We are starting two new TH-cam channels. Soon we will be moving all of our live recordings over to the new "Fstoppers Live" TH-cam channel here: th-cam.com/channels/JxlKgtWbX9tKicPEYiRSOw.htmlfeatured I am also going to start up my own TH-cam channel where I post stuff that I am interested in that isn't photography related here: th-cam.com/channels/CUyEJHX1wLFkkE-ZkfjB6g.html We'd appreciate you subscribing, and we plan to start releasing new content soon.
Am I the only one who think replacing the view in the window, is to cross the line of what is ok for a shoot that is supposed to sell the house? If I were looking to buy a house and noticed that the ad images and reality dosn't match at all, I'd be pissed....
i understand where u are coming from but at the same time..he did say that the tree is on the property and could be easily removed... so not so much as a fake presence more of the potential of the look
You’re not the only one. It’s one thing to use perspective to hide undesirable attributes. It’s entirely different issue to edit the photo to give a house an appearance of having features/views it doesn’t currently have. It would be like adding in newer appliances in post if the existing ones were dated. Sure the new owner could replace appliances or cut down trees, but that’s not what’s there right now.
@@brendenmcelhinney8146 Don't get me wrong, I love some Photoshop. However, I know what thought and time process is spent on composition, time of day, exposure etc. You can feel the passion in Mikes photos, sorry to sound corny.
It should be noted though, that the technique of replacing the views from the window, is something that Mike actually teaches in his architecture photography series, and where Lee got the idea from.
I don't really care who's is better. I do love the video, the banter, the discussions, humor and listening to the reasoning behind the choices. Please do more like this.
If i am the one buying the house, from a buyer's perspective, i preferred Mike's montage compared to Lee's. Its' more down to earth, more reflective of what the property looks like, more...Real in a sense.
Rekka well yeah but this wasn't a real estate photo, this was just straight up photography. They weren't selling you the house, they were selling you their photos and I think that's an important factor here. People have assumed the rules were who can take the better real estate photos but they're wrong
Mikes shots were so much better it was shocking. His composition. The lines and the flow he captured in the interior and balcony photos were spot on. I think that mike took photos that creatives appreciate and Lee took photos that the untrained eye enjoyed. It doesn’t make Lees photos bad, if anything it says more about the people voting
Totally agree. I think Lees photoshop looked too fake. The color corrections didn't even match in the window shot.. not trying to sound snobby but I don't think the voters were sophisticated enough to really know the difference.
You guys made me laugh so hard. Typical pseudo-elitist snobs. Mike's got one good shot - shot 1. It portrays the real estate in a good way and delivers it to the viewer. But this is it. Shot 2 tries to capture everything, but fails to deliver a single thing properly. What does the shot 3 try to capture? The birds? The house? Or the beach? What of these does it capture better? Lee's shots, on the other hand, capture the real estate. Shot 4 captures the comfort of the interior, even though Lee lacks attention to the location of the furniture and hasn't done any detail-oriented composition work. Photoshopping the outside view was a mistake, too. Shot 5 perfectly delivers the exterior. I think the colour correction was too artificial, but the shot itself is great. Shot 6 is literally the perfect shot which didn't get any less realistic after editing, besides removing the structure on the left. The client is looking for real estate. They don't care about "the lines" and "the flow". They care about what the photos tell about the property. How comfortable it is. What the vibe is. Not birds and not colour matching.
I like Mike Kelley's images better. I really can't stand people photoshopping the view outside of the window completely with something not present at all. It's a window, not a LCD monitor!
I personally like the artistic aesthetic of Lee's work, but well, call me an amateur or a stubborn person, I do think that if any potential customer who sees the photoshopped image of this $5 million house and compared to what he/she has seen in person, it would make the customer believe that the seller/real estate agent is not honest. It's different from adding dramatic lighting or clouds because those come and go. A house with a direct view to the beach costs way more than those which don't (at least in my country). While I am totally okay with people photoshopping their travel photos, I frowned upon Lee's images the way I frown upon McDonald's hamburger photos because they don't resemble the actual product.
In California you can't legally add or remove items from a real estate photo, you can crop around something but can't change or add a view can't remove lightpoles, other houses, roads.
Again: that tree is in the property and if you want that view you can get it. It's not like he removed a nuclear plant. As for the McDonald's hamburger: actually they do use the same products, although it's not your average high-school depressed student making it, but a food designer. And again it's there to make you sell the product. It's not the photoshopper's fault to make something a bit un-realistic or too perfect. It's the observer that when sees something doesn't actually think about it in a rational way.
ferreal tho! what happened to the acknowledgement of natural artistry. the simplicity of technology has destroyed the true beauty of 'capturing reality'.
Mike's are more representative of what's in a magazine. Lee's are better for social media and "the masses". In the end it's about which set would better sell the house, nothing else - people need to remember that. Doesn't matter what non-buyer's would think, period. Mike know's his audience - the buyer. Lee knows his - the viewers on TH-cam right now. And who cast the votes? It's no wonder Lee takes the win. Another thing Mike knows is the worth of his time. Being a pro photographer means it's your duty to get the shots done as proper as possible IN camera, not via post-processing. If you have to spend 2-3x more time doing post, you will lose as a business person. Unless you're a part-timer not dependent on the income or at the top where your name is your brand enough to get you top tier clients due to fame, you're running a business to feed yourself and your family. TIME is a serious factor. Time IS money, literally. I appreciate both photographer's, but Lee can drink a glass of humility :)
replacing the contents of a window.. I'm sorry, but was this a photography contest or a concept art contest?.. Forgiving that, all the photos are great! But if you're trying to get a house sold, 4,5,6 made the house look cramped and small, while 1,2,3 showed off what 5million gets you better. So my opinion is that Mike won.
Luke Johnson yeah, I like 1-3 in their individuality better, but I think the 4-6 montage is more cohesive. Also 1-3 seem so natural, where 4-6 seem dramatic.
haha i know i was getting triggered so much, especcially when he was saying the living room shot had to much going on X D, i was like m8 u dont know jack shit do u?
1 is the overall best shoot for me 2 only works as a stand alone picture I think 3 is definitely a lot to heavy on the vignette (for me) 4 is the overall 2nd best shoot 5 is actually really nice I think, just the greens are to saturated and overall with to much contrast for me 6 is also to contrasty, which is funny since Lee often critiques the extreme 'hdrness' of other shoots, which this one does as well overall I can't really choose a winner
I think one of the main reasons why popular Instagram shoots are the way they are is that they are viewed on small displays, where a high contrast, saturation and clarity works better. But like me watching this on a huge computer screen a lower contrast and clarity is better most of the time. In other words: - viewing size is big ... keep it easy on those sliders - viewing size is small ... crank it up a notch
on the web i see photos processed more along the lines of 4,5,6. Its the style that appeals to the majority of photographers. I much prefer 1,2,3 in terms of composition and (natural) looking lighting. Its exactly the style of shots I would like to achieve.
Mike's stuff was clearly better. It's hilarious that Lee thinks he was better at this, I feel like no magazine would feature the work that Lee did. Seriously seemed like there was no competition when it came to color, composition, and story. Lee was playing the "I'm gonna edit the shit outta this" game. There's just a much more nuanced quality to Lee's work. Can't exactly explain it, it's a lot of small details and good timing. Also the aspect ratios that Lee Morris uses are clearly closer to film. For photography I would definitely use more creative crops.
Not sure if I completely understand what you mean, but I didn't even know who Mike was before watching this video, so I'm pretty sure I'm not a fanboy or something. I just see the difference between their expertise and see how Lee's previous film experience clouds his judgement. Lee doesn't have the eye for design in stills, yet.
edtoptop I couldn't agree more. The level between them is enormous. Mikes images are on a whole another level and I don't even know who Mike is, his images looks professional while the other ones looked photoshopped. There is a big gap between your skills level
you obviously have not met many magazine editors or worked for many - Lees full exterior would be chosen over Mikes by 9 out of 10 editors exactly because it is over the top and heavily produced and doesn't just look like a snap someone took walking down the beach - the only shot of Mike's that was really well done was the balcony shot - the other two were total trash , very amateurish............I just don't think he gave a shit about the whole deal to tell you the truth - he had a "what the fuck attitude" the whole time - didn't even bother to photoshop the telephone posts and wires - as he said - "I wasn't getting paid" about sums up his all-star self inflated opinion of his own work -
Interesting way to look at it. I'm sure plenty of people would love Mike's work on stills, but I don't think anyone that takes stills for a living is going to solve all their problems using the clone tool, simply because it's not good practice in the field.
Mike's photography was very consistent. His montage blended from one photo to the next. Lee's montage was disjointed and overly complicated, but that's not what good photography is about. I mean they're good, just not as smooth as Mike's. Mike's photos are very natural and easy to look at.
Feel like Lee broke a couple of photography "rules" and tried to compensate by photoshopping the crap out of all of his work. Mikes attention to framing and use of lines helped him execute stronger work. Lee's photos felt disjointed and individually lacked strong subject matter. Photo #5 is probably his strongest image, but I find the bottom left part of the balcony to be distracting, maybe a crop would have remedied it. I don't dislike #4, but this shot would need another interior shot (like Mikes #2) to create artistic cohesion.
Mike's got my vote ALL the way!!!! I love the interior picture, I think it shows the house perfectly, it gets the mood of the house, of the place. I love that pic.
Mike’s shots are way better than Lee’s shot. Mike’s shots looks so real and that’s what photography is all about , trying to show things in its reality and yes lilbit of editing is okay. But on the other hand Lee’s shots are too much over photoshopped. And it took the images far away from its reality , plus he is faking by removing trees and adding artificial things to enhance its beauty. Every pro photographers will not agree with Lee’s shots . My vote is for mike. His photography has maturity and reality. Bravo!
Your idea of what photography is all about seems really restrictive. Photography doesn't have to show reality. Just in this case, more realistic photographs would probably serve the purpose of making the house look appealing better.
Mike, you're pictures took this competition down easily. The first set looked clean, well composed, and the flow was much more congruent. Well done. Lee you're still the man!
Mike's photos are warm and relaxing. I could easily imagine myself comfortably living in and enjoying that space. Lee's felt like a space I'd film in then leave at the end of the day for the comfort of my home.
right?! from a graphic design standpoint, Mike's photos would have been received differently if his balcony shot was on the bottom, and less saturated, in my opinion.
That was hilarious, and totally fun to watch. I will say that Mike's real shots were the best, even the interior, as busy as it was it appeared not only more balanced but really did show that the whole interior was a space ship, not just one clever angle shot of the interior ala fireplace. LOVED the outdoor shot w/ the pelicans. Mike's shots were less "contained" looking, more spacious, carrying your eye out, while Lee's kept you focused w/in the box. Thoroughly enjoyed this episode, both of you guys were funny, gracious, and honest.
I still like Mike's set more and because it conveys the ambience and mood of the place more pleasantly to me. My main methodical objection to the voting and comparison is that it lacks scientific rigor in terms of selecting a neutral population. The Fstoppers community, may it be the best photographic community there is, are for years massaged and used to the style and taste of Lee, Patrick and the Fstoppers community itself. Not so with Mike. No wonder this population votes for what they keep seing as the best examples and are trained to praise - that's just psychology that sort of always works. As to the complexity-simplicity argument about the interior shot, I think Mike's more complex picture works simply better, because it is the pleasant whole that the many small and ordered parts gestalt that matters - it is the mood of the image and the emotion it awakes at the unbiased viewer. Thanks for the great work; this was a piece of high-quality and inspiring content from you both!
I agree, I think when you have a lot of "still learning'" photogs voting you'll get votes for high contrast stuff like Lee's. Take anyone of those people before they get into photography and they'd have voted Mike's I reckon. Something happens when you start photography, you overthink everything and it takes a lot of experience to see past that. To me Mike's are so much better, I've no doubt to a non photographer or a pro photographer they'd be preferred.
At first I felt like they were just joking around and mocking each other, but then is started to feel tiring to watch them being so competitive and overconfident...
I'm just going to vote your reply down because, if you are the Brad Lamb of Toronto, I bought and had to live in one of your terrible and shitty leaky condos on Stewart St. If you aren't that Brad Lamb, I totally agree with you. :)
4-6 have huge compositional flaws. Especially 5 and 6. 5 is ultra right-heavy. 6 - house if off center, which normally isn't a problem, IF there would be anything there to balance it out. At the moment there is no reason to have if offset like that. It also looks way too HDR and feels rather futuristic. It's really obvious for me which are the ones shot by the professional photographer. I find them more classy. Also, they're more about the place and less about "my kitchy photoshop skills". But knowing most people are clueless about good composition yet thoroughly impressed by big contrasts and saturation, I can very well see how 4-6 won.
Alexandru Preoteasa yup. The composition and overprocessing are dead giveaways who is better. And the overprocessing often goes hand in hand with bad composition since they will not think as hard about their shot, thinking consciously or unconsciously “I can fix this in photoshop”. It’s sad how the results turned out but not surprising since most people see overprocessing and think “they must be a pro”. It is like preferring candy to a great meal - instant gratification and little substance.
Totally disagree. Composition wise, Lee's #6 is better. The house is balanced out by the elevated trees on the left, it slopes down drawing the eye to the house. #3 is in the exact same part of the frame and look more like a snapshot.
I actually truly love the wide internal shot - the detail and the clarity is awesome and I kinda feel that there's just so much about the architecture of this house that it needed a wide-shot like this. And while I love the effects that can be achieved in post, I also have to take my hat off to those with the ability to capture the shot with what is available then and there at the time and give a more honest shot. But let's be honest, to pick a winner and a 'loser' … pffft - we're splitting hairs here ... like having to chose between Scarlett Johansson and Salma Hayek! You guys must have had buckets of fun doing this and thanks for sharing - really entertaining to watch and HEAPS of tips for a noob like me to learn from. :)
are you serious? scarlett johansson doesn't hold a CANDLE to salma hayek, pfft! she only looks good in some movies and pictures because of all the work and money that goes into trying very hard to make her look good. if you just evaluate her naturally, her body, her face, (and you can see a lot of those things if you look...) she's totally meh. Salma Hayek on the other hand is straight up gorgeous... or at least used to be, she might be getting kinda old idk, but the point still stands... it doesn't take work to make Salma look gorgeous, and her body needs zero help either. You're comparing an awkward high school drama nerd playing the part of a pretty girl, vs a voluptuous supermodel.
I dont get the ratings. Mikes images are natural and intricate while the other set was blunt and heavy. Like comparing classical music to modern pop - but then again, which of the two music styles is more popular? I think popularity and quality dont really correlate...
"Amateur" in that he's not a paid architecture photog. It doesn't mean that he's a compete n00b at photography (altho' I did assume the same thing at the beginning, too).
"Amateur" was originally a positive term (please look it up if you are not aware already). Unfortunately, it has been corrupted to indicate somebody or something inferior.
I love Mike’s more than Lee’s. Just comparing the living room, for example, Mike’s just open it up! Lee’s feels cramped. For the other two, Mike’s are just cleaner.
Mike's interiors look a lot more professional. The wide interior is just fantastic, everything is in perfect harmony and it just sucks me in. Truly the mark of a pro tog.
Weird question but, is architecture a good career choice? I am currently deciding between that or some engineering pathway? In quick summary, why or why don't you like?
Hi, I'm fresh out of architecture, so career wise I won't be able to give any advice. But as a field, I LOVE IT. The 4 years of study ( India ) completely changed the way i see the world, life itself. You learn strong sense of design, creative thinking, concept development. and - It's super fun. I would definitely suggest you to join architecture, but do not join it because you find engineering harder, trust me - architecture is no less.
By career if you mean a job with a salary, YES architecture has a lot of scope in terms of money making. The field is pretty wide from stage/set designs in films/ video games, to building the largest stadiums, architecture is everywhere today. I can't think of any books on the career aspect of it or what you're looking for, but i'll suggest some really good books on architecture when you're starting out - Archidoodle: The Architect's Activity Book, A Global History of Architecture, ( D.K ching's every book) - start out with these to get an insight on architecture
I honestly was amongst the ones that believed that the second set was Kelley's. I think here the take away is that what also Lee says at the end: do something that sells, no matter how over the top it might be, as long as you make it believable and clean. On the other hand there is to consider another point of view: shooting for magazines and with that picture sell a product, or shoot for your own personal pleasure and art feel. Finally: never trust images that are too good to be true! ;)
Depends what magazine you're trying to sell for. People magazine? Teen? Lee's photos do well for that market but Architectural Digest? Not so much. There is a huge difference in what sells for the palate that can afford $5mil vs the one that would struggle to afford $250K. For that crowd you don't need drama or glitzy gimmickry ... just show it as it is, without pretenses.
I love the wide shot of the fire place Mike did though, the picture showed the ambience of the house so i can get a clear view of what's inside the house feels like.
I think it’s great to see two photographers compete to see who tells the story of the property better. Seriously plz do more of these. Where art meet architecture is on my buy list.
Studying architecture right now, and I can say hands down that Mike's shots win with the exception of the interior composition. Lee nailed the lightning but the photoshopped windows were hilarious. That aside, Mike approached his shots the way good architects approach design. He told a story, he considered context, and he let nature take care of his lighting. Lee's outdoor shot screamed at me for attention like a teenage girl with daddy issues on Instagram. Mike's patio shot was a better composition but it was too cold for my personal taste.
I like the pro's pics the best. They just look better together. I also like the pro's inside pic is better becuause you get a better feel of what the inside of the house looks like.
i like what the 'amateur' did with bringing out the shadows. i feel like the 'pro' wouldve done better boosting the highlights in the interior image and for the exterior, too much saturation for my taste. LOVE THE SERIES THOUGH!
Bang well i first time visiting this channel and i must say i really like the hard work ans passion of these guys for shoot as well as making this video. keep it up.... My Opinion: 1 ok (chair arrangement is too clumsy and no detailing(like chair arrangement and detailing of 5th shot) , lower right is too dark) 2 ok but a more broder view including sofa, might be little more back from where he clicked or wider lens could be more interesting. lighting is good and natural. 3 very boring, mediocore seems like very casually clicked and processed. No composition, no lighting, lots of clutter of bush. 4 very good shot. like the lighting, composition, attention to details. 5 good shot but over saturated specially greens. chair arrangement and lighting is good also liked the attention to details. 6 good shot but too much contrast and bit dark outside. same shot should be better if he clicked some 20mins before he could get some light outside. liked how house is standing apart.Inside lighting and clouds giving the mood to image. Over all Lee's Hard work is clearly visible in his images. just little bit over done. Mikes shots looking like he did shoot in hurry he didnt paid attention to details also he didnt took his time to make the shots.
My hat is off to both of you for making some very nice images. Having said that, I prefer the ones taken by the professional photographer, and I'll tell you why. From the perspective of a client who comes to see the house with an eye to buying it, I'd feel that the photos shot by the amateur were not genuine, but artfully contrived "fakes" from Photoshop. While the exterior shot is clearly an attention grabber, to me it looks nothing like the real thing, and clearly substituting that beach view out the window is trickery although it does look great. If I were there with the agent viewing the house, I'd ask myself how anyone had time to grow the tree I was looking out the window at, and say to myself, "if these people are being dishonest about the view, what else are they not being truthful about?" I'd feel the same if I chose a hotel for my vacation based on a photo of a lovely view out my window, only to arrive to find what was actually there was a brick wall someone had Photoshopped out of the picture. Make no mistake, both photographers made excellent pictures that are a joy to look at. But I think the ones by the pro were more "accurate". This is not speaking as a photographer (I'm in awe of both of your skills), just as someone who maybe got on a plane to come look at the house to buy it. Just my two cents worth.
I am an architecture designer, and I think the architecture photographer's shots are better, this is not a PS competition. His three shots show more details and reality. Personally, I think it would be a better idea if they set a few more rules before they edit these photos, like only using Lightroom to do the post production, and not Photoshop.
I think Mike's better simply because it's easier to understand how the room actually is. You get a better understanding of the living room, you understand how it works and how it's projected in space. I can definitely picture myself sitting there.
I know right, the exact same people who are now saying Mike's pictures are better, are the exact sort of people who would have said Lee's were better thinking they were Mike's
I highly suspected that in their poll, the reason why Lee won wasn't because people thought his actual shots were better, but because they thought they were Mike's. By thinking they were Mike's, they'd write off the other photos without completely examining them.
I wonder what I would have voted if I saw the other video. But, watching this one, I thought the first three were composed with more intent and confidence, while the last three I understood what he was trying to build up with multiple exposures, but overall it felt like someone had a big bag of tricks and was trying for a lot of BANG! and drama which seems forced for a relaxed beach house. Plus, I don't know if it's the architecture or the composition (looking at the window frames it seems square with the sides of the photo), but shot 4 (the first one we saw taken) keeps making me think it's crooked, which bugs me way more than the amount of furniture in the other interior shot.
I didn’t know who Mike or Lee was before this and I actually thought Mike was the amateur kicking some butt for most of the video. He really thinks through his shots, instead of thinking post changes everything. It is so much more subtitle than my own work. I really respect that.
Mike's montage literally wraps the eye into this moment. Lee's individual compositions were good but worked slightly against each other; hence competed. Mike probably didn't fight traffic too much either way.
Really good video thanks. From a professional photographer viewpoint i cant support the replacement of the views with replacements nothing like the original. Culling trees etc from the interior with stuff that simply isnt there is not really legit. For real estate photography artificially removing things that are present are misleading. If i was buying that house and turned up for an inspection and that tree was there that had been removed in the image id be pretty upset. Great photos and editing all around but if your removing things that are present its pretty dodgy from a professional viewpoint.
I know this is a part of it but sometimes it seems to be the biggest part, especially when you turn average pictures into amazing ones like in this episode.
For some pictures I'd say you're right but to me, Lee's second and third pictures are total average picture before photoshop. Those two ones are completely cheated!
Mike's photos are more authentic. I feel like he captured all the aesthetics of the house perfectly all while not overdoing it. He could've even done a TINY bit more editing but still, his photos are more real. Good job to the both of you but Mike definitely takes home the W for this one!
17:13 5/10 light looks artificial 18:04 6/10 again, and there is a lot of blue 19:04 7/10 looks best of them all honestly, greatly represents view outside the balcony, but that sick amount of blue light is bothering me 20:58 0/10 a dick move, if I were to try to buy a house, I would be pretty damn pissed... you don't simply replace the view outside of the window 22:18 7/10 more lively colors, way better lightning works 23:00 2/10 removing buildings nearby and shit, although it's a really nice photoshop edit so you get those +2 Overall, it was all meh (the first half somewhat saves it) It's not a fucking photoshop contest, it's a photography contest, although I don't know shit about those things so correct me if I am wrong, but I wouldn't classify heavily photoshopped photos as photos.
@@buthaynahXD and that's what you call *bias* They were smart setting up 2 polls: the fact that almost the exact amount of people, without having the luxury of watching a 15 min video of who took which pictures, thought Mike's was the latter set and that that set won, goes to show that the comment section of this channel just naturally flows against Lee. It can even be an unconscious thing, but it is definitely a thing.
Me to, I'd even like your comment if you found out about capslock. You are aware that those capital letters are the written equivalent of shouting right?
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this. You guys are so authentic and natural. As for who was better, I think I appreciated both styles of photography and editing, it has its own place in the market.
If I'm throwing $5M at a house .. 2 pictures: 1. use a drone over the water using a DSLR telephoto with the Kitesurfing in the foreground towards the home. 2. In the interior a raised wide-angle showing the great room with the beach.
Unless you're planning to be hovering over your house on a regular basis, what good is a drone shot? I want to see the view I'm going to see every day not one from a helicopter. I do agree with the second shot, most people whether they realize it or not see in wide-angle. That is the way the brain processes what we see. :)
i always think from the beginning, the guy with the cap only teasing everyone to give the example how amateurs think and do ( and defend his amateur works ).. he's a great teacher actually.. thank you for this video. love all the comments and how you create the culture around your subscribber and loyal viewer.
You do realize the term professional doesn't imply skill right? It just means you are paid for your work. Some people are really great at photography or other arts for that matter but don't want to do it for a living for various reasons. To assume they are lower skilled than someone who took the risk and started a business is really silly.
I skipped through this video so I’m unsure who the pro is! 😂 The guy in the white shirt seems very confident, which makes me think he’s the pro.. but I think I preferred the checker shirt guys images more!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
We are starting two new TH-cam channels. Soon we will be moving all of our live recordings over to the new "Fstoppers Live" TH-cam channel here: th-cam.com/channels/JxlKgtWbX9tKicPEYiRSOw.htmlfeatured
I am also going to start up my own TH-cam channel where I post stuff that I am interested in that isn't photography related here: th-cam.com/channels/CUyEJHX1wLFkkE-ZkfjB6g.html
We'd appreciate you subscribing, and we plan to start releasing new content soon.
The cinematographers (camera men) really won the contest. Some of these video compositions were flawless.
YES!
Exactly what I thought!
@@Stuffedanimalery It's funny we can make screen shots from the video and have better pictures that these two guys 😂
Cinematographers... so often overlooked..
STDY. Lol I was thinking the same thing
Am I the only one who think replacing the view in the window, is to cross the line of what is ok for a shoot that is supposed to sell the house? If I were looking to buy a house and noticed that the ad images and reality dosn't match at all, I'd be pissed....
yes to me that's a rule one should not break. And also a house one is going to buy should look warm and welcoming in the pictures...not like "mordor"
i understand where u are coming from but at the same time..he did say that the tree is on the property and could be easily removed... so not so much as a fake presence more of the potential of the look
Looks more as if he removes a whole forest... :D
lol
You’re not the only one. It’s one thing to use perspective to hide undesirable attributes. It’s entirely different issue to edit the photo to give a house an appearance of having features/views it doesn’t currently have. It would be like adding in newer appliances in post if the existing ones were dated. Sure the new owner could replace appliances or cut down trees, but that’s not what’s there right now.
Don't actually know either of these guys.. But Mike's photos are 1000 times better due to realism, detail and honesty. Amazing photo's
Destined Rose your absolutely right, lees weren’t real, they didn’t depict what the house is actually right
@@brendenmcelhinney8146 Don't get me wrong, I love some Photoshop. However, I know what thought and time process is spent
on composition, time of day, exposure etc. You can feel the passion in Mikes photos, sorry to sound corny.
It should be noted though, that the technique of replacing the views from the window, is something that Mike actually teaches in his architecture photography series, and where Lee got the idea from.
Agree
Mike wins this one hands down. His three shots work together way better than Lee's, however hard he tried. Great work from both of them though!
I don't really care who's is better. I do love the video, the banter, the discussions, humor and listening to the reasoning behind the choices. Please do more like this.
Hey, just in case you're not subscribed, they uploaded a new one today!
If i am the one buying the house, from a buyer's perspective, i preferred Mike's montage compared to Lee's. Its' more down to earth, more reflective of what the property looks like, more...Real in a sense.
More honest.
So as a seller the other?
Rekka well yeah but this wasn't a real estate photo, this was just straight up photography.
They weren't selling you the house, they were selling you their photos and I think that's an important factor here. People have assumed the rules were who can take the better real estate photos but they're wrong
Mikes shots were so much better it was shocking. His composition. The lines and the flow he captured in the interior and balcony photos were spot on. I think that mike took photos that creatives appreciate and Lee took photos that the untrained eye enjoyed. It doesn’t make Lees photos bad, if anything it says more about the people voting
You said it perfectly
Totally agree. I think Lees photoshop looked too fake. The color corrections didn't even match in the window shot.. not trying to sound snobby but I don't think the voters were sophisticated enough to really know the difference.
You guys made me laugh so hard. Typical pseudo-elitist snobs.
Mike's got one good shot - shot 1. It portrays the real estate in a good way and delivers it to the viewer. But this is it.
Shot 2 tries to capture everything, but fails to deliver a single thing properly.
What does the shot 3 try to capture? The birds? The house? Or the beach? What of these does it capture better?
Lee's shots, on the other hand, capture the real estate.
Shot 4 captures the comfort of the interior, even though Lee lacks attention to the location of the furniture and hasn't done any detail-oriented composition work.
Photoshopping the outside view was a mistake, too.
Shot 5 perfectly delivers the exterior. I think the colour correction was too artificial, but the shot itself is great.
Shot 6 is literally the perfect shot which didn't get any less realistic after editing, besides removing the structure on the left.
The client is looking for real estate. They don't care about "the lines" and "the flow".
They care about what the photos tell about the property. How comfortable it is. What the vibe is.
Not birds and not colour matching.
@@yevgenydevine you sound like an elitist snob too Haha welcome!
@Karen Jewels I don't quite get what's snobbish-elitist about photography serving its purpose.
I like Mike Kelley's images better. I really can't stand people photoshopping the view outside of the window completely with something not present at all. It's a window, not a LCD monitor!
Well, you now know that it's photoshopped. But if you didn't know there was a tree in a first place, you would have been fine with that trick.
I personally like the artistic aesthetic of Lee's work, but well, call me an amateur or a stubborn person, I do think that if any potential customer who sees the photoshopped image of this $5 million house and compared to what he/she has seen in person, it would make the customer believe that the seller/real estate agent is not honest. It's different from adding dramatic lighting or clouds because those come and go.
A house with a direct view to the beach costs way more than those which don't (at least in my country).
While I am totally okay with people photoshopping their travel photos, I frowned upon Lee's images the way I frown upon McDonald's hamburger photos because they don't resemble the actual product.
Damn right. Don't touch the view. You get what you get.
In California you can't legally add or remove items from a real estate photo, you can crop around something but can't change or add a view can't remove lightpoles, other houses, roads.
Again: that tree is in the property and if you want that view you can get it. It's not like he removed a nuclear plant. As for the McDonald's hamburger: actually they do use the same products, although it's not your average high-school depressed student making it, but a food designer. And again it's there to make you sell the product. It's not the photoshopper's fault to make something a bit un-realistic or too perfect. It's the observer that when sees something doesn't actually think about it in a rational way.
100% prefer Mikes set.
Mike's images look amazing and very professional. I think Lee did a lot of unnecessary editing and composition.
I absolutely agree with you!
Also this guy acted like a dick for the entire thing
But Lee's pics looked like something mike would take? lol
I for one prefer Mike's. I like that more natural and simplistic composition, it shows experience and an eye for the real life moments.
No gas. This one of my favorite TH-cam vids I’ve ever seen. Love the trash talk and competition. I love the confidence of both shooters.
Both of y’all are so passive aggressive. I love it.
Ricky Ryan Ray Spoken like a true weak but strong Canadian
Mike is so sweet. I love how he keeps laughing the whole time. And I do like the story he carried in the images and the honesty they have better.
So high end photography just comes down to "screw it I'll fix it in post"
Not really. It gets really complex actually.
Israel Hoffman NOOOOO! really?
Reminds me of astrophotography.
ferreal tho! what happened to the acknowledgement of natural artistry. the simplicity of technology has destroyed the true beauty of 'capturing reality'.
Yes.
Mike's are more representative of what's in a magazine.
Lee's are better for social media and "the masses".
In the end it's about which set would better sell the house, nothing else - people need to remember that.
Doesn't matter what non-buyer's would think, period.
Mike know's his audience - the buyer. Lee knows his - the viewers on TH-cam right now.
And who cast the votes? It's no wonder Lee takes the win.
Another thing Mike knows is the worth of his time. Being a pro photographer means it's your duty to get the shots done as proper as possible IN camera, not via post-processing.
If you have to spend 2-3x more time doing post, you will lose as a business person. Unless you're a part-timer not dependent on the income or at the top where your name is your brand enough to get you top tier clients due to fame, you're running a business to feed yourself and your family. TIME is a serious factor. Time IS money, literally.
I appreciate both photographer's, but Lee can drink a glass of humility :)
finally a decent comment. I can stop scrolling trought that shit, you've restored my faith.
Jason McGovern well said
Lee can help with the selling of the house by producing viral photos that will be shared on social media. But will it convert into sales? Maybe.
replacing the contents of a window.. I'm sorry, but was this a photography contest or a concept art contest?.. Forgiving that, all the photos are great! But if you're trying to get a house sold, 4,5,6 made the house look cramped and small, while 1,2,3 showed off what 5million gets you better. So my opinion is that Mike won.
Shots 1-3 have way better composition and look more natural, surprised people picked 4-6
Luke Johnson yeah, I like 1-3 in their individuality better, but I think the 4-6 montage is more cohesive. Also 1-3 seem so natural, where 4-6 seem dramatic.
1-3 would have sold me on the house. Were the last 3 felt edited to try hard to sell the house.
This is my first time watching these guys. But I already know why people hates the the bald guy.
The dude in the hats ego is so hard to pass
haha i know i was getting triggered so much, especcially when he was saying the living room shot had to much going on X D, i was like m8 u dont know jack shit do u?
Issa joke
That's just being a professional photographer.
Marie-Levitt you love it
Lee is such a character. Thats His joke persona with His Friends. Its funny
Mike's got my vote. Lee's photos went too far but of course in the age of instagram that's all people care about.
alex Agreed.
lee added something worth looking at.
1 is the overall best shoot for me
2 only works as a stand alone picture I think
3 is definitely a lot to heavy on the vignette (for me)
4 is the overall 2nd best shoot
5 is actually really nice I think, just the greens are to saturated and overall with to much contrast for me
6 is also to contrasty, which is funny since Lee often critiques the extreme 'hdrness' of other shoots, which this one does as well
overall I can't really choose a winner
I think one of the main reasons why popular Instagram shoots are the way they are is that they are viewed on small displays, where a high contrast, saturation and clarity works better. But like me watching this on a huge computer screen a lower contrast and clarity is better most of the time.
In other words:
- viewing size is big ... keep it easy on those sliders
- viewing size is small ... crank it up a notch
on the web i see photos processed more along the lines of 4,5,6. Its the style that appeals to the majority of photographers. I much prefer 1,2,3 in terms of composition and (natural) looking lighting. Its exactly the style of shots I would like to achieve.
Mike's stuff was clearly better. It's hilarious that Lee thinks he was better at this, I feel like no magazine would feature the work that Lee did. Seriously seemed like there was no competition when it came to color, composition, and story. Lee was playing the "I'm gonna edit the shit outta this" game. There's just a much more nuanced quality to Lee's work. Can't exactly explain it, it's a lot of small details and good timing. Also the aspect ratios that Lee Morris uses are clearly closer to film. For photography I would definitely use more creative crops.
You would be saying the exact opposite if Mike actually shot 4-6.
Not sure if I completely understand what you mean, but I didn't even know who Mike was before watching this video, so I'm pretty sure I'm not a fanboy or something. I just see the difference between their expertise and see how Lee's previous film experience clouds his judgement. Lee doesn't have the eye for design in stills, yet.
edtoptop I couldn't agree more. The level between them is enormous. Mikes images are on a whole another level and I don't even know who Mike is, his images looks professional while the other ones looked photoshopped. There is a big gap between your skills level
you obviously have not met many magazine editors or worked for many - Lees full exterior would be chosen over Mikes by 9 out of 10 editors exactly because it is over the top and heavily produced and doesn't just look like a snap someone took walking down the beach - the only shot of Mike's that was really well done was the balcony shot - the other two were total trash , very amateurish............I just don't think he gave a shit about the whole deal to tell you the truth - he had a "what the fuck attitude" the whole time - didn't even bother to photoshop the telephone posts and wires - as he said - "I wasn't getting paid" about sums up his all-star self inflated opinion of his own work -
Interesting way to look at it. I'm sure plenty of people would love Mike's work on stills, but I don't think anyone that takes stills for a living is going to solve all their problems using the clone tool, simply because it's not good practice in the field.
Mike's photography was very consistent. His montage blended from one photo to the next. Lee's montage was disjointed and overly complicated, but that's not what good photography is about. I mean they're good, just not as smooth as Mike's. Mike's photos are very natural and easy to look at.
Totally agree
Title says it all: Cocky amateur vs pro...
Which is which?
I think that's the drama that they try to add to the show
Feel like Lee broke a couple of photography "rules" and tried to compensate by photoshopping the crap out of all of his work. Mikes attention to framing and use of lines helped him execute stronger work. Lee's photos felt disjointed and individually lacked strong subject matter. Photo #5 is probably his strongest image, but I find the bottom left part of the balcony to be distracting, maybe a crop would have remedied it. I don't dislike #4, but this shot would need another interior shot (like Mikes #2) to create artistic cohesion.
the amateur should've switched his horizontal photos so that the ground would be below the sky.
I love this video, you should make a Pro vs Amateur series!
YES!!!!!!!!!!
Yes please!!
and make sure the Pro isn't phoning it in and call it being artistic
This could without a doubt be a series. With different photographers, with a new cool location, each time
I would loooooovvvvvvvveeeeeeeeee to see Patrick in that.
Very cool that Fred and Wilma made their home available to Fstoppers before it went on the market.
i laughed more than the appropriate amount at that comment.
flowremix 🤣So did I 🤣
flowremix 🤣
Mike's got my vote ALL the way!!!! I love the interior picture, I think it shows the house perfectly, it gets the mood of the house, of the place. I love that pic.
The guy in the hat comes off pompous and fake. Not a fan of his
Mike’s shots are way better than Lee’s shot. Mike’s shots looks so real and that’s what photography is all about , trying to show things in its reality and yes lilbit of editing is okay. But on the other hand Lee’s shots are too much over photoshopped. And it took the images far away from its reality , plus he is faking by removing trees and adding artificial things to enhance its beauty. Every pro photographers will not agree with Lee’s shots . My vote is for mike. His photography has maturity and reality. Bravo!
let's just build a house just using ur hands.. no hammers or any tools that can make your work or house better and easier.
Yeah, but Lee replacing the view from the window, is something that Mike teaches in his own tutorial series.
Your idea of what photography is all about seems really restrictive. Photography doesn't have to show reality. Just in this case, more realistic photographs would probably serve the purpose of making the house look appealing better.
Mike, you're pictures took this competition down easily. The first set looked clean, well composed, and the flow was much more congruent. Well done.
Lee you're still the man!
Mike's photos are warm and relaxing. I could easily imagine myself comfortably living in and enjoying that space.
Lee's felt like a space I'd film in then leave at the end of the day for the comfort of my home.
Exactly, the composition and framing convey a particular mood that is representative of the house and the environment.
Lee's pictures dont really communicate with themselves, looks like fake renders or instagram filters...
The color temps of the montage are all over the place.
right?! from a graphic design standpoint, Mike's photos would have been received differently if his balcony shot was on the bottom, and less saturated, in my opinion.
The natural shot of the sky was gorgeous. That alone sold the house to me.
Well, for me it's easy to vote for Mike.
Mike's images are telling much more. even tho all of ur work guys are just great.
Mike's shots rule. Also, he is hilarious. Long live Mike.
Mike's images were way better.
In this age of vignette and saturation abuse I'm starting to love the natural look of photos like Mike's.
Mike's set is genuinely better and I think he was absolutely right about the taste of the people responding.
:)
That was hilarious, and totally fun to watch. I will say that Mike's real shots were the best, even the interior, as busy as it was it appeared not only more balanced but really did show that the whole interior was a space ship, not just one clever angle shot of the interior ala fireplace. LOVED the outdoor shot w/ the pelicans. Mike's shots were less "contained" looking, more spacious, carrying your eye out, while Lee's kept you focused w/in the box. Thoroughly enjoyed this episode, both of you guys were funny, gracious, and honest.
Thanks Todd - really appreciate the kind words and great comment.
I still like Mike's set more and because it conveys the ambience and mood of the place more pleasantly to me. My main methodical objection to the voting and comparison is that it lacks scientific rigor in terms of selecting a neutral population. The Fstoppers community, may it be the best photographic community there is, are for years massaged and used to the style and taste of Lee, Patrick and the Fstoppers community itself. Not so with Mike. No wonder this population votes for what they keep seing as the best examples and are trained to praise - that's just psychology that sort of always works. As to the complexity-simplicity argument about the interior shot, I think Mike's more complex picture works simply better, because it is the pleasant whole that the many small and ordered parts gestalt that matters - it is the mood of the image and the emotion it awakes at the unbiased viewer.
Thanks for the great work; this was a piece of high-quality and inspiring content from you both!
I agree, I think when you have a lot of "still learning'" photogs voting you'll get votes for high contrast stuff like Lee's. Take anyone of those people before they get into photography and they'd have voted Mike's I reckon. Something happens when you start photography, you overthink everything and it takes a lot of experience to see past that. To me Mike's are so much better, I've no doubt to a non photographer or a pro photographer they'd be preferred.
mk0x55 hybgnbbb.
signed Liam
Mike's photos I'm sold on. The other ones. I gotta see the house in person first.
Very passive aggressive and ego driven. Not really enjoyable to watch.
At first I felt like they were just joking around and mocking each other, but then is started to feel tiring to watch them being so competitive and overconfident...
its just banter, there is not hostility at all. what are you on about
This is how most male friends interact with each other. They seems like good friends to me.
@@tylerpatterson8115 So glad I don't have to interact with any like the guy in the cap though.
I'm just going to vote your reply down because, if you are the Brad Lamb of Toronto, I bought and had to live in one of your terrible and shitty leaky condos on Stewart St. If you aren't that Brad Lamb, I totally agree with you. :)
4-6 have huge compositional flaws. Especially 5 and 6. 5 is ultra right-heavy. 6 - house if off center, which normally isn't a problem, IF there would be anything there to balance it out. At the moment there is no reason to have if offset like that. It also looks way too HDR and feels rather futuristic. It's really obvious for me which are the ones shot by the professional photographer. I find them more classy. Also, they're more about the place and less about "my kitchy photoshop skills". But knowing most people are clueless about good composition yet thoroughly impressed by big contrasts and saturation, I can very well see how 4-6 won.
Alexandru Preoteasa yup. The composition and overprocessing are dead giveaways who is better. And the overprocessing often goes hand in hand with bad composition since they will not think as hard about their shot, thinking consciously or unconsciously “I can fix this in photoshop”. It’s sad how the results turned out but not surprising since most people see overprocessing and think “they must be a pro”. It is like preferring candy to a great meal - instant gratification and little substance.
Totally disagree. Composition wise, Lee's #6 is better. The house is balanced out by the elevated trees on the left, it slopes down drawing the eye to the house. #3 is in the exact same part of the frame and look more like a snapshot.
I actually truly love the wide internal shot - the detail and the clarity is awesome and I kinda feel that there's just so much about the architecture of this house that it needed a wide-shot like this. And while I love the effects that can be achieved in post, I also have to take my hat off to those with the ability to capture the shot with what is available then and there at the time and give a more honest shot. But let's be honest, to pick a winner and a 'loser' … pffft - we're splitting hairs here ... like having to chose between Scarlett Johansson and Salma Hayek! You guys must have had buckets of fun doing this and thanks for sharing - really entertaining to watch and HEAPS of tips for a noob like me to learn from. :)
are you serious? scarlett johansson doesn't hold a CANDLE to salma hayek, pfft! she only looks good in some movies and pictures because of all the work and money that goes into trying very hard to make her look good. if you just evaluate her naturally, her body, her face, (and you can see a lot of those things if you look...) she's totally meh. Salma Hayek on the other hand is straight up gorgeous... or at least used to be, she might be getting kinda old idk, but the point still stands... it doesn't take work to make Salma look gorgeous, and her body needs zero help either. You're comparing an awkward high school drama nerd playing the part of a pretty girl, vs a voluptuous supermodel.
Exactly my point, sir … while the finished results are still both spectacular, one is completely natural and needs no additional work :)
@@justanothernoobe oh, nice!
I dont get the ratings. Mikes images are natural and intricate while the other set was blunt and heavy. Like comparing classical music to modern pop - but then again, which of the two music styles is more popular?
I think popularity and quality dont really correlate...
Best comment I've seen on this video
the amateur is not really amateur,
"Amateur" in that he's not a paid architecture photog. It doesn't mean that he's a compete n00b at photography (altho' I did assume the same thing at the beginning, too).
"Amateur" was originally a positive term (please look it up if you are not aware already). Unfortunately, it has been corrupted to indicate somebody or something inferior.
A lot of amateur people could be pros with their hobbies.
Seriously, amateur vs pro should be "guy shooting with iPhone vs guy with all the equipment "
I love Mike’s more than Lee’s. Just comparing the living room, for example, Mike’s just open it up! Lee’s feels cramped. For the other two, Mike’s are just cleaner.
Mike's interiors look a lot more professional. The wide interior is just fantastic, everything is in perfect harmony and it just sucks me in. Truly the mark of a pro tog.
Damn good stuff. I'm an architect and these images did Justice to the design
Weird question but, is architecture a good career choice? I am currently deciding between that or some engineering pathway? In quick summary, why or why don't you like?
Hi, I'm fresh out of architecture, so career wise I won't be able to give any advice. But as a field, I LOVE IT. The 4 years of study ( India ) completely changed the way i see the world, life itself. You learn strong sense of design, creative thinking, concept development. and - It's super fun. I would definitely suggest you to join architecture, but do not join it because you find engineering harder, trust me - architecture is no less.
SMAL Thanks for replying! Is there one book that you recommend that could shed more light into what that career field entails.
By career if you mean a job with a salary, YES architecture has a lot of scope in terms of money making. The field is pretty wide from stage/set designs in films/ video games, to building the largest stadiums, architecture is everywhere today. I can't think of any books on the career aspect of it or what you're looking for, but i'll suggest some really good books on architecture when you're starting out - Archidoodle: The Architect's Activity Book, A Global History of Architecture, ( D.K ching's every book) - start out with these to get an insight on architecture
SMAL I for one don’t care about the money. I just want a job I really enjoy doing. Thanks for the book recommendations, sir, or ma’am.
I honestly was amongst the ones that believed that the second set was Kelley's. I think here the take away is that what also Lee says at the end: do something that sells, no matter how over the top it might be, as long as you make it believable and clean. On the other hand there is to consider another point of view: shooting for magazines and with that picture sell a product, or shoot for your own personal pleasure and art feel. Finally: never trust images that are too good to be true! ;)
Depends what magazine you're trying to sell for. People magazine? Teen? Lee's photos do well for that market but Architectural Digest? Not so much. There is a huge difference in what sells for the palate that can afford $5mil vs the one that would struggle to afford $250K. For that crowd you don't need drama or glitzy gimmickry ... just show it as it is, without pretenses.
I love the wide shot of the fire place Mike did though, the picture showed the ambience of the house so i can get a clear view of what's inside the house feels like.
I think it’s great to see two photographers compete to see who tells the story of the property better. Seriously plz do more of these. Where art meet architecture is on my buy list.
Studying architecture right now, and I can say hands down that Mike's shots win with the exception of the interior composition. Lee nailed the lightning but the photoshopped windows were hilarious. That aside, Mike approached his shots the way good architects approach design. He told a story, he considered context, and he let nature take care of his lighting. Lee's outdoor shot screamed at me for attention like a teenage girl with daddy issues on Instagram. Mike's patio shot was a better composition but it was too cold for my personal taste.
I like the pro's pics the best. They just look better together. I also like the pro's inside pic is better becuause you get a better feel of what the inside of the house looks like.
You mean 4-6? :D
i like what the 'amateur' did with bringing out the shadows. i feel like the 'pro' wouldve done better boosting the highlights in the interior image and for the exterior, too much saturation for my taste. LOVE THE SERIES THOUGH!
no hate, its all just personal taste
He did say personal taste. Personally I do like the less is more approach with 1, 2, 3.
Bang well i first time visiting this channel and i must say i really like the hard work ans passion of these guys for shoot as well as making this video. keep it up....
My Opinion:
1 ok (chair arrangement is too clumsy and no detailing(like chair arrangement and detailing of 5th shot) , lower right is too dark)
2 ok but a more broder view including sofa, might be little more back from where he clicked or wider lens could be more interesting. lighting is good and natural.
3 very boring, mediocore seems like very casually clicked and processed. No composition, no lighting, lots of clutter of bush.
4 very good shot. like the lighting, composition, attention to details.
5 good shot but over saturated specially greens. chair arrangement and lighting is good also liked the attention to details.
6 good shot but too much contrast and bit dark outside. same shot should be better if he clicked some 20mins before he could get some light outside. liked how house is standing apart.Inside lighting and clouds
giving the mood to image.
Over all Lee's Hard work is clearly visible in his images. just little bit over done. Mikes shots looking like he did shoot in hurry he didnt paid attention to details also he didnt took his time to make the shots.
My hat is off to both of you for making some very nice images. Having said that, I prefer the ones taken by the professional photographer, and I'll tell you why. From the perspective of a client who comes to see the house with an eye to buying it, I'd feel that the photos shot by the amateur were not genuine, but artfully contrived "fakes" from Photoshop. While the exterior shot is clearly an attention grabber, to me it looks nothing like the real thing, and clearly substituting that beach view out the window is trickery although it does look great. If I were there with the agent viewing the house, I'd ask myself how anyone had time to grow the tree I was looking out the window at, and say to myself, "if these people are being dishonest about the view, what else are they not being truthful about?" I'd feel the same if I chose a hotel for my vacation based on a photo of a lovely view out my window, only to arrive to find what was actually there was a brick wall someone had Photoshopped out of the picture.
Make no mistake, both photographers made excellent pictures that are a joy to look at. But I think the ones by the pro were more "accurate". This is not speaking as a photographer (I'm in awe of both of your skills), just as someone who maybe got on a plane to come look at the house to buy it. Just my two cents worth.
I am an architecture designer, and I think the architecture photographer's shots are better, this is not a PS competition. His three shots show more details and reality. Personally, I think it would be a better idea if they set a few more rules before they edit these photos, like only using Lightroom to do the post production, and not Photoshop.
I think Mike's better simply because it's easier to understand how the room actually is. You get a better understanding of the living room, you understand how it works and how it's projected in space. I can definitely picture myself sitting there.
This is pretty awesome. I liked the convo and I've laughed at your interaction multiple times through the video. Great fun!
And then in the comment section everyone supports Mike and says that Lee photoshopped too much. Of course. That's how the internet is.
I know right, the exact same people who are now saying Mike's pictures are better, are the exact sort of people who would have said Lee's were better thinking they were Mike's
I highly suspected that in their poll, the reason why Lee won wasn't because people thought his actual shots were better, but because they thought they were Mike's. By thinking they were Mike's, they'd write off the other photos without completely examining them.
"Halo" effect at work
I wonder what I would have voted if I saw the other video. But, watching this one, I thought the first three were composed with more intent and confidence, while the last three I understood what he was trying to build up with multiple exposures, but overall it felt like someone had a big bag of tricks and was trying for a lot of BANG! and drama which seems forced for a relaxed beach house. Plus, I don't know if it's the architecture or the composition (looking at the window frames it seems square with the sides of the photo), but shot 4 (the first one we saw taken) keeps making me think it's crooked, which bugs me way more than the amount of furniture in the other interior shot.
Mike Kelley all the way.
Mike's photos are gorgeous. I liked how chill and realistic they look.
Thanks Christa!
having a blast watching you guys, can't wait to try one of the tutorial !
This is one of the best TH-cam videos I've ever watched!
Pizzles Tech Time agree. Very intriguing throughout
Yes they need to do more challenges like this.
Depends from person to person
you’ve never seen Charlie bit me ?
Mike. Hands down.
I selected the right images of Mike Good and simple no flashy stuff. But too many people voted for the flashy images...
I didn’t know who Mike or Lee was before this and I actually thought Mike was the amateur kicking some butt for most of the video. He really thinks through his shots, instead of thinking post changes everything. It is so much more subtitle than my own work. I really respect that.
You guys rock, I just got a big "say yes now, learn how to later" deal so I'm binge watching all of your content haha
Beach house vs woods house.
First set tells the story better.
This episode was so funny. I love the banter and the reveal.
This is probably one of the funniest fstoppers videos ever.
Mike's montage literally wraps the eye into this moment. Lee's individual compositions were good but worked slightly against each other; hence competed. Mike probably didn't fight traffic too much either way.
These two guys are so enjoyable to watch.
Really good video thanks. From a professional photographer viewpoint i cant support the replacement of the views with replacements nothing like the original. Culling trees etc from the interior with stuff that simply isnt there is not really legit. For real estate photography artificially removing things that are present are misleading.
If i was buying that house and turned up for an inspection and that tree was there that had been removed in the image id be pretty upset.
Great photos and editing all around but if your removing things that are present its pretty dodgy from a professional viewpoint.
there is a lesson to be learned here about what the public finds appealing.
This years best /most entertaining fstoppers video! I agree to Lee :D. Keep them comming!
Great stuff guys...easy to learn from you both which is the biggest compliment I can give you.
Enjoy the challenge videos you guys have put together, but this has been my fav thus far.
As a conclusion I'd say that having great photoshop skills is the most important thing... -_-
Gobi-no-houkou its part of the digital photography world. Get good.
I know this is a part of it but sometimes it seems to be the biggest part, especially when you turn average pictures into amazing ones like in this episode.
disagree. Its part of it.. but it should only be a fraction of the whole photo. Composition is what should make the photo.
Composition, light and framing are the most important things in this episode. Photoshop is only used to bring everything together.
For some pictures I'd say you're right but to me, Lee's second and third pictures are total average picture before photoshop. Those two ones are completely cheated!
who would've guessed, well done Lee.
Indeed, loads of Michael Bay fans.
Mike's photos are more authentic. I feel like he captured all the aesthetics of the house perfectly all while not overdoing it. He could've even done a TINY bit more editing but still, his photos are more real. Good job to the both of you but Mike definitely takes home the W for this one!
This is the first video I’ve watched from this channel. Love it! Lol I like you guys!
17:13 5/10 light looks artificial
18:04 6/10 again, and there is a lot of blue
19:04 7/10 looks best of them all honestly, greatly represents view outside the balcony, but that sick amount of blue light is bothering me
20:58 0/10 a dick move, if I were to try to buy a house, I would be pretty damn pissed... you don't simply replace the view outside of the window
22:18 7/10 more lively colors, way better lightning works
23:00 2/10 removing buildings nearby and shit, although it's a really nice photoshop edit so you get those +2
Overall, it was all meh (the first half somewhat saves it)
It's not a fucking photoshop contest, it's a photography contest, although I don't know shit about those things so correct me if I am wrong, but I wouldn't classify heavily photoshopped photos as photos.
I LOVE THAT NOW THAT THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN EVERYONE IS SAYING MIKE WAS BETTER 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
i'm seeing this for the first time, just like everyone else i'm sure, and mike's photos are better
@@buthaynahXD and that's what you call *bias*
They were smart setting up 2 polls: the fact that almost the exact amount of people, without having the luxury of watching a 15 min video of who took which pictures, thought Mike's was the latter set and that that set won, goes to show that the comment section of this channel just naturally flows against Lee. It can even be an unconscious thing, but it is definitely a thing.
@@LolindirElros This was my first video of them. i just chose the better photos.
Me to, I'd even like your comment if you found out about capslock.
You are aware that those capital letters are the written equivalent of shouting right?
I'm sorry, for me Miks`s photos looks more natural and true and Pro, if I were an Real Estate agent I would have chosen his pictures.
Natural or amateur? I think amateurs that aren't proficient at Photoshop like "natural" shots.
I couldn't have expected more from a photographer who uses the liquify tool for editorial photography.
Mike killed it.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this. You guys are so authentic and natural. As for who was better, I think I appreciated both styles of photography and editing, it has its own place in the market.
This was the opposite of what many people thought isnt it?nice video
"as I walk around I start to see this really abstract sculptural form to this house."
oh shit I totally missed that.
Lol
If I'm throwing $5M at a house .. 2 pictures: 1. use a drone over the water using a DSLR telephoto with the Kitesurfing in the foreground towards the home. 2. In the interior a raised wide-angle showing the great room with the beach.
Unless you're planning to be hovering over your house on a regular basis, what good is a drone shot? I want to see the view I'm going to see every day not one from a helicopter. I do agree with the second shot, most people whether they realize it or not see in wide-angle. That is the way the brain processes what we see. :)
this is such a fascinating style of photography. Just all the exposure composites is so rad
i always think from the beginning, the guy with the cap only teasing everyone to give the example how amateurs think and do ( and defend his amateur works ).. he's a great teacher actually.. thank you for this video. love all the comments and how you create the culture around your subscribber and loyal viewer.
It was so fun watching this! 😂
The dome in Mordor wins the day !
Amateur ones look like undergraduate architecture students’ render images,Pro ones look like from architecture studios.
QiaoStudio Ah...ya ok lol...
and yet, the people which actally are relevant liked the amateur ones more...
L. Willis It’s true that in many fields,people’s aesthetics are different from professionals.
You do realize the term professional doesn't imply skill right? It just means you are paid for your work. Some people are really great at photography or other arts for that matter but don't want to do it for a living for various reasons. To assume they are lower skilled than someone who took the risk and started a business is really silly.
I skipped through this video so I’m unsure who the pro is! 😂 The guy in the white shirt seems very confident, which makes me think he’s the pro.. but I think I preferred the checker shirt guys images more!
I think what we often forget is how good Mike's tutorial is. Nice work to both guys.