

A constant total luminance is a strange term. I assume the authors mean average luminance, since total means the addition of all luminance values, which will make the image very very dim.

 

There are too many hypotheses (10 if you count the additional ones), especially considering the results do not clearly address all of these and discuss the implications for each hypothesis. I’d recommend focusing on the few (2-4 maybe). The section 2 should also be shorter. There is repeated information.  

 

Light is not the primary modality to detect depth perception (other physical cues are more important). Authors should discuss and clearly explain the underlying theory on why they think luminance or contrast would affect depth perception. Contract can affect attention for sure, but depth perception (or as authors call is “element being closer”) is a little stretch and not clearly motivated in this study.

 

There are some grammar errors.

 

There are formatting issues such as line breaks, graph and font formatting (e.g., outer lines in graphs, random bold text).

 

The methods section should not start with literature review. Either remove those or move them to an earlier section. Change “3.1. Methodology” to “3.1. Stimuli” More information about the experimental settings should be provided. For example, provide how those images created (what software) and what eye tracking device (model) was used. Was there any training to reduce bias? Were the participants acclimated to the low light levels? If yes, for how long?  Figure 2 caption (legend) is very hard to read. So the false color grading is not very useful. Please enlarge the legend. Was there an ethics approval?

 

Figures 4 and 5 are the only graphs related to the results, and they should be formatted better to show the results. Y axis should have the same range (0-10 s) and caption should be there (measure and its unit). A legend is missing. Statistical significance can be shown using asterisk* in these graphs.

 

Although there seems to be a clear trend, survey results should be analyzed for statistical significance. For example, for the “building appearing wider” question, I don’t think there will be a significant difference between variants B and C.

 

Every study has limitations, and the acknowledgment and discussion of these help the reader to evaluate the dignity of a study. Limitations, such as the complexity differences between a painting vs façade, display luminance vs real world luminance differences, small number of sample images and luminance contrast levels to find a threshold, should be added.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer1,

Thank you for your time and valuable comments. We hope our responses address your concerns and meet your expectations. We have modified the article according to your suggestions.

Comments 1:

The manuscript is likely relevant to the journal, although improvements should be made. The title is a little vague. The title should reflect the actual study by mentioning luminance distributions and subjective preference and responses, and eye tracking. Some of the other topics mentioned at the end (light pollution and energy consumption) come out of nowhere and not super relevant to the journal or the main research question. Either embed these into the research question and analyze them more in depth, or remove them (or briefly mention as limitations or other considerations). The abstract is also too long and out of format.

Response 1:

We agree with the Reviewer’s opinion. However, we did not make major changes to the title, as in our view it best reflects the nature of the comparison between painting techniques and illumination. We have specified that the focus is on external illumination, as this was necessary to more clearly define the scope of the study. Thank you.

Indeed, issues related to light pollution and energy consumption are not addressed in the article. These aspects are, to some extent, indirectly connected with maintaining luminance distribution at a controlled level, which is why we referred to them. We have indicated this at the end of the article and plan to develop these topics further in the next stages of our research. Once again, thank you.

Comments 2:

The research question being originated from the CIE makes the reasoning weaker, as most designers do not design by referring to CIE guidelines in the real world. I recommend the authors to restructure the introduction (and abstract of course) to contextualize the study in terms of architectural lighting practice (maybe refer to guidelines such as CIE as an example, rather than the main motivator). Background mentions some floodlighting work, but the main literature that should be discussed (visual attention, preference, luminance distribution) lies in other applications. The literature review should focus on more relevant museum and artwork lighting studies. Authors should change the research question and focus of the study (and title) to the perception of facades specifically (as it is similarly 2D like a painting) to make that connection clearer. The 2D nature of facades and paintings should be highlighted early on both in abstract and introduction.

Response 2:

Lighting design - whether for interiors, roads, or architectural illumination - should always follow the relevant recommendations and standards. In the case of architectural lighting, these include CIE Reports (such as the Guide for Floodlighting, A Guide to Urban Lighting Masterplanning, and the Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations) as well as standards like EN12464-2 (Lighting of Work Places - Part 2: Outdoor Work Places). There are no exceptions.

The fact that, unfortunately, some designers are unfamiliar with these guidelines and standards cannot serve as an argument for disregarding them in scientific work. The purpose of academic articles is to present problems and propose solutions, while also educating readers. It should be kept in mind that failure to comply with principles and standards may lead to many issues, including legal consequences.

If, in the case of architectural lighting, a designer assumes, “Nothing bad will happen, this is my vision, and this is how I want it to look,” they are mistaken. Such an approach may occasionally result in successful projects, but it can just as well produce disastrous ones. Interestingly, when looking at poorly designed illumination, many observers may still consider it aesthetically pleasing. A good
example is the Royal Castle in Warsaw. It is one of the most recognizable landmarks in Poland, yet its lighting is, from the perspective of rules and standards, extremely poor (Fig. 1, Please see the attachment). Nevertheless, after dusk, tourists often take photographs with its illuminated façade in the background.

But is it always just about the aesthetic effect? No. Both the CIE recommendations and the standards clearly specify luminance and illuminance levels on façades. These values are defined according to the environmental zone and are mandatory (Fig. 2 Please see the attachment).

CIE provides the same ranges. Failure to comply with standards may result in residents’ protests and, ultimately, legal consequences for the designer. Light penetrating into the interiors of buildings will disturb residents (hence the limitations on luminance and illuminance).

Meeting the lighting requirements also ensures aesthetic order. Designers often hear from investors that they want their building to be brighter than the neighbouring one (sic!), so that it attracts more attention.

In our study, the choice of an average luminance level of 10 cd/m² was not accidental - it follows directly from CIE recommendations and the EN 12464-2 standard. The object is located in environmental zone E3 (represents medium district brightness areas, such as industrial or residential suburbs).

However, in our research we focused primarily on contrast, as it is not sufficiently defined. Unfortunately, there is relatively little scientific research in the field of architectural lighting.

Our research questions concern building façades, not museum objects, exhibits, or interiors. We have modified the title, abstract, and introduction to better highlight the main research objective, without elaborating on side topics that require further investigation. We hope that in its current form the article will be acceptable to the Reviewer.

Comments 3:

A constant total luminance is a strange term. I assume the authors mean average luminance, since total means the addition of all luminance values, which will make the image very very dim.

Response 3:

Yes, this refers to the average luminance across the entire building. Indeed, the original phrasing was not precise and has been changed to “average luminance level across the entire facade”. We apologise and thank you for your careful attention.

Comments 4:

There are too many hypotheses (10 if you count the additional ones), especially considering the results do not clearly address all of these and discuss the implications for each hypothesis. I’d recommend focusing on the few (2-4 maybe). The section 2 should also be shorter. There is repeated information.

Response 4:

Thank you for your feedback. Indeed, there are a considerable number of hypotheses and research questions. The phenomenon we are describing and investigating is complex. We have carefully considered and discussed this, and we believe that despite there being seven hypotheses, they remain clear in their current form. They are independent, and combining them would complicate the conclusions and create confusion during the summary stage. To ensure clarity in confirming or rejecting the hypotheses, we wish to retain the current number.

Comments 5:

Light is not the primary modality to detect depth perception (other physical cues are more important). Authors should discuss and clearly explain the underlying theory on why they think luminance or contrast would affect depth perception. Contract can affect attention for sure, but depth perception (or as authors call is “element being closer”) is a little stretch and not clearly motivated in this study.

Response 5:

In our study, we refer to painting theory, aerial perspective, and tenebrism. We did not define this theory ourselves. The aim of our research was to examine whether, when illuminating an architectural object - a building - perceived by the human eye as an image (which is often described as “painting with light”) a designer can apply the same principles that a painter uses to create depth. Our study aligns directly with the profile of the special issue.

Comments 6:

There are some grammar errors.

Response 6:

We have made an effort to improve the grammar and believe we have corrected several errors, such as those involving was/were and did/does. If any mistakes remain, we would be grateful if you could kindly point them out. We apologise for these language inaccuracies.

Comments 7:

There are formatting issues such as line breaks, graph and font formatting (e.g., outer lines in graphs, random bold text).

Response 7:

Thank you for your comment. Indeed, there were some editorial formatting issues, for which we apologise. We noticed that some spaces had disappeared. We also understand that, after an article is accepted, every journal conducts a thorough formatting review. We are confident that the Editor will highlight any remaining issues, for example those arising from differences between software versions (such as various versions of Word).

Comments 8:

The methods section should not start with literature review. Either remove those or move them to an earlier section. Change “3.1. Methodology” to “3.1. Stimuli” More information about the experimental settings should be provided. For example, provide how those images created (what software) and what eye tracking device (model) was used. Was there any training to reduce bias? Were the participants acclimated to the low light levels? If yes, for how long? Figure 2 caption (legend) is very hard to read. So the false color grading is not very useful. Please enlarge the legend. Was there an ethics approval?

Response 8:

The Tobii Pro Glasses software has already been mentioned in the manuscript. We thank the Reviewer for noting that it was necessary to specify the exact ET model, as two versions of Tobii’s mobile eye tracker were used.

The image was presented as the 22nd stimulus, which indicates that, including calibration, participants viewed the studied element for approximately 8–10 minutes. For most individuals, this duration allows for adaptation to the altered lighting conditions. We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment regarding the need to explain why the examination time was extended. This has been addressed in the revised manuscript so that the methodology description allows for replication or an extension of the experiment.

We also thank the Reviewer for the remark concerning the readability of the illustrations. In the MDPI journal Arts, figures can be enlarged by clicking on them. As the article is Open Access, all readers have online access, and the legend can be read at full resolution. We have included below illustrations spanning the full page width to ensure this is a satisfactory solution.

Computer visualisations were produced using Autodesk 3ds Max 2024, a reliable tool for photometric lighting simulation. Luminance distribution analysis was performed based on false-colour images using custom raster image analysis algorithms, as well as numerical analysis enabled by Autodesk 3ds Max. The description has been changed in accordance with the Reviewer’s suggestion.

Comments 9:

Figures 4 and 5 are the only graphs related to the results, and they should be formatted better to show the results. Y axis should have the same range (0-10 s) and caption should be there (measure and its unit). A legend is missing. Statistical significance can be shown using asterisk* in these graphs.

Response 9:

Thank You for your suggestion. We have corrected both Figures. This enhances the clarity of the study and highlights the statistical analyses conducted.

Comments 10:

Although there seems to be a clear trend, survey results should be analyzed for statistical significance. For example, for the “building appearing wider” question, I don’t think there will be a significant difference between variants B and C.

Response 10:

The text has been updated to include the necessary descriptions of the statistical tests, illustrating what was discussed earlier. We apologise for not including the details of the significance testing of deviations.

Comments 11:

Every study has limitations, and the acknowledgment and discussion of these help the reader to evaluate the dignity of a study. Limitations, such as the complexity differences between a painting vs façade, display luminance vs real world luminance differences, small number of sample images and luminance contrast levels to find a threshold, should be added.

Response 11:

Thank you for this valuable comment. The study was conducted in a darkroom using a pre-calibrated monitor. The luminance distributions on the monitor matched those in the design, as confirmed by our measurements with a matrix luminance meter. The average luminance level for each displayed variant was 10 cd/m². Of course, presenting a larger number of variants would result in more data. However, it is important to consider the specifics of eye-tracking studies. Participants cannot evaluate too many variants, as the number of required subjects would increase rapidly with more designs. In our study, we adopted the minimum contrast threshold of 1:2, as recommended by CIE.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with analysis of visual perception in the context of building façade lighting –  the influence of luminance contrast on the perception of architectural form at night. The study compares the principles of painting from that period with eye-tracking and survey-based methods to investigate whether the arrangement of luminance contrasts significantly influences viewers' visual attention, aesthetic judgment, and perception of depth. The topic is important from the point of architectural expression enhancing methods, orientation in the environment during night, security atc. However, I miss discussion about energy efficiency and sustainability measures of night illumination. 

It would be fine to implement more views, such as other luminance contrasts, extending the number of tested scenarios, using different scales- at the detail level,at the urban scale etc. As it is mentioned in the conclusion, further research should be provided on colour temperature modification, selective contrast reduction, technical limitations etc.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your time and kind review.

Comments 1:

The paper deals with analysis of visual perception in the context of building façade lighting – the influence of luminance contrast on the perception of architectural form at night. The study compares the principles of painting from that period with eye-tracking and survey-based methods to investigate whether the arrangement of luminance contrasts significantly influences viewers' visual attention, aesthetic judgment, and perception of depth. The topic is important from the point of architectural expression enhancing methods, orientation in the environment during night, security atc. However, I miss discussion about energy efficiency and sustainability measures of night illumination.

Response1:

Thank you for your comment on our study. Energy efficiency and sustainable lighting were not the focus of our research, although we plan to continue investigations in this direction, which is why these concepts appeared in the text. Following the suggestions of other reviewers, we have removed them from the abstract.

Comments 2:

It would be fine to implement more views, such as other luminance contrasts, extending the number of tested scenarios, using different scales- at the detail level, at the urban scale etc. As it is mentioned in the conclusion, further research should be provided on colour temperature modification, selective contrast reduction, technical limitations etc.

Response2:

Yes, you are absolutely right. Expanding the number of variants would certainly provide more results. As mentioned, this is the aim of our future research. We are aware of the challenges involved. Eye-tracking studies are highly demanding and time-consuming, as each participant can evaluate only one variant. A statistical sample requires a minimum of 20 participants. We plan to address mentioned issues this in the next phase of our study.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal Arts (ISSN 2076-0752)

Manuscript ID arts-3876527

Type: Article

Title: Composition and Contrast: The Painterly Nature of Architectural Illumination

 

Summary:

 

The study focuses on understanding illumination techniques from Renaissance and Baroque paintings that could offer guidelines for architectural illumination. The study is based on eye-tracking techniques and survey methods to analyze luminescence contrasts and viewers’ influence on visual attention, aesthetic judgment, and perception of depth. The main objective is to analyze visual perception in the context of building façade lighting to analyze the distribution of luminance of a building, which affects the perceived character and dimensions of architecture, specifically buildings. This is original research that shows creativity in the conceptualization of the problem and an interesting conceptual base from which to elicit comparisons regarding the effect of light on buildings and viewers’ perceptions.

 

General concept comments:

Article: Overall, the study is well thought-out, clear, and well structured. The study itself addressed issues of luminescence on buildings that are mainly based on perception of contrast, light/darkness, light preference, sense of depth, and preference for the building according to time spent looking at the object, as stated in the hypotheses.

 

Review: The literature review is well developed along the main concepts that the study is anchored on, namely Renaissance and Baroque painting techniques such as aerial perspective, tenebrism, urban lighting, variation, direction, and intensity of the illumination, among others. The references are up to date. However, in “Hypothesis 7: Participants are expected to perceive a uniformly lit building without contrasts as calmer,” there is no review of the literature in this area (light and feelings of calm) nor a comprehensive examination of the literature with reference to lighting and mood. Adding a section to address this topic will provide a fuller understanding of the variables under study, the type of correlation expected, and enhance the discussion of the findings. Additionally, and since this is also addressed in the discussion, it would be convenient to offer more information on the contribution to the development of a contemporary sustainable theory of illumination in the introduction. As it is in the discussion, the notion of the sustainable theory of illumination is non-specific; does it refer to a theory that is practical, or is it a theory that seeks to reduce light pollution in urban environments? Clarify.

 

Specific comments:

 

Line 11-12: “offering valuable models for contemporary.” The sentence is incomplete and crucial for an understanding of what the study seeks to accomplish as a contribution.

Line 217-218: “…how visual reactions are connected with architectural and urban factors.” What urban factors, specifically? It would be convenient to name those; otherwise, it is too vague. I recommend drawing from the references listed.

Line 395-396: “100% of the participants, no matter which of the three stimuli they were exposed to, looked first at AOIM.” Recommendation: Provide the definition of the acronym to help the reader comprehend the finding. (i.e. 100% of the participants, no matter which of the three stimuli they were exposed to, looked first at AOIM (area of interest, middle).

Line 475-476: “Finally, Variant C, perceived as the calmest, produced the most balanced distribution of visual attention.” How was this Variant defined as the calmest? What can the literature on light mood and calm contribute to expand on this finding?

Line 503-504:” Finally, reconciling aesthetics, historic preservation, depth perception, and energy savings poses a serious challenge, requiring interdisciplinary collaboration between lighting designers and conservators. Again, bringing the topics of historic preservation and energy savings to the introduction, sustained by the literature, is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for your time and valuable comments. We hope our responses will clear up your doubts and that you will be satisfied. We have modified the article according to your suggestions.

Comments 1:

Summary: The study focuses on understanding illumination techniques from Renaissance and Baroque paintings that could offer guidelines for architectural illumination. The study is based on eye-tracking techniques and survey methods to analyze luminescence contrasts and viewers’ influence on visual attention, aesthetic judgment, and perception of depth. The main objective is to analyze visual perception in the context of building façade lighting to analyze the distribution of luminance of a building, which affects the perceived character and dimensions of architecture, specifically buildings. This is original research that shows creativity in the conceptualization of the problem and an interesting conceptual base from which to elicit comparisons regarding the effect of light on buildings and viewers’ perceptions.

Response 1:

Thank you for recognising our work.

Comments 2:

General concept comments: Article: Overall, the study is well thought-out, clear, and well structured. The study itself addressed issues of luminescence on buildings that are mainly based on perception of contrast, light/darkness, light preference, sense of depth, and preference for the building according to time spent looking at the object, as stated in the hypotheses. Review: The literature review is well developed along the main concepts that the study is anchored on, namely Renaissance and Baroque painting techniques such as aerial perspective, tenebrism, urban lighting, variation, direction, and intensity of the illumination, among others. The references are up to date. However, in “Hypothesis 7: Participants are expected to perceive a uniformly lit building without contrasts as calmer,” there is no review of the literature in this area (light and feelings of calm) nor a comprehensive examination of the literature with reference to lighting and mood. Adding a section to address this topic will provide a fuller understanding of the variables under study, the type of correlation expected, and enhance the discussion of the findings. Additionally, and since this is also addressed in the discussion, it would be convenient to offer more information on the contribution to the development of a contemporary sustainable theory of illumination in the introduction. As it is in the discussion, the notion of the sustainable theory of illumination is non-specific; does it refer to a theory that is practical, or is it a theory that seeks to reduce light pollution in urban environments? Clarify.

Response 2:

There are relatively few articles devoted to the perception of architectural lighting. Indeed, it would be worth mentioning the recent study Architectural Lighting Simulations as a Method to Evaluate Emotions on Cultural Heritage Building Facades by Thanos Balafoutis. Thank you for pointing this out - we were surprised that we had not included this reference. The appropriate reference has been added to the text and included in the bibliography.

Energy efficiency and sustainable lighting were not the focus of our study, although we plan to pursue research in this direction, which is why these concepts appeared in the text. Following the suggestions of other reviewers, we have removed them from the abstract

Comments 3:

Line 11-12: “offering valuable models for contemporary.” The sentence is incomplete and crucial for an understanding of what the study seeks to accomplish as a contribution.

Response 3:

This has been corrected.

Comments 4:

Line 217-218: “…how visual reactions are connected with architectural and urban factors.” What urban factors, specifically? It would be convenient to name those; otherwise, it is too vague. I recommend drawing from the references listed.

Response 4:

This has been corrected.

Comments 5:

Line 395-396: “100% of the participants, no matter which of the three stimuli they were exposed to, looked first at AOIM.” Recommendation: Provide the definition of the acronym to help the reader comprehend the finding. (i.e. 100% of the participants, no matter which of the three stimuli they were exposed to, looked first at AOIM (area of interest, middle).

Response 5:

This has been corrected.

Comments 6:

Line 475-476: “Finally, Variant C, perceived as the calmest, produced the most balanced distribution of visual attention.” How was this Variant defined as the calmest? What can the literature on light mood and calm contribute to expand on this finding?

Response 6:

This was a subjective assessment by the respondents.

Comments 7:

Line 503-504:” Finally, reconciling aesthetics, historic preservation, depth perception, and energy savings poses a serious challenge, requiring interdisciplinary collaboration between lighting designers and conservators. Again, bringing the topics of historic preservation and energy savings to the introduction, sustained by the literature, is recommended.

Response 7:

We have decided to remove the entire sentence. We went too far in this regard, considering our planned future studies, which we intend to conduct. This is our plan. Thank you for your comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The formatting and technical aspects of the manuscript should still be improved. The authors has not responded the comments from the previous round and introduced more errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are aware that the formatting may not fully comply with the journal’s template, but we are confident that this will be adjusted during the production stage. We have made every effort to improve the technical aspects and have carefully addressed all comments provided in all reviews. We are confident that we have not made any meritorious errors.

Below, once again, we've provided a point-by-point explanation of your comments. We've incorporated some of them into the revised manuscript. We've indeed not included some, and we've explained why.

Comments 1

The manuscript is likely relevant to the journal, although improvements should be made. The title is a little vague. The title should reflect the actual study by mentioning luminance distributions and subjective preference and responses, and eye tracking. Some of the other topics mentioned at the end (light pollution and energy consumption) come out of nowhere and not super relevant to the journal or the main research question. Either embed these into the research question and analyze them more in depth, or remove them (or briefly mention as limitations or other considerations). The abstract is also too long and out of format.

Response 1:

We did not make major changes to the title, but in line with the reviewer's comment, we removed information on energy consumption and light pollution from the article and the abstract.

Comments 2:

The research question being originated from the CIE makes the reasoning weaker, as most designers do not design by referring to CIE guidelines in the real world. I recommend the authors to restructure the introduction (and abstract of course) to contextualize the study in terms of architectural lighting practice (maybe refer to guidelines such as CIE as an example, rather than the main motivator). Background mentions some floodlighting work, but the main literature that should be discussed (visual attention, preference, luminance distribution) lies in other applications. The literature review should focus on more relevant museum and artwork lighting studies. Authors should change the research question and focus of the study (and title) to the perception of facades specifically (as it is similarly 2D like a painting) to make that connection clearer. The 2D nature of facades and paintings should be highlighted early on both in abstract and introduction.

Response 2:

As practising lighting designers, we unfortunately couldn't agree with your opinion. We explained why in the first round. While we couldn't agree, it was also difficult for us to implement changes.

Comments 3:

A constant total luminance is a strange term. I assume the authors mean average luminance, since total means the addition of all luminance values, which will make the image very very dim.

Response 3:

This comment has been taken into account. Indeed, the original phrasing was not precise and has been changed to “average luminance level across the entire facade”.

Comments 4:

There are too many hypotheses (10 if you count the additional ones), especially considering the results do not clearly address all of these and discuss the implications for each hypothesis. I’d recommend focusing on the few (2-4 maybe). The section 2 should also be shorter. There is repeated information.

Response 4:

We did not take this comment into account, but we also explained why.

We have carefully considered and discussed this, and we believe that despite there being seven hypotheses, they remain clear in their current form. They are independent, and combining them would complicate the conclusions and create confusion during the summary stage.

Comments 5:

Light is not the primary modality to detect depth perception (other physical cues are more important). Authors should discuss and clearly explain the underlying theory on why they think luminance or contrast would affect depth perception. Contract can affect attention for sure, but depth perception (or as authors call is “element being closer”) is a little stretch and not clearly motivated in this study.

Response 5:

In our study, we refer to painting theory, aerial perspective, and tenebrism. We did not define this theory ourselves. The aim of our research was to examine whether, when illuminating an architectural object - a building - perceived by the human eye as an image (which is often described as “painting with light”) a designer can apply the same principles that a painter uses to create depth. Our study aligns directly with the profile of the special issue.

Comments 6:

There are some grammar errors.

Response 6:

We have made an effort to improve the grammar and believe we have corrected several errors, such as those involving was/were and did/does. If any mistakes remain, we would be grateful if you could kindly point them out. We apologise for these language inaccuracies.

Comments 7:

There are formatting issues such as line breaks, graph and font formatting (e.g., outer lines in graphs, random bold text).

Response 7:

As we wrote at the beginning, the formatting will be corrected by the magazine anyway, for which we thank you in advance.

Comments 8:

The methods section should not start with literature review. Either remove those or move them to an earlier section. Change “3.1. Methodology” to “3.1. Stimuli” More information about the experimental settings should be provided. For example, provide how those images created (what software) and what eye tracking device (model) was used. Was there any training to reduce bias? Were the participants acclimated to the low light levels? If yes, for how long? Figure 2 caption (legend) is very hard to read. So the false color grading is not very useful. Please enlarge the legend. Was there an ethics approval?

Response 8:

We have not changed the order of the sections, but we have addressed and clarified the remaining comments.

Changes have been made to the new manuscript.

Comments 9:

Figures 4 and 5 are the only graphs related to the results, and they should be formatted better to show the results. Y axis should have the same range (0-10 s) and caption should be there (measure and its unit). A legend is missing. Statistical significance can be shown using asterisk* in these graphs.

Response 9:

We have corrected both Figures.

Comments 10:

Although there seems to be a clear trend, survey results should be analyzed for statistical significance. For example, for the “building appearing wider” question, I don’t think there will be a significant difference between variants B and C.

Response 10:

In this case, changes were also made to the text.

Comments 11:

Every study has limitations, and the acknowledgment and discussion of these help the reader to evaluate the dignity of a study. Limitations, such as the complexity differences between a painting vs façade, display luminance vs real world luminance differences, small number of sample images and luminance contrast levels to find a threshold, should be added.

Response 11:

We also addressed this comment. Of course, every study has its limitations. In our research, the most crucial factor was the correct luminance distribution on the monitor. It was calibrated correctly. The on-screen luminance were the same as those calculated.

We also explained why the number of samples couldn't be larger. Eye-tracking studies preclude the possibility that the same person observed all samples, so the number of people needed for the experiment increases dramatically. However, the number we examined is representative.