hey Lee and Patrick, thanks for the critique of my photo [ ... Reynisdrangar ] in the contest video :-) yes it's taken close to the small town Vík in Iceland. The many small dots are not sensor dirt ... these are birds ... Seagulls. The light and color were exactly like in my picture. Only minimal post processing applied, no doge and burning and no AI! Cheers from Iceland, Raymond ;-)
Please don't photoshop the birds out! It's painfully obvious that those are birds. Especially considering the closer ones on the edges of the frame clearly have wings. 😂
The wedding shot is my favorite. The "two umbrellas from overhead" shot is utilizing orange and teal (close enough!), like almost everyone these days, but I do like it. The angle is interesting, and the buildings on either side channel your view straight to the people/umbrellas. This is my first time watching one of your critique videos. It was fun! Thanks.
@FStoppers thanks so much for picking up my photo for review, so cool! Your insight about the water droplets was spot-on - they were indeed part of a poster design, crafted to look passable on outdoor display - point taken :) I revisited the entire series, improving each image to work better as standalone photograph. Thanks again!
Thank you so much for the Critique with my wedding picture in the window, means alot just to be showcased on your channel!! So many amazing images showcased on this one!!
Guys, I really enjoy these critique videos. I don't always agree 100%, but usually we're pretty close. Usually I find myself talking (or yelling) at the screen when some of your comments come up . . . agreeing or disagreeing. Keep up the good work . . .
join the next contest for free: www.fstoppers.com/contests Save 80% on Photographing The World 2: fstoppers.com/product/photographing-world-2-cityscape-astrophotography-and-advanced-post-processing
I have been to the water mirror location in Bordeaux France, to take street photos. It is water mist/vapour not fog. The image in the critique is not fake or AI, that is how it is there. Essentially, it’s a huge water fountain that people walk in. It’s very busy and hard to get shots without loads of people
Don't want to be naive, but, you drag the AI question into each shot and it down grades the images that were actually real. You tend to lose the joy of the photographs which seems to be why most of us love photography in the first place. Maybe brutal critiques but downers none the less. Ask the submitter what they did and then critque instead guessing and ruining the experience! -2 score
I'm the 2nd place photographer. Yes, those are cheap home depot work lights...at least they look to be, I didn't build the wall so I can't say for sure. Yes, you can see the bulbs in the RAWs, but not as well as in the edited photos. I sent Lee a link to a screenshot of the RAW to appease his curiosity.
@@tonitinnila9474 I'm not sure that I'm following what you are asking. This is a hand built wall where the lights were not perfectly even or perfectly secure in place, so slight angles would gave different results. I was also not straight on, so I was shooting at a slight angle.
Agree. I feel that 99% of all wedding photos actually printed just end up in a drawer somewhere in the home a month after the wedding anyway. The social media share of them is a one-time share and then they're lost in the scrolling.
I entered the contest, didnt expect to win really, but some of these choices are so average? golden gate bridge shots in fog, rolling hills that look like the palouse, sunset with rock silhouete ? these photos have been made maybe 10,000 times at this point, no hyperbole I dunno pretty uninspiring end results
The average photographer isn't able to get photos of things that are 'different '. Not everyone is able to get the shot that nobody else can. The critique hopefully makes us all better photographers. Everyone evolves. If you looked at your own pics from years back I'm sure you'll find lots that are 'average'.
@@bingbong4848 yes but those photos werent winning competetions. I think the guy who won 1st place with the lowes lighting job was indeed a highlight photo. it was well done. many of the others were slightly above average
Great critique guys, always enjoyable. It's great when the both of you have different opinions on an image, it just shows that that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, witch is why I love all my images 🤣🤣🤣
Ah, so many photographers are doing this badly on RUclips, and their rating always feels so random and inflated with weird or no explanations given. However, this video was amazing! Not only the quality of the photos were excellent, but I really love your classification system. The fact that I can see your profound thought process, and you can convince me even when I initially disagree is a really solid part of this production. Keep up the good work!
I think the lights in the 2nd place photo are LEDs. One clue is that those lights would probably be too hot for the model to lay his arm on! The inner circle may be a circuit board with flat LEDs (know as a COB - chips on board). Almost all of the light goes out forward. I'm really hooked on your critique series, please keep them coming..
42:04 i like it but I think it would be interesting if the tree divided the horizon, perfectly aligned with the back ground mountains, for symmetry... The rugby team photography 19:50 is just beautiful, lovely composed and light... My guess is that the location is a big warehouse of kind... Some of them have those high walls with high up windows, i think it may be natural light filled with some flash lights
AI has gone to your guys heads. Photos that are cloned, cropped and manipulated are not photos anymore, they are art at that point. Composition and lighting are afterthoughts at that point. Photography is about composition and lighting. You guys should not give out awards to people using AI to manipulate their images to something other then photography.
@@zoneVgroup Adam’s would wait a year for the right light and sky and only dodged and burned. Ulsmann never cloned, stacked other imagery or subtracted things from images. There is nothing wrong with photographic imagery being considered art but a photograph represents a specific time and place, not imagery manipulated in a software program and the problem today is we all want our imagined perfect photograph right now and very few photographers can post out of camera just dodging and burning.
@@CentralFloridaOutdoors this is just me. The only photography that needs to follow your protocols are photojournalists. It’s funny how photographers really try hard to not be artist where ansel Adams try so hard to make photography a form of art. Lol
@@zoneVgroup hes saying it takes away from the purity lol if I can just take a photo of a blank sky and add birds and an airplane to it, and make an entire new image you aren't a photographer anymore you're an editor ..... a true master can make an impactful image with minimal edits and no cropping i.e Henri Cartier bresson.... I dont see an issue with small edits like tones and exposure but completely reworking an image? nah lol
@@uhmidkbro. so ansel Adam’s are not a photographer then, how about ullsmann. I think you guys are gate keeping. The greatest photographer all edit their photos. Unless you are photojournalist which to some degree Cartier are. I just don’t understand why photographers back then try hard to be seen as artist and now photographers want to be on their own. Purity to me are more interested in division rather than making art and creating impact. In the end the works that is shown in moma are all artist who has vision, not arguing about who is photographer or not. Check out Chris McCaw, he is purist photographer by your definition and yet his photo is about the sun orbit and the power of light.
@12:00 the rain drops look fake because they aren't capturing any light that is in the image the red isn't reflecting, rain drops or water refracts the light but those don't making it look very off and fake.
Good shit bros! Listen that Minty Green Bastard would totally be a Windows XP desktop wallpaper. Micro$oft loved that shit back in the day and would use it for Win 11.
@15:12 The white catchlight in the eyes appear fake. The white part of the right eye has a bit of reflection but the left eye doesn't. There's no other light coming from that source that is showing anywhere on the face.
Good critique, and watching this brings up a good point, the fact that nowadays it's very difficult to know if AI was used, this is the problem, but now, depending on how it's used, if it's just on little details, will that take away from the image? I am against IA, but it opens a lot of questions and forces us to think about the future of photography... anyways, again great video and critique ✨️
@28:50. Did the photographer only take this one shot? Could they have taken multiple shots regarding your critique if they were thinking the way you two are? If it was me I probably would have stayed put for at least 15 minutes just taking shot after shot after shot with the variety of people walking through. There's so much that needs correcting here that you two mentioned.
The tree in the water image looks very unnatural because the reflection is boosted so much that it's brighter than the source, which can never happen in reality. I absolutely love the image of the street in Venice with the umbrellas, teal and orange are a classic combination and the colours of the umbrellas really tie it all together. I really don't understand the objections it received.
i was looking forward to some good photography critique, then the conversation straight away began on cropping, cloning, and editing and i realised, oh... this isn't about photography, this is about digital editing and manipulation. Shame.
The bride and the groom photo could also be a lucky mistake. Maybe and I am saying maybe, he has set up the lights and everything but forgot to turn on the transmitter and got this shot and since everybody loved it he stuck with it 🙂Maybe he also has the same photos with the lights on LOL
Ai in 5 - 10 years is going to wreck photography. I feel you should take photos for yourself and if you want to buy art from a photographer double check if it was made from ai
Hi, I hope you guys realise that using Burg Eltz images requires written permission by the castle owners - they are fiercely protective of their rights and according to german law they can do so as there is only one position from where you can see the castle that is not on private grounds. The position shown by the photographers submission to the critique session is most definitely on their private ground which gives them additional rights as compared to the "Panoramafreiheit" under which in Germany you can take any photo you like as long as you don't circumvent possible legal sight barriers...
@@FStoppers No, the German Panoramafreiheit only applies to normal head height. In the case of Burg Eltz this doesn't even apply because you don't get a permit to fly a drone over the private grounds and the castle is located in a deep cut valley which completely belongs to the castle owners... Castle on a hill somewhere visible from any position on public ground at or below head height no problem. Castle Eltz is on private grounds with only one back side view that would fall under the Panoramafreiheit. And the owners Family is known to go after every commercial (youtube videos are commercial because they can be monetarized) use and they don't shy away from foreign courts. It's similar to the Eiffel Tower, Tower at daytime no problem for anyone. Tower at night is usually lit by a current light installation. You need a licensing agreement to depict that on any website or video...
Good lord. You must be the life of all the parties you attend 🙄. Please show us some of your amazing work. YOU are what’s wrong with the voting on these critiques.
@@K4man84 Every time the same argument, in football everyone is always shouting about how to do it better or differently without getting their own fat arse off the sofa and actually doing it better. A bad picture is a bad picture - it can still be a personally excellent and important piece, but outside of your own and the sugar-coating bubble, nobody cares. And it is called brutally honest for a reason - and if it is something NOT than brutally honest.
@@mikt please dazzle us with your own work. If you call every photo in this critique a 2 at best surely you must have something spectacular? But let me guess. You don’t. You’re probably the same type of POS that goes on others profiles and votes all of their photos a 1 just because. Please. Spare us your righteous indignation. Brutally honest… you sound like a jelly little B.
The inability to discern AI from real photography is Adobe’s goal…replacing photography with AI. Commercial photography is soon to be a dinasour. Truth is on the chopping block.
hey Lee and Patrick, thanks for the critique of my photo [ ... Reynisdrangar ] in the contest video :-) yes it's taken close to the small town Vík in Iceland. The many small dots are not sensor dirt ... these are birds ... Seagulls. The light and color were exactly like in my picture. Only minimal post processing applied, no doge and burning and no AI! Cheers from Iceland, Raymond ;-)
🔥🔥 picture bro
❤
awesome! I was there 3 weeks ago and got annoyed when they said its sensor dirt haha, clearly not
Gorgeous photo man
Please don't photoshop the birds out! It's painfully obvious that those are birds. Especially considering the closer ones on the edges of the frame clearly have wings. 😂
8:15 sometimes I wonder about you guys. Seriously. Those are obviously birds ya jackwagons.
The wedding shot is my favorite. The "two umbrellas from overhead" shot is utilizing orange and teal (close enough!), like almost everyone these days, but I do like it. The angle is interesting, and the buildings on either side channel your view straight to the people/umbrellas. This is my first time watching one of your critique videos. It was fun! Thanks.
@FStoppers thanks so much for picking up my photo for review, so cool! Your insight about the water droplets was spot-on - they were indeed part of a poster design, crafted to look passable on outdoor display - point taken :) I revisited the entire series, improving each image to work better as standalone photograph. Thanks again!
These imperfections we were to desperate to lose will now separate real photos from algorithm generated images I think
Thank you so much for the Critique with my wedding picture in the window, means alot just to be showcased on your channel!! So many amazing images showcased on this one!!
Beautiful image 👌🏾
My favorite of the group!
@@fenraven Thanks Man!! 🤘
Keep doing shots like this. That's amazing. Hardly anyone does this kind of work. This niche should certainly keep you busy.
@@randallbourne2717 Thanks man!! :)
that square root bit was amazing
The dots in the photo at around 7:30 are almost certainly sea birds flying around the sea stacks.
Why aren't they shaped like birds though? They look square and don't have wings. -P
@@FStoppers there are hundreds of birds that nest on those sea stacks and around the Reynisfjara beach its definitely birds
@@FStoppers The resolution of the camera, the distance and the lighting play a roll on how those birds show in the camera.
I don't typically leave comments. The black and white photograph with the girl was stunning to me. Well done to that photographer. I love it.
Guys, I really enjoy these critique videos. I don't always agree 100%, but usually we're pretty close. Usually I find myself talking (or yelling) at the screen when some of your comments come up . . . agreeing or disagreeing. Keep up the good work . . .
😂😂😂😂 me too…yelling that is
Lee is the type of guy who disagrees with you when you agree with him…
join the next contest for free: www.fstoppers.com/contests
Save 80% on Photographing The World 2: fstoppers.com/product/photographing-world-2-cityscape-astrophotography-and-advanced-post-processing
Your image analyses are really questionable, but it's still fun to watch
I have been to the water mirror location in Bordeaux France, to take street photos. It is water mist/vapour not fog. The image in the critique is not fake or AI, that is how it is there. Essentially, it’s a huge water fountain that people walk in. It’s very busy and hard to get shots without loads of people
Don't want to be naive, but, you drag the AI question into each shot and it down grades the images that were actually real. You tend to lose the joy of the photographs which seems to be why most of us love photography in the first place. Maybe brutal critiques but downers none the less. Ask the submitter what they did and then critque instead guessing and ruining the experience! -2 score
I'm the 2nd place photographer. Yes, those are cheap home depot work lights...at least they look to be, I didn't build the wall so I can't say for sure. Yes, you can see the bulbs in the RAWs, but not as well as in the edited photos. I sent Lee a link to a screenshot of the RAW to appease his curiosity.
where the lightbulbs ones that have the top mirror? those would look like that, because the light is reflected to the surface?
@@tonitinnila9474 I'm not sure that I'm following what you are asking. This is a hand built wall where the lights were not perfectly even or perfectly secure in place, so slight angles would gave different results. I was also not straight on, so I was shooting at a slight angle.
The bulbs, they seem to be the "half chrome" or silver-tipped bulbs, where half the bulb is like a mirror. I think that's what @tonitinnila9474 meant
@@not-god gotcha, I have another photo from a different angle and they're large globe bulbs.
I love the comments on "what wedding photos make the wall".
Agree. I feel that 99% of all wedding photos actually printed just end up in a drawer somewhere in the home a month after the wedding anyway. The social media share of them is a one-time share and then they're lost in the scrolling.
I entered the contest, didnt expect to win really, but some of these choices are so average? golden gate bridge shots in fog, rolling hills that look like the palouse, sunset with rock silhouete ? these photos have been made maybe 10,000 times at this point, no hyperbole I dunno pretty uninspiring end results
The average photographer isn't able to get photos of things that are 'different '.
Not everyone is able to get the shot that nobody else can. The critique hopefully makes us all better photographers. Everyone evolves. If you looked at your own pics from years back I'm sure you'll find lots that are 'average'.
@@bingbong4848 yes but those photos werent winning competetions. I think the guy who won 1st place with the lowes lighting job was indeed a highlight photo. it was well done. many of the others were slightly above average
Love these type of videos. You can learn a lot from photography critique videos. Thank you.
The guy with the cap is not an artist.
Great critique guys, always enjoyable. It's great when the both of you have different opinions on an image, it just shows that that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, witch is why I love all my images 🤣🤣🤣
Ah, so many photographers are doing this badly on RUclips, and their rating always feels so random and inflated with weird or no explanations given. However, this video was amazing! Not only the quality of the photos were excellent, but I really love your classification system. The fact that I can see your profound thought process, and you can convince me even when I initially disagree is a really solid part of this production. Keep up the good work!
Always appreciate a good positive comment. Thanks for watching, we have more of these coming! -P
I think the lights in the 2nd place photo are LEDs. One clue is that those lights would probably be too hot for the model to lay his arm on! The inner circle may be a circuit board with flat LEDs (know as a COB - chips on board). Almost all of the light goes out forward. I'm really hooked on your critique series, please keep them coming..
They aren't LEDs (I'm the photographer) they're cheap home depot work lights.
If you Google Palouse Washington landscape with images selected and you'll see what it's like, with loads of rolling hillsides and pasturelands.
I always enjoy these videos. I hope to get a photo of mine in a future contest.
10:00 how did you guys not recommend to cut off some of the bottom of this photo, looks so much better with the bottom 1/4 gone.
42:04 i like it but I think it would be interesting if the tree divided the horizon, perfectly aligned with the back ground mountains, for symmetry... The rugby team photography 19:50 is just beautiful, lovely composed and light... My guess is that the location is a big warehouse of kind... Some of them have those high walls with high up windows, i think it may be natural light filled with some flash lights
All the photos were so sick ❤ gives me inspiration to look harder and pay more attention.
AI has gone to your guys heads. Photos that are cloned, cropped and manipulated are not photos anymore, they are art at that point. Composition and lighting are afterthoughts at that point. Photography is about composition and lighting. You guys should not give out awards to people using AI to manipulate their images to something other then photography.
I guess ansel Adams are not a photographer. How about ulsmann?
@@zoneVgroup Adam’s would wait a year for the right light and sky and only dodged and burned. Ulsmann never cloned, stacked other imagery or subtracted things from images. There is nothing wrong with photographic imagery being considered art but a photograph represents a specific time and place, not imagery manipulated in a software program and the problem today is we all want our imagined perfect photograph right now and very few photographers can post out of camera just dodging and burning.
@@CentralFloridaOutdoors this is just me. The only photography that needs to follow your protocols are photojournalists. It’s funny how photographers really try hard to not be artist where ansel Adams try so hard to make photography a form of art. Lol
@@zoneVgroup hes saying it takes away from the purity lol if I can just take a photo of a blank sky and add birds and an airplane to it, and make an entire new image you aren't a photographer anymore you're an editor ..... a true master can make an impactful image with minimal edits and no cropping i.e Henri Cartier bresson.... I dont see an issue with small edits like tones and exposure but completely reworking an image? nah lol
@@uhmidkbro. so ansel Adam’s are not a photographer then, how about ullsmann. I think you guys are gate keeping. The greatest photographer all edit their photos. Unless you are photojournalist which to some degree Cartier are. I just don’t understand why photographers back then try hard to be seen as artist and now photographers want to be on their own. Purity to me are more interested in division rather than making art and creating impact. In the end the works that is shown in moma are all artist who has vision, not arguing about who is photographer or not. Check out Chris McCaw, he is purist photographer by your definition and yet his photo is about the sun orbit and the power of light.
I like the first portrait, and have done similar. Mind you I used a sheet of glass between me and the model.
yall need to stop being scared to be harsh. alot of the 3s yall gave were easily 2s but i loved the video and honesty
29:14 (sqrt(-shit))^2 is a math joke about "shit getting real" lol
@12:00 the rain drops look fake because they aren't capturing any light that is in the image the red isn't reflecting, rain drops or water refracts the light but those don't making it look very off and fake.
Ah yes. That too
Good shit bros! Listen that Minty Green Bastard would totally be a Windows XP desktop wallpaper. Micro$oft loved that shit back in the day and would use it for Win 11.
Yes, Reynisdrangar are near Vík and the Black Beach of Iceland...those are birds, not dust.
@15:12 The white catchlight in the eyes appear fake. The white part of the right eye has a bit of reflection but the left eye doesn't. There's no other light coming from that source that is showing anywhere on the face.
Good critique, and watching this brings up a good point, the fact that nowadays it's very difficult to know if AI was used, this is the problem, but now, depending on how it's used, if it's just on little details, will that take away from the image? I am against IA, but it opens a lot of questions and forces us to think about the future of photography... anyways, again great video and critique ✨️
@28:50. Did the photographer only take this one shot? Could they have taken multiple shots regarding your critique if they were thinking the way you two are? If it was me I probably would have stayed put for at least 15 minutes just taking shot after shot after shot with the variety of people walking through. There's so much that needs correcting here that you two mentioned.
The tree in the water image looks very unnatural because the reflection is boosted so much that it's brighter than the source, which can never happen in reality. I absolutely love the image of the street in Venice with the umbrellas, teal and orange are a classic combination and the colours of the umbrellas really tie it all together. I really don't understand the objections it received.
the rating should be before commenting on the photo, no?
i was looking forward to some good photography critique, then the conversation straight away began on cropping, cloning, and editing and i realised, oh... this isn't about photography, this is about digital editing and manipulation. Shame.
winner reminded me a bit of a joel grimes technique.
My guy on the left sounds like a hater lol - he’s just picking but low key loves all the pictures haha
The bride and the groom photo could also be a lucky mistake. Maybe and I am saying maybe, he has set up the lights and everything but forgot to turn on the transmitter and got this shot and since everybody loved it he stuck with it 🙂Maybe he also has the same photos with the lights on LOL
Wedding stairs , She's asking herself am I doing the right thing, He is ready, point hands camly in pockets ~~
Ai in 5 - 10 years is going to wreck photography. I feel you should take photos for yourself and if you want to buy art from a photographer double check if it was made from ai
Hi, I hope you guys realise that using Burg Eltz images requires written permission by the castle owners - they are fiercely protective of their rights and according to german law they can do so as there is only one position from where you can see the castle that is not on private grounds. The position shown by the photographers submission to the critique session is most definitely on their private ground which gives them additional rights as compared to the "Panoramafreiheit" under which in Germany you can take any photo you like as long as you don't circumvent possible legal sight barriers...
Laws like this should be outlawed but I guess each country has its own legal system. What about drone shots? Surely you can capture it that way? -P
@@FStoppers No, the German Panoramafreiheit only applies to normal head height. In the case of Burg Eltz this doesn't even apply because you don't get a permit to fly a drone over the private grounds and the castle is located in a deep cut valley which completely belongs to the castle owners... Castle on a hill somewhere visible from any position on public ground at or below head height no problem. Castle Eltz is on private grounds with only one back side view that would fall under the Panoramafreiheit. And the owners Family is known to go after every commercial (youtube videos are commercial because they can be monetarized) use and they don't shy away from foreign courts.
It's similar to the Eiffel Tower, Tower at daytime no problem for anyone. Tower at night is usually lit by a current light installation. You need a licensing agreement to depict that on any website or video...
How can my photos be here guys? Also, I want more photo critique
Join the next contest at Fstoppers.com/contests
@@FStoppers Sure!
Printer ink update
🎉🎉 awesome
Funny I think all of these photos are amazing, nothing sucks
idk man Ive seen their work and its pretty meh lmao
"brutally Honest" most of them would stick to max 2 stars, sorry but some are horrible
Good lord. You must be the life of all the parties you attend 🙄. Please show us some of your amazing work. YOU are what’s wrong with the voting on these critiques.
@@K4man84 Every time the same argument, in football everyone is always shouting about how to do it better or differently without getting their own fat arse off the sofa and actually doing it better.
A bad picture is a bad picture - it can still be a personally excellent and important piece, but outside of your own and the sugar-coating bubble, nobody cares.
And it is called brutally honest for a reason - and if it is something NOT than brutally honest.
@@mikt please dazzle us with your own work. If you call every photo in this critique a 2 at best surely you must have something spectacular? But let me guess. You don’t. You’re probably the same type of POS that goes on others profiles and votes all of their photos a 1 just because. Please. Spare us your righteous indignation. Brutally honest… you sound like a jelly little B.
@@K4man84 Can't handle the truth can we?
@@itsjantore what truth is that exactly?
The square root of Shit 😅🤣
Patrick bro dial down the alcohol lol you have a lot face flushing
I have rosacea, I have about 1 drink per week typically. -P
@@FStoppers 1 drink per week can also have an effect to susceptible skin
The inability to discern AI from real photography is Adobe’s goal…replacing photography with AI. Commercial photography is soon to be a dinasour. Truth is on the chopping block.