Right there that's it baby I'm gonna cum ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Walter White productions

>>3063920
https://youtu.be/Gt698n_8Xc8?t=3m1s

>>3063927
he's not a fat unfuckable sperglord tho
I mean seriously even terry richardson doesn't look this bad

File: IMG_0214.jpg (202KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1000x667px

>>3063920

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Photographer	JASON LANIER PHOTOGRAPHY
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	902
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2013:09:22 00:21:36
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3063920
He was pushing awareness in America's horseshit permitting laws on public grounds with this video. I'm not going to knock him for that

>>3063943
yeah wow, apparently they are making you get permits for shoots in national forests now. fuck that noise

>>3063948
Good luck on them enforcing that

>>3063950
they don't need to enforce it all the way. they just empower their forest rangers as enforcement thugs and let them interrupt anything they see, like in the video. just watch the video, this guy's on public land and the ranger tells him he can't use a flash and tries to shake him down for a $500 permit. and that's not even accounting for the possibility of lawsuits etc down the road. this kind of law is really toxic.

>>3063952
I hate it too, this is the result of congress being owned by the faggots in Hollywood that want to stamp out reasonable competition. To beat it requires more money than the Jews that control Hollywood pump into DC, 99% of our population isn't aware of this, so there isn't a shot in hell shit will be done, it will just keep going on and on as more rights erode away. Unless by some miracle a tech giant determines they need free access of shooting to increase hardware sales...

File: 54cbfa96932c5f781b393bc4_image.jpg (177KB, 466x700px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 466x700px

>>3063948
>yeah wow, apparently they are making you get permits for shoots in national forests now. fuck that noise

You've always needed permits for commercial productions, at least the National Forests I've been to. They always assume you're going to be more destructive, and for large crews that's fair.

It's always "for portflio/personal use", and most are cool, as long as you aren't hauling a ton of shit in. Shooting in nicer major US cities is more of a pain in the ass. I'd rather a ranger talk to me about it than a cop just be a total dick, which they usually are.

>>3063959
desu I think Hollywood is less the culprit than republican demand for programs to be budget-neutral. the parks are slowly being steered towards for-profit mentality, predatory permitting fees are just one expression of this.
>>3064016
there's a reasonable lower limit for a production size from which you'd expect damage, and it's not three guys and a hotlight
also if you think the money from wedding permits goes to repairing the damage to the site I've got a bridge to sell you

File: twilight-breaking-dawn-wedding-8.jpg (70KB, 600x334px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x334px

>>3064034
>if you think the money from wedding permits goes to repairing the damage to the site I've got a bridge to sell you
I don't, and never implied anything like that. I just love using that photo whenever National Parks comes up because it always gets people "REEEE"ing

The problem with "three guys and a hotlight" is that, unless you're going out of your way to hike with your equipment, off the beaten path (which wouldn't get you much notice from Park Services in the larger parks anyway), they don't want 4 of you and gear standing in the middle of trails blocking other people unless you get permission. I think this is way more a liability issue than we want to think it is.

>>3064056
>they don't want 4 of you and gear standing in the middle of trails blocking other people unless you get permission
now you're just making excuses. this was not the motivation for the permit rules and in fact they weren't necessary to solve it. (put it this way, if you're obstructing a trail, it doesn't matter if you're taking photographs or not). and it's not how the permit rules are de facto enforced. Take a look at the video, they're not in anybody's way.

>>3064056
I guess I should mention, in my specific case, my buddy and I wiped out video gear right in front of base camp at Mount Rainier, including an 5ft slider for our $10k+ gear, and set it up only slight of a narrow paved trail leading to the real trails (kind of trailer people in walkers could even walk) and no one gave a single shit.

Have you read the paperwork that accompanies National Forest permit requests? I think you'd see pretty quickly the intensity of production they've always, not just this year, have required payments and permits for.You may get rangers who Shakedown photographers, but this has not been my experience in National Forests, and my amount of equipment should make me a prime target for permits or leave.

>>3064061
Also, They're not on "Public Land" either, and that video isn't even current. Even by the rules of the area they are shooting in, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, you need a permit to use setups.

Making Excuses? I literally worked Locations for big production, and getting permits is literally the bottom-tier, "no shit" to-do list. Some of these parks are $100 permits, and they're not even asking that you, the professional, on NOT public property, prove you have liability insurance. Photographers and artists, in general, always want to believe that their setup is un-intrusive, but it is. The Permits usually give you more freedom than if you were a random patron of the park.

Why is it OK for photographers/videographers to build in "wear and tear" into their pricing, but not for parks?

>>3064071
>Why is it OK for photographers/videographers to build in "wear and tear" into their pricing, but not for parks?
because the parks are public works, not businesses. I alluded to this earlier. It's the same reason that interstates shouldn't charge a toll.
>They're not on "Public Land" either
national recreational areas are land owned and administrated by the federal government, paid for by your federal taxes.
>>3064062
the problem is demonstrated with this video: some authorities will inevitably overstep reasonable bounds.
>big production
yes but small productions are a different story, or at least they should be.

>>3063920
Didn't he get stoped by the cuck cops asking for a """permit"""?

>>3064100
On video he did, but there's nothing that says he didn't hire someone. He also claims he doesn't make a profit off his work yet monetizes a video saying he doesn't make a profit.

It's like Jason to say he's opposed to urbex in one video because there is a locked gate, "even if it's super easy to break in you shouldn't do this", but in another video he showcases a series of times he broke into an abandoned six flags in Louisiana. Forgive me for knowing this, I have a thing for researching urbex

>>3063927
>closes in on her
>doesnt even adjust focus

>>3063939

jesus christ that clarity slider my eyes are burning

File: 1438277432727.png (262KB, 652x636px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 652x636px

>>3064356
>my eyes are burning
What happened sug? Take a look at some of your own photos or a look in the mirror?

>>3064257
What's wrong with taking pictures and making a profit? Aren't the photons free?

>>3064372
I never said there was something wrong with it
He told a park ranger he had no intention of making money off his work while using public ground, "he's just a hobbyist".

>>3064365

I bathed in habanero sauce

>>3063939
If this is a real wedding shot, I give them 5 years tops. Everything form the bride hiking her dress up to the V6 rental Camaro doing a burnout just screams trash.

>>3063927
>Blow-Up
great fucking taste

>>3063939
can we just take a step back and ignore the bad editing? What the fuck is this photo even trying to show?
>i relli rike cars
-i relli rike dis girl
???????????????????????????????????????

>>3065901
That's how commercial photography works. You aren't there to please yourself, you're there to please your client.

People bash on this guy, and I agree he's kind of annoying and full of himself, but people are paying him to do what he does, which means what he does is desirable to them.

>>3065911
But why are they paying this stupid sony clown instead of me and my rabble and nifty fifty. People have awful taste.

>>3063939
this has to be the trashiest wedding photo i have ever seen

>>3063939
Double signature, the new meme

>>3063939
Bad framing, the car should be driving into her pussy

File: wedding-russia-photoshopped.jpg (141KB, 550x660px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 550x660px

>>3066106
You clearly aren't familiar with the thermonuclear dumpster fire that is Russian wedding photography.

>>3066190
This is fucking incredible though.