The format of one person, who is a proven expert, critiquing a series of photos using his good judgement is more interesting and informative than having a format in which two people are arguing. The perspective of two different people does have it's advantages in certain cases but a single focused valid opinion gets to the nitty gritty quicker and more sensibly. I thought Mike Kelley's lone critique was one of the more satisfying episodes that this channel has offered. Also this is an exceptional marketing ploy. LOL However I do love Lee and Patrick's bickering on occasion.
Massive plus to this comment. Especially love that he asked the photographers for context on the photo's purpose and their level. More of this kind of video please.
I'm not an architectural photographer but I found your critique fascinating and you commented on detail which I had missed. I'd love to see more like this. Thanks.
@@barisk6855 I like him personally but I can see how his personality is not for everyone, but this is far more informative. Just a different type of video, I like the CTCs as well.
Thanks a bunch Mike! Trevor Schneider here. It's really great to get someone in the same field to look at an image with a new set of eyes to point out things you missed that can make it better. Thanks again!
I wouldn't even put this video in the same category as the normal CTC ones. I absolutely enjoy the usual format of Patrick and Lee giving their overall impressions and debating/bickering over stuff, but this was on another level of specific detailed constructive criticism. I think that CTCs should stay the same, but fstoppers should put out another weekly or monthly video series where a photographer of a very specific expertise follows this format.
sorry to be so off topic but does someone know of a way to log back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid forgot my account password. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer me
@Roman Jaxx I really appreciate your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will reply here later with my results.
I have to agree with everyone that applauded to this video. It's been the most educational video that I saw on youtube in a while. I'm a documentary wedding photographer but after watching these Mike's critiques I feel like starting to play a bit in this genre... Definitely a format to explore with other photographers as well.
Really well done. Lots of detail on not just what needed work but how to deal with it. Very helpful to have an expert in that genre reviewing the work.
love mike!!! when i started at high end firm this past year, the firm kept hing other photographers to do their shots and didn't like the results. I mentioned to them how mike kelley is the man to see for shots, and they hired him for a project! I was so excited because i thought i might get the chance to meet him and talk to him. Unfortunately my boss never took me to shoots =( great interview.
that was amazing! Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, really learned a lot. I'd love to see another one where you have the file and as you critique you also make the changes so we can see the before and after! You are the man! Thank you!
This is an amazing critique and most of the submissions looked stunning in the first place but Mike, but from Mike's critique I can really see how they could be improved further.
The thing that bothers me most with Andreas Martin's shot at 23:55 is the lack of shadow for the small tree in the foreground. It jumped at me even more than the grass...
The traditional Critique The Community format is fun and informative. But this format is far more helpful to photographers who are specializing in a specific genre. I hope to see more of this type of critique in the future
phenomenal critique. Would love to see more like this. This could easily be turned into a standalone series and/or refined further where you only critique entry level photographers, 2+ years of professional work, 5+ yrs........ I would imagine each of these stages would be critiqued slightly differently and a dedicated video to the skill level would be wonderful.
Great job guys! I certainly like the normal format as well, but what a nice surprise! Extremely informative and I learned more from this video than most. Kudos!
I like this format with all the small tips that are hard to find in one place. Constructive criticism is far more valuable to me that the rock-paper-scissors rating competition. Thanks for your extremely helpful insights!
Mike please make this an ongoing series. I never get tired of hearing that the internal windows should be a few stops brighter, the externals windows should be less yellow and champagne colour, the shot should be tighter because the room looks like a funhouse, the two-point should have been a one-point, the lines should be straight, the sky should have a gradient, and the whole image should be less processed and is in the uncanny vally.
The last photo of the library in Halifax could be improved by moving to another side of the building. I'm very familiar with the building and in my opinion this is the less interesting side of the building to photograph. Moving to the other side allows you to work the cafe tables into the scene and possibly even some trees depending on the angle and how wide you shoot. but most importantly there are significantly less vehicles in the foreground on the other side.
I disagree somewhat that it would "improve" the photo. It would be a different photo, for sure. Everyone and their cousin photographed the other side of the library within the first few months of it being open. I was looking for a different perspective from what everyone else had already done. I also disagree that there would be less cars to deal with as you'd be shooting over one of the busiest streets in Halifax - as there is no lens in the world wide enough to shoot from the same side of the street as the library itself. As mentioned, I was also hoping to make use of the reflection from the setting sun. All of this to say that there were many legitimate reasons why I choose specifically to shoot from that side of the building. Was I successful? I guess we can debate that. I can say that I'm definitely taking up the challenge Mike gave me and going back to reshoot. Maybe I'll even try shooting from a different location altogether - I doubt it will be from the same spot everyone has already done though... :)
@@EyeCaptureImages You're right it wouldn't be improving because it would be a different photo, also I didn't consider the sunset reflections on the building, that is a nice touch. It really depends on the photo you're going for, because it is possible to get a little more creative with the more popular side of the building, because I have done it, I will say that my photo is a little less on the traditional side of architectural photography :) Don't get me wrong, I think your photo is wonderful, just trying to add a few comments that I thought could be beneficial as not everyone here will be familiar with Halifax the way you and I are.
Best episode yet. The context from the photographers and the expertise of Mike within this genre made the critiques feel a lot more precise, in-depth, and helpful. Would love to see more videos like this!
Please do this for landscape/nature/wildlife with another expert, so helpful! I would even pay for a Landscape photography version of this with Elia. Great idea and video guys
“I don’t think the manufacturer makes saggy ceiling panels..” next image: completely bended ceiling from awesome architectural building.. 🤣 This is such an awesome video though! Learned a whole lot!
2021 I was watching this video simply because I want to see some architectural shots and maybe tips but the first two pictures of this video all I hear is add some people to be in the composition to "look more inviting" the chair behind the plants and the lights on the pool ,the sky ,not really the wall but yes those distracting agree but changing the angle could have made difference but after the two pictures I muted the video.
I thought this was a great critique, and I agree with Mike Kelley 80% of the time, which is more than I agree with most people. What bugs me more than him, apparently, is the uncorrected interior colors in the dusk shots, plus I think more than a few of these would be better as drone shots, which at this point is really just pointing out that the photographer used the wrong lens. If you want to be an architectural photographer, get a drone and a license to fly it. One needs the right equipment, and needs a portfolio that shows ability to control color and brightness. The job isn’t styling, and whether or not the subject is an amazing high-budget palace or a bungalow, it should look like every aspect of it was photographed at the right time of day, with the right lens, and lit in a way that makes it look even better than it does.
This video was amazing! I'm just diving into learning about architectural photography. I learned more by Mr. Kelly's astute and artfully communicated observations than I could have in hours of podcasts and other sources. Thanks so much!
Hello Mike 24:00 you didn't even begin to mention that the trees in the back and the sky are photoshopped as well. The houses on the right are so badly cut out that the grass looks good in comparison.
This was very informative and I would love to see more videos like this. Great content, keeping it positive and then adding what could make it better. Great job!
@Kat Alves - certainly the shot lacks space at the sides. might need adding in post if that's not possible on scene. also, the house number is too blury, one might want to make a second photo with shorter exposure and combine the two.
I am not into photography, but this video was very interesting to see what a professional photographer notices in what otherwise look like amazing photos.
would it be cool, to send to you the Raw files and you make your personal edit version, so we can see the potencial of the photograph ?? That would be awesome
I looked at my portfolio as Mike was critiquing these images to see if I made the same mistakes. Thanks Mike, I'm glad to know I didn't! haha. Although I did spot a few things now that I didn't realize before. Keep doing more videos like this. It's so beneficial.
Re: Hilton Head house - 30% foreground, 30% mid-ground, and 20% sky. With math like that it is no wonder the photo needed more sky to make it whole. ;)
Re the photo of Andreas Martin: Its not only the grass but also the elements put upon it, mostly looking fake. Especially due to missing (or not matching) shadows. This is realy an anti-example of how to do it
Hmmmm . . . yeah . . . well . . . all I can say is that was the BEST Fstoppers critique video I've ever watched! Thank you for taking the time to go through all of those photos and sharing you're expertise!
I really like you as part of the team. 👍Your perspective is very different since you usually do a different style of photography that I don't know much but Ill like to try after hearing you.
Amazing format. The whole video felt very stress free and well paced. While youre reading off the information of the picture, it also gives us viewers a moment to look at the picture and spot out something. Then compare it to what you say about the picture. I really like it, hope more of this to come :)
Nice video with lots of good tips ; I just wish Mike had been able to edit the pictures a bit to see how much they could be improved in post processing. Cheers.
Fantastic video Mike. When shooting, your advice of the "front on furniture" rule always saves me. I love how you encourage people to use less processing too and to concentrate on composition rather than techniques. I think for the pool shot in India, there was too much decking)foreground for mine in that shot. The pool needed to be closer to bottom of the frame. It's too far away. One neat trick I like to remove dead ground/foreground space is to use a tilt shift but to get the camera down close to the ground. Far away from a building you can't tell how low the camera is to the ground, but it really shortens dead ground space. I feel that's what was throwing me off in that shot too. Too much wasted space on the deck. You were correct with the crop too, it looked much better. Great shots everyone! Arch photography is an incredibly difficult medium and good to see it talked about it.
My only issue with his critiques is that some look like entire 3D renderings, and he doesn't mention it, while others he does. A few of these look way too fake. Way too much processing. You still want it to look like a photograph, and not the developers concept. Also, blown out windows is NOT A BAD THING!!! Depending on the shot, location, and what's actually showing outside, it may not be important.
