I think we're heading towards another debate about what's physically accurate (i.e. emulates the physics of light very closely) and what we'd expect to see (based on our visual experience of photographs, TV shows etc.).

Your render looks more or less physically accurate; if I were standing where the camera is I'd experience it differently because the human eye* super-adapts to variations in brightness and colour.

If this was for a hotel brochure or website I'd expect it to be lit 'properly', the way a professional photographer would; the extra lighting should be designed either to get closer to the super-adapted experience of the human viewer, or to show off key features of the product (the room in this case) to their best advantage; or to convey some sort of ambience or atmosphere compatible with the hotel's image.

So, I think the scene needs some subtle additional lighting for a start. It also looks unnaturally stark, so some 'lifestyle cues' (ornaments, pictures, vases, flowers etc.) would help.

 

*and by 'human eye' I mean the whole visual system, not just the ball of jelly sticking out of your face

---

Windows 10 x64 Pro - Intel Xeon E5450 @ 3.00GHz (x2)

PoserPro 11 - Units: Metres

Adobe CC 2017