I’ll be honest, if you think tigers are from Africa or the Sahara then you probably shouldn’t be critiquing wildlife images. I think you need to find a wildlife photography expert for the next one 😂
I mean this one is pretty aggregious, but at the same time I don't think deep knowledge of the biology of animals is needed to be able to form a meaningful opinion on the art of photographing animals.
@@ryancooper3629 no of course it isn’t, it’s a tongue in cheek comment but I do think their critique is off the mark. Lack of experience or understanding of the field is clearly evident in their comments.
@@Danjames.p I just watch their critiques to know what bad critiques look like. All of their critiques are so random and off the mark, their argument for trashing amazing photos is usually "Well, but if I could do this on Photoshop/AI then it's not worth anything". Them critiquing the "cheap" lens used for the photo instead of the actual photo. Them saying they could easily take that same photo (but when they saw the dolphin photo and knew how hard it actually is they acknowledged how hard it is) therefore the photo is "cheap". They only point out all the "mistakes" (or more like their personal opinions) in the photo and never (or rarely) something positive. If you ever receive a critique like this, just dismiss it for what it is, a pair of guys talking out their butt about stuff they don't know, lowering it down to their own level and misjudging it for something that it's not.
@@leirumf5476 ah I disagree with that to be honest. Everybody’s critique has value. I think you should always take on board other people’s truth about your work, I just find that a lot of their comments are off the mark when they’re trying to talk from a photographers perspective as they don’t understand the field. However I think it’s still important to take on their comments as viewers of your work. I think that’s why I think it would be beneficial for them to have an expert in the field do the critique with them, so you get comments from both perspectives.
@@Danjames.p I see why you'd disagree with me and I understand. What you say is true, it's always good to have other people's opinions on your photos. But opinions are not critiques, which is kind of what they are trying to pass this as. As opinions, they are perfectly valid, I might disagree on a ton of their opinions but that's just how opinions work. "Is this really a good photo if you can take the same shot in a zoo" is not a critique tho, it's an opinion (an opinion that by the way, underestimates the hard work of the photographer, and the whole genre). "Look at the chromatic aberration, this photo was taken with a cheap lens (and then thinking less of the photo because of it)" is not a critique, it's an opinion (unless you were critiquing the lens, in which case it'd be a critique), and it's not helpful to the photographer or anyone watching the video, something like "uh, I see, this lens performs poorly wide open, I'd love to see this photo taken with the lens stopped down a little bit" is a critique (you are not shaming the person for not being able to afford a lens that might be worth more than what the person makes in a quarter of a decade, instead you are teaching the person about how to avoid the thing you had an issue with).
19:43 Hey guys, first: Of course "minimize" - not some other translation nonsense ;).Thank you for the criticism and discussion about my picture. The photo shows a female white peacock, which also exists alongside the blue peacock and which actually does not have the long decorative feathers like the males. This is not infrared photography. The picture is part of a series that I took of animals in zoos and in the wild and which I transformed into a fine art look for a private picture book. I was inspired by professional photographers like Brad Wilson, who portrayed animals under studio conditions. Since I will never be able to take such photos in studio conditions, I had to go this crazy route via post-production.
I just watch their critiques to know what bad critiques look like. All of their critiques are so random and off the mark, their argument for trashing amazing photos is usually "Well, but if I could do this on Photoshop/AI then it's not worth anything". Them critiquing the "cheap" lens used for the photo instead of the actual photo. Them saying they could easily take that same photo (but when they saw the dolphin photo and knew how hard it actually is they acknowledged how hard it is) therefore the photo is "cheap". They only point out all the "mistakes" (or more like their personal opinions) in the photo and never (or rarely) something positive. If you ever receive a critique like this, just dismiss it for what it is, a pair of guys talking out their butt about stuff they don't know, lowering it down to their own level and misjudging it for something that it's not.
It would've been nice to have a more knowledgeable wildlife photographer involved, their background in stock and commercial photography made some of their suggestions and critiques feel like they really missed the mark. Another point worth mentioning is that, aside from for stock photography purposes, wildlife images that are either photoshopped or taken in captivity would be unsellable to any publications interested in wildlife photography. Similar to photojournalism, portraying the reality of what you photographed is very important.
Please do not recommend any aquariums, especially not those that have whale sharks. They need vast open sea to thrive. In those aquariums they only live a couple years, because they can not feed in a natural position and have such limited space.
As someone who used to be vegetarian for animal rights and always thinks about going back to it, I try to be consistent when it comes to my animal torture beliefs. I don’t feel like I should feel bad for an animal in captivity while I am eating tortured animals every day of my life. I probably should be vegan and be against all animal mistreatment, but being that I am currently eating meat, I feel much worse for the cow and pig I ate today than the whale shark in the aquarium. If you’re a vegan, I 100% respect your position. But if you’re eating meat like me, I feel like the whale sharks have it pretty good in comparison to the animals we are eating.
I have to disagree and I can not follow your logic, especially while you are saying that you used to be for animal rights. Eating meat and watching animals in captivity can both be ok under the right circumstances. If the animal you eat lived a happy life and had a swift death, that is somewhat ok for me, even though I believe people do not necessarily need meat. If an animal is in captivity because it is part of a rewildering programm or it can not be released back into the wild or is an endangerd animal which needs protecting and needs to be bred to save the population, than it is ok to also show this animal and educate people along with it. But the aquarium you mentioned and almost all aquariums and zoos around the world are for entertainment only and often do not care for or simply can not provide species-appropriate conditions. Nobody needs those for educational purposes. One can whatch a documentary or simply go outside and see the animals for themselfs (local wildlife). I do not judge anyone who visits such places unknowingly of the bad impact they have. Thats is why I want to point at it in hope these places will disappear someday.
I want Lee to go to a zoo en actually try to take a photo and make it look like the ones in the critique, I'm guessing it's going to be a lot harder than he thinks. Love the channel keep up the good work guys.
The biggest challenge I've always had whenever I take a camera to the zoo is that you never get expression from the animals. They all just look mopey and bored. You may capture a technically perfect photo but the animal just look soul-less. Part of the magic of that lizard photo is that the lizard looks interested and curious. The viewer connects with the subject. That will be nearly impossible to reproduce in a zoo setting.
I found it to be alot easier than wildife. The animal is right there so you dont even need to do much planning. Similar to placing a bird feeder at the right location, its only a matter of time till you get an amazing shot. Might be different at places like Australia with naturally much more and interesting wildlife.
It's not that anyone can just walk into a zoo and get photos like this but it is exponentially easier to do than tracking them in the wild while also getting nice framing and lighting. You have to be skilled to get zoo photos to the level of the photos are in this vid but it is still easier than going and getting a similar image in the wild.
Hi guys. Here us a brutal criteque on yours. I hope you two don't get to judge on a big photo comp. I suggest you get your entrants to supply the raw image and the edited image. Then vote on them. Best regards from James in Scotland. And yes I am a wildlife photographer. Happy New year2024.
Personally would rather you don’t try critic wildlife photography if you don’t know about it. You are reviewing from your commercial background which is wrong.
I agree and I disagree. As someone who is a wildlife photographer myself, I fundamentally disagree with a lot of other wildlife photographers so I don't think there will ever be a single "right" way to approach it. Wildlife photography can be commercial. It can also be scientific or fine art. If you don't like their perspective, you are always free to ignore it. Having an expert guest probably would have been ideal but hey, its just an editorial critique and they are very honest about their lack of expertise.
For me, it's the uniqueness of the moment, the subject, and the composition that make a photo special, regardless of technological limitations. Wildlife occupy their everyday lives by eating and sleeping and moving from place to place, but they have much rarer, personal moments too. Capturing those rarer moments makes the extraordinary photo.
You can 100% get a black background in mid day with f/16 and flash. I used to do this all the time with just my on camera flash in bright sun of flowers and stuff. Totally black background. Try it out
Yes, I've done it as well when the background was relatively dark. Especially Tundra Swans in a swamp. Bright sun on the white bird but the background was in shadow and voila.
@@bikermann42 yes, flash is the answer. A lot of hummingbird photography is done with flash setups. Often it is a setup with multiple flashes and a background close by so the flash can also hit that. I don't like using flash for wildlife personally, but that's how people often do it.
I honestly enjoyed the video and it was interesting watching other kind of photographers giving their vision and feedback about wildlife photography, I think when it comes to real wildlife photography we shouldn't even mention zoos, aquariums or refuge, this is not just about capturing pretty photos of animals, it's about the challenges we go through to capture a specific moment or species in its natural habitat, you can get a gorgeous portrait of a lioness in the zoo, but that lioness ain't wild, she's never have to hunt or fight other predators to keep her kill, you're just basically paying to photograph a caged animal that's not in his natural habitat and that's not wildlife photography in my opinion.
Its crazy to watch someone tear apart great photos with no background in this type of photography. Extremely frustrating to hear some of their comments.
Concerning the question that Lee asks at 1:25, the key to the answer is that this competition is called a "wildlife" photography competition. Within the context of wildlife photography, "wild" means free. The opposite of "wildlife" is captive life. Hence, any animals that are living in captivity are not wildlife, for they are not wild; they are captive. Same with domestic animals such as cattle, house cats, domestic sheep, etc. They are not wild species, but domestic species, and therefore they are not "wildlife". If you use the term "wildlife" in the title of a competition, then you really need to have rules that are true to the meaning of that term - meaning no domestic animals and no animals that are in living in captive conditions. If you want to allow domestic animals and zoo/preserve animals, great - but then don't call it a wildlife photo contest.
Photographers shouldn't be making images to please other photographers. Their audience and buyers aren't always privy to the work put in to make an image. Wildlife photography is difficult and rewarding. The difficulties in taking a particular image shouldn't carry its importance, but can add to it. Your rankings are pretty fair. I kind of appreciate critiques from outside the sphere. I also kind of like the two of you imagining how images were made, and typically it's correct. Bears are very inquisitive
The first creature is almost surely the Eurasian Red Squirrel. Numbers are declining in Europe and thus the species is protected, but is not yet considered "endangered." The is also an American Red Squirrel, but it doesn't have those funny tufted ears.
Straight in after watching the first few seconds. If it’s taken in a zoo or an aquarium it isn’t wildlife photography. It’s that simple. Secondly I’m so gutted I missed this, I was waiting for the wildlife one so I could submit some photos and never saw it was happening 🙁
Then what is it? This sounds obnoxious, but, as a wildlife photographer, who has some domestic animals in my portfolio because I love the images I've really struggled on how to present them. "Animal" photography isn't really a recognized genre. "Pet" photography isn't relevant for non-pet animals such as goats or sheep or an animal in captivity. If I'm say posting on a site like Fstoppers, wildlife is the "closest" relevant category even if it isn't truly "wild" I've always felt "wildlife" shouldn't be a genre. The genre should be "animals". But the industry is what it is, and its not changing now.
@@ryancooper3629 I agree, I also take some photos of domesticated animals but wouldn’t include them in a wildlife portfolio. They aren’t wild so they can’t be wildlife. I would call it animal photography but understand your frustration that there isn’t really a strongly recognised category or field for that. For me wildlife images require a much different skill set to pet or zoo photography. The difficult part in wildlife photography is finding the subject, field craft to approach and get in to the best position, right conditions, interesting behaviour etc and those require very specific skills. The easy part in wildlife photography is taking the image, in my opinion. When the subject is right in front of you (and can’t decide to leave), and you can choose to time your “encounter” with them during the most appropriate conditions for the shot, it becomes a lot less of a challenge.
@@Danjames.p I agree 100%, its just a challenge and big categorization issue. Though I'd also argue that the above skill also can vary wildly depending on the wildlife in question. For example, wildlife in city parks tend to be wildly more receptive to human proximity than those in the backcountry. Both are wild animals but one takes wildly less skill to photograph effectively. At the end of the day, whats important to me is artistic composition elegantly executed. I'd rather a spectacular photo of a common animal than a mediocre photo of an incredibly rare animal. This isn't true of everyone.
@@ryancooper3629 yeah that’s a fair point! Hadn’t thought of that as an example, but for me the distinction between photographing animals that have the option to leave and photographing those that don’t is crucial. I have many photos of animals from bird of prey rescue centers etc but I wouldn’t include them in my portfolio. It’s good practice for the same or similar subjects but it doesn’t count for me. I also don’t feel rewarded by the images and don’t enjoy the process. Agree on the common animals v rare animal argument. In fairness a brilliant photo of a common animal is more impressive because the rarity of the species doesn’t carry it in any way.
@@Danjames.p Yeah, I've always felt there are two distinct motivations that tend to describe wildlife photogs: 1. The artist. As we discussed, the goal is pure artistic value, regardless of species or setting. 2. The collector. Appraches wildlife photography almost like Pokemon where its not about the art at all but more about just logging evidence that they found said specific animal and are collecting a record of their encounters. I think a lot of photographers are a mix of both, but there are also those who sit on both extremes and those on the extremes probably will never agree on what makes a good wildlife photo.
All of these photos are dope. Loved every single one of them. Maybe its just me, but as I get older the only thing i care about is, what is my initial gut reaction. When i see it does it cause me to be emotional. If yes, its a good picture. Everyone of these made me happy.
About Hummingbird shot - It is possible to get this shot mid - day and achieve black backdrop. Photographer used speed lights, perhaps at it's lowest output and exposed for flash only avoiding ambient light completely hence the dark deep background.
Mid-day sun sunny 16 rule would mean ISO 100 shutter speed 1/100 f/16 would be "proper" exposure. Not sure how there would be a black background there unless they set up a black backdrop behind the scene and also perhaps a cloudy day, but even with a cloudy day the background would only be 3 stops underexposed.
You can't mark something down because 'it feels like it was taken with a cheap lens'. That's pretty elitist. You don't need expensive kit to take a good photo. Look at Ansel Adams - he has more highly rated images than these two put together, and probably none of them are sharp.
12:49 Tarsiers have inhabited rainforests around the world, but now they exist on only a few islands in the Philippines, Borneo, and Indonesia. that are stressed or in cages that are too small have suicidal tendencies. Particular stressors are light, noise, humans in their habitat, and being touched. They will bash their thin skulls against trees, the floor, or walls of the cage. Habitat conservation is their only hope.
beautiful image of common dolphins. the calf is very young, you can see feotal folds, lines around the body which are only present for a few days after birth. I expect that the photographer was at the bow of the boat and captured the dolphins bow riding.
About the bear at about 25:30. im bears are naturally very curious so it could very well be that the bear was checking out that new item (camera) that suddenly appeared in his area.
I don't get it, you specifically rate each photo... But then randomly choose 1st, 2nd and 3rd place? LMAO 🤣 Just count your votes and then declare the winners. Last photo (hummingbird) is easily 2nd place.
Without being able to see the original files, so only my opinion based on photos I have seen, the Dolphin photo looks fake, may not be, but looks fishy :)
yeah man i agree, looks like an AI image. I checked the uploaders account on Fstoppers and this was the only photo they ever uploaded. I left a comment similar to this but it was removed. hmmmm
Nothing in that picture looks real. I don't know how others can't see that it's fake. Probably the hosts got embarrassed that they gave 1k to an ai image so they just delete every comment pointing that out. Could be that the image is real but they've slapped some HEAVY painterly filter on it in photoshop. Which if this was real I can't see a reason for that, there for I lean on the fake image on this one.
With high speed photography it’s not the shutter that freezes the action it’s the flash. The base exposure would have been black, the short duration of the flash is what freezes the action. It’s how things like bullets are photographed leaving a gun. 1/60th is the shutter but the flash duration is usually around 1/800th.
I also don't agree with the camera settings for humming bird.. it would be overexposed and the wings wouldn't be this frozen. you need a much higher shutter speed
I love your critiques. I’ve learned a lot from them. You’ve done a good job of giving critical comments gently and you verbalize many things that I don’t consciously notice.
The only thing that bothers me a little with the dolphin photo is that there’s a shadow dropping to the right of their dorsal fin, so in my mind that side of the fin should be darker. Otherwise great photo!
Come-on guys. Not everyone can travel to Croatia or Zimbabwe for a photo shoot in nature. What's wrong with shooting in your backyard or local environment. Still a great post!
I would guess the wasp was probably lit with a ring light around the lens? I'm surprised Jared Polin didn't enter one of his Africa images 🤣🤣🤣. In the bear image, shes looks like she's thinking "oh no you didn't, just take my picture" 😲
I just found you guys, awesome content! I shoot often at the Zoo and didn't knew other people do that too. I would love to share one day an image and see how people see it.
Well they gotta be good. If they aren’t good then don’t send it. It’s all opinions. They specifically talk about the difficulty of judging one harsh n some aspects yet praise those same qualities n a different image. It’s just fun to get the pictures to on this platform is the end goal. It shouldn’t matter if they win or lose. There are some images I really liked that they didn’t.
@@AnujRawlaVRRT I am sure they are, but what I am trying to get at is the lighting in the photograph is too inconsistent. To me; it looks like the image of the tiger was taken under different light conditions than the background. I could be wrong it's just my opinion.
@fstoppers Hi guys… Every time I watch a "Critique/Contest" video I feel like you're basically talking absolute trash about the tiniest detail in every single image and I just think it might add more value to everyone is your critiques were a lit more unbiased and a bit more technical/neutral. The fact that you may not like the image could speak more to your taste and not reflect poorly on the photographer's technique or style. I mean, if the concept is more "critiquing photographs we don't like based on personal opinion" then forget everything I've said, but I think any photographer can learn more from a neutral point of view. Yes, you have given a lot of people a platform to showcase their work and tools to hone their craft or at least improve… But that's exactly what I mean… You're going through all the effort of setting these critiques up, reviewing submissions, hosting images on your site, giving away a lot of money in prized/tutorials and making a video to end up trashing someone's photograph because the particular style, composition or subject is not something you necessarily like, it just feels like it's your ego talking rather than a photography critique done by a team of educators/teachers. I love the content and I'm a big fan of the channel. You have inspired me to practice and become better. I just wanted to speak my mind since I feel like we can all benefit from a different perspective once in a while. Happy new year!
If only they pointed something positive so the people that submitted the photo knew where to capitalize on and move forward. I really just watch these critiques as means of knowing how to identify what a bad critique looks like so I can ignore it when I encounter them. Also, it'd be good if they had someone who knows something about the genre they are critiquing...
Wildlife by definition - Wildlife refers to undomesticated animal species, but has come to include all organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans - Don't think zoo pictures can be valued on the same level as "wild." Even in captivity, there is some luck to the animal being positioned for a great photo, but in the wild there's no doubt it's that much more difficult.
This is how i know they dont do wildlife photography. It makes me cringe how they are not equip to make great comments… they dont know how much work it is and how hard it could be, like the bear or the macro. In the other hand they gave a 3 to the most common basic bad focused squirrel photo…
The thrill with wildlife photography is that you dont go to a zoo and take the easy way out. If you go to a zoo and take photos, your not a wildlife photographer, youre just a talentless animal photographer.
@@unaxe Says a guy who's videos are of 3d rendered photorealistic landscapes and/or heavily modified photoshop images... Pot meet kettle? Enjoy life on your high horse. Try not to hit your head too hard on all that negativity.
@@ryancooper3629 what do my 2 year old vids have anything to do with this argument or photograhy in general? You know youre in the wrong and try to change the topic 😭
@@unaxe Yes because pointing out that you seem to have no issue with artificial photo realism in response to an offhand comment suggesting another type of artificial photorealism is bad is off topic... I don't really intend to continue to debate you as you are a troll, I only responded to your first comment so that others reading would realise you are just a hypocrite and not take what you say seriously.
I don’t understand the rating of the wasp en the animal in the tree. The lite on the wasp colors en sharpness are almost 90% or more. The tree animal has a depth of field colors and light are worse compared to the wasp. Giving a 4 the question is maybe you need glasses. Greetings H. E.
I'm coming back into photography after a little bit of a hiatus. I used to love your videos... but this seems very "gatekeep-y". I find there is little criticism and more just plain trashing of photos; It doesn't seem helpful at all. You admit your inexperience in the genre and proceed to "critique" the photos in a way that comes off as bullying and less of an objective viewpoint. These videos used to be just fun... but now it seems mean to the photographers who have legitimately great photos but don't fit your view on what a good commercial photo should be. As someone who spent several years invested in the art and coming back in after a break... this video left a bad taste in my mouth.
It doesn't matter if you shoot animals in a zoo or in wildlife. BUT if you don't just want to buy a perfect picture, then it does matter. If you are also interested in storytelling and the story behind a scene, then gou get way more value out of a picture that was shot in wildlife. But if the customer just want a good looking picture, then this value isn't valueable anymore. I mean value is nothing. If nobody wants a ferrari, then a ferrari is uselss. And escpacially in the art scene, all the products are more individual. But if a customer doesn't care about the story behind a frame, then this story is useless to them. So if you want a general conclusion: I personally think that most people don't care if the animal was shot in freedom or capativity. Otherwise we would treat animals way better in todays time and I also think that people that are really into wildlife are %-wise way less people.
Captive animals should not be portrayed as free wild animals full stop. If you are taking them at the zoo and want to try to cut out or blur anything that appears artificial, great, but don't tell anyone they were taken in a natural habitat. As for the viability of the image, unless you have somehow found the tiniest niche of a way to market yourself as a zoo photographer AND get paid, captive animal photos are worthless aside from social media.
The challenge is "animal" photography isn't really a commonly accepted genre of photography so it becomes a challenge on how to categorize. This is also true of domestic animals. I've always felt that "wildlife" shouldn't be a genre but rather just a property of specific photos that are in the category of "animal".
Given today's widely available high quality digital cameras and lenses, a really sharp and well composed photo of an animal just isn't enough. The creature has to be doing something interesting, there must be a story. That's why the dolphins are great and the first hummingbird wasn't. The bear photo does portray a story that makes it more interesting, and the second bear in the scene helps with context. The geese were at least flying in front of a great background. The lizard and the tiger weren't doing anything at all, thumbs down. The second hummingbird photo was better but should should have been seriously cropped to make the bird and his beautiful and unusual backlit wings stand out. The white peacock was sharp and kind of dramatic but needs a new set of feathers.
No, it is a dolphin, but it is not a bottlenose dolphin. It looks more like a common dolphin. This species does occur in the waters around Portugal, where the photo was taken, and does have a very sharp line dividing the dark topside and the much lighter, almost white underside. There are many different species of dolphins.
Yes because walking in to a zoo or an aquarium really defeats the purpose of hard working and the feeling to get this kind of pictures. Maybe you guys should try it… maybe wouldn’t say so much nonsense like you guys do.
@@FStoppers I think you mean someone who isn’t a chef critiquing a chef’s technique. I am a food eater and therefore I can critique the food I eat, but I wouldn’t go telling a chef that his technique is good/bad. There are several instances in this video where comments were made which say more about your lack of understanding in this genre of photography than they do the images you’re critiquing. For instance, why did you suggest cropping into the squirrel instead of trying to understand why the photographer chose that crop. And, here in the England, red squirrels are bordering on extinction. You’ve critiqued, some photos, accept the critique of your video.
@@FStoppers What if you want to go with the whole family? Prices are generally meanwhile a total rip-off. E.g. in Switzerland, cable car 🚠 prices are so ridiculous expensive, a normal family, let’s say 2 parents and 2 children, can no longer afford it. Politicians and successful rich RU-vidrs are meanwhile living in their own bubble, totally disconnected with normal peoples reality. The result of liberal (DEMs) BS politics controlled by the centralized industry-complex-communism of the WEF in Davos. Please don’t get me wrong, nothing against being successful as long it is shared with all the normal people working for the success of a company. Does Amazon, Apple, BlackRock, the Government, the Parks do it? You can’t imagine how I am missing the Ronald Reagan era, when everything was still normal and the POTUS didn’t permanently commit high treason. Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump the last ones committing no high treason since the 1980’s. That’s everything connected to that ridiculous expensive 300 bucks.
I’d have to do it to compare. A normal scuba trip to say the Caribbean would easily be $2000 a person. In some ways scuba near a deep ocean ridge is way better but in other ways I could see how the aquarium dive would be better too even if just for the one time. As for the expense, I dunno what scuba diving was like in the 80s and 90s but it was never cheap. That said, I’ve gone on enough scuba trips with friends who were all middle class working people and we made it work. We were all single though; as a new parent I don’t think scuba trips with the whole family is a top priority any more unless the beach and resort offer something for the wife and kids. -P
Would love to see input and critique from someone other than a white man. Since these contests seem to be based purely on subjective 'critique', it would be nice to see judging from a woman, or a person of colour, since their subjective views, perspective and critique are going to be different to the white men you seem to exclusively use for these contests.
Do you have a preference if the critique comes from someone with a photography background or not? Like if we had a female neighbor of ours who doesn’t look at photography at all, would that perspective be welcomed and interesting or no because they aren’t a photographer? Maybe I can get my wife to do one to mix up the gender/race issues Lee and I present. -P
@@FStoppers plenty of talented female photographers to choose from! Personally, I would prefer a photographer's perspective on such subjects, but maybe others are different? It would be great to hear some women's views and critiques alongside your own for something different. Maybe something you could consider for the future. Would very eagerly tune in (already do anyway), Cheers
how about asians, south americans, people with impairments, I feel like Aborigines are also highly underrepresented….. how can I forget middle-eastern, Caribbean and Polynesian. I could go on and on and on. Wth is wrong with you guys? They are two white man. They cannot do anything against it. They are born like this and started a YT channel. Should they now give the channel to somebody else just to fit in to your woke bs?
Why would their views be different from Lee’s and Pattrick’s? Just because of their skin color or gender? Mayne they wouldn’t? I don’t understand the context? Why would the gender or cultural background change anything. This is about two photographer’s judging our pictures. It wouldn’t be more or less interesting or enlightening if their gender or skin color would be different.
file under: worst photo critique ever. this isn't even critique, its mudslinging hyperbole to get antisocialmedia attention, and just, well.. pretty dumb (african tigers... yeah ok bro)
