Wedding Photography

>>3064532
fuck off jason.

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

202KB, 1000x667px

>>3064532
>>3064540

[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

>>3064532
> Jason Lanier
> "god tier photos"

What did he mean by this?

>>3064532
>>3064543
can you imagine? showing these trashy and tasteless wedding photos to your kids and grandkids? the hell

>only post photographs you've taken
reported

This is like talking about Chef Boyardee and calling it fine dining

I don't think wedding photography really involves any skill really. It's so fucking basic. Put on auto, focus at eyes, recompose, shoot, go back edit the fuck out of it, get paid. Am I mistaken or is it really just 90% marketing?

>>3064586
To my annoyance, my extended family keeps inviting me to these weddings and I just people watch and see these paid photographers just shoot whatever w/o ever giving a shit about any technique. I hate crowds too much for that shit, too much of a perfectionist, I can't grasp how they tolerate putting out the shear volume of garbage they produce. Probably why I'll never make real money with this hobby.

>>3064595
thats easy 1500-3000 USD for a 10 hour auto pilot shoot. but there is alot customer service. if you are not mr amazing and talk a lot to the bride and groom and suck their dicks they will not like your snap shits.

>>3064595
mind you it is a fucking wedding they can not pose for you so you dont have much choice but snap shit city. except one on one time and or a small group

>>3064623
Check out how much the average wedding photographer makes in NJ. $3,000 is cheap here, you're underselling yourself if you have an established business here for that. I'm tempted to take some offers to shoot for free just to get my foot in the door and build a portfolio. Yeah, just like Jason, he edits look like shit, but he's good at marketing his brand to people that think his photos are good after only getting to see it for a microsecond flash on his YouTube videos. I'm one of those people that say "I'm not in it for the money", but I also buy too many lenses, would be nice to at least break even

>>3064626
I get that, you have to mingle with the crowd during the reception. They also have to express themselves as they don't hate weddings, I really hate weddings, everything about them

>>3064629
thats maple syrup price and on the high end. im trying to do that same thing build a portfolio and start shooting weddings and BTFO of 95% of my competition.

would have to use lighting too, people are so scared and dont know how to use lighting. also unaware of huge improvement it makes.

>>3064543
>dress hiked up
>girl making orgasm face
>look like they're about to doggystyle

Lol'd

>>3064635
How do you go about using flash during a wedding?
If they notice you as a photographer, you basically failed. Yes, flash would make a massive improvement, but it would also seriously piss everyone off. It's bad enough during the reception. Listen to crappy 90s music that sounds the same at every wedding, mingle with people that don't really want to be there. You also have to deal with a photographer blinding you with an orb diffuser in a dark room. Why the fuck does culture tolerate this shit, America needs to BTFO the wedding shit

File: or-jason-lanier.jpg (2MB, 2668x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2668x4000px

>>3064532
Best advice I can give is to stay away from nikon, as you can see from the op post and
>>3064543
The d800 takes bad photos.

A simple swap to sony can resolve nearly all issues, pic related, same photographer, better gear.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:10 09:18:55
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	9.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3064543

> putting the bride on the very edge of a 16mm lens so not only does she look slutty, she also looks distorted, fat and blocky

Not god-tier, Jason

>>3064813
The processing on that is shocking and it's a pretty piss poor advert for your meme camera poopchute

>>3064843
What's wrong with the processimg, are you sure it's not the perfect Gaussian blur bokeh you find wrong?

>>3064813
>hairy belly
>glamorizing cigarettes in 2017 as "beautiful"
>slowly packing on pounds from sloth and a 2200 calorie/day diet of iced "coffees", mixed drinks, and panera bread only held together by early 20's youth

You suck, Jason.

>>3064532
Man I wish I was as good as separating people with bad taste from their money. He's like the ultimate predator of Chad weddings.

>>3064810

>not using flash in a shitty dark room

Who cares, im there to get lasting photos, not give a fuck about some sensitive bitch who can't handle a little flash.

Source: dozens of weddings, all done with a flash.

>>3064884
I thought we were talking about the photos, not the models.

Is she supposed to be attractive?

>>3064813
Holy shit, how fucking blind are you? That photo is absolute trite.

>>3064810
>Why the fuck does culture tolerate this shit, America needs to BTFO the wedding shit

So what happens at weddings outside of the US?

>>3065372
Care to elaborate on why the photo is bad?

>>3064586
>Put on auto, focus at eyes, recompose, shoot, go back edit the fuck out of it, get paid.

Who the fuck shoots on auto except for fucking beginners? Are you stupid or just retarded?

Lulz how everyone shits on him but no one posts any better pics.

>>3065427
I love how everyone shits on him because shots he took 4 years ago are no longer on trend.

>>3065379
Like >>3064884 says, particularly the part about glamourising smoking.

On a more technical level, here are my most major criticisms:
- The model's skin has been improperly retouched to the point that it looks grotesque. It looks like you have just got the blur tool and airbrushed her with it. The only texture in her skin are the parts closest to her belly button (which looks like an asshole btw), her bikini top and bottom, bracelet, hair, and other areas of high contrast such as the background. Honestly, look at the texture in her bikini top, hat or hair and compare it to the closest bit of skin.
- The blob (a boat I think) at the end of the pier is distracting, could have just cropped the photo in to get rid of it.
- The colourful out-of-focus area to the right of her left shoulder is also distracting, this could have been rectified by cloning in some vegetation on top.
- The shadow over her face caused by the brim of the hat is godawful. I understand that people have successfully done some creative shadow work with brimmed hats but this is not an example of that. A reflector or second flash from underneath would have further filled that shadow.
- The scratches on her glasses have been exacerbated by the reflection of the flash. I understand you need to have a bit of catch-eye but this is just off-putting. I would have spent the time retouching those glasses.
- There is no structure to the right side (viewer's left) of the hat.
- The wet hair is ridiculous, but I won't get into that now. I understand it is tough to make wet hair actually look good, and not make it look like the model just came from a bukkake.
- The edges of the model are absolutely riddled with chromatic aberration. To be honest, I don't even know why you were even shooting at f1.4, the background is so far away the model will be separated with anything up to f11.

Would you like me to explain why this photo is boring on an artistic level?

>>3065437
Her skin hasn't been retouched at all, the perfect blur and slither of dof with this lens throws a lot of people off. Her tits and sunnies have more fine detail as they are in focus.

You're also implying this shot aimed for traditional beauty standards, which c l e a r l y isn't the case. So what if she's smoking?

And your critique is dpreview tier trash, at no point have you referred to the composition, impact or palette. And it would be a completely different shot at f11.

Sounds to me like you're just a salty gearfag.

>>3065439
Mate, her skin has obviously been retouched. It pierces the eye like a nail.

I'm all for photography that isn't aimed at traditional beauty standards, it's the most interesting. However, you're saying smoking is okay with point you're making. The smoking would be okay if the photo was actually telling a story.

I said the photo would look better cropped, that's inclusive of composition.

The photo has no impact, it tells no story.

As for the palette, I quite like the blues and the greens are nicely controlled. The skin tone has obviously been grossly 'attempted' airbrushed though.

You're right, the photo would be better at f11. You would be able to see more of the background, and thus, more of a story would be told. Though still pretty fucking boring at the end of the day.

Refer back to your own post >>3064813
>Best advice I can give is to stay away from nikon, as you can see from the op post
>The d800 takes bad photos.
>A simple swap to sony can resolve nearly all issues, pic related, same photographer, better gear.

I didn't even mention gear you fat cunt.

>>3065450
The skin wasn't retouched you dumb faggot.

>>3065439
>Her skin hasn't been retouched at all
>>3065455
>The skin wasn't retouched you dumb faggot.

Is this the Lanier Defence League in action or something? The skin is horrifically bad. Comedy bad. Example in how-not-to-retouch-skin tutorial bad.

>>3065458
Doubling down eh?

So you're saying he airbrushed all the skin, except the stray pubes, the one area if any that would get airbrushed?

Holy fuck, you're dumber than I expected

>>3065455
Whoa there Jason!
Don't get your fedora in a knot!

You posted a 12 megapixel photo and it is so abruptly obvious that the skin has been very poorly retouched.

>>3065458
>Is this the Lanier Defence League in action or something?
Poopchute has finally found a 'professional' who uses a Sony. He is duty bound to defend him no matter how bad

>>3065464
you're not wrong it's either the fatman himself or a sonyfag

Jason lanier is the cancer of youtube photography channels, literally on the same level as jarod polin and art of the image

>>3065463
>>3065464
>>3065465
This samefagging is shameful desu

>>3065469

I posted >>3065464 you pea brained twat. You're the undisputed samefagging champion around here

>>3065470
You also posted the other 2, by the way, this is my only post in this thread.

>>3065473
>this is my only post in this thread
no it isn't and we all know it

>>3065474
>>3065470
>>3065468
>>3065465
>>3065464
>>3065463

Get a life you fucking loser.
I bet you're a tranny.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-28 at 9.21.27 pm.png (176KB, 1438x954px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1438x954px

>>3065475
Dang, you caught me.

File: dummy.jpg (49KB, 568x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 568x600px

>>3065475
Temper temper!

I have a life thank you very much.You're the NEET that sits on your arse all day glowering at anonymous message boards trying to make out you are something you're not.

>>3065479
>person on photo forum knows how to edit photos

>>3065480
and the samefagging continues

>>3064565
>publicly announcing a report
reported

>>3065485
>and the samefagging continues
And so it does, Turdco, well done. Recognising you have a problem is the first step towards getting cured.

File: sony sensor.jpg (165KB, 1246x1286px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1246x1286px

>>3065455
PSA

This is how a Sony sensor resolves. Moopco insists there is no retouching so the only conclusion I can draw is that if you are thinking of buying a Sony don't. Your phone is just as good, and the manufacturer will probably honour the warranty as well.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2668
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:28 20:05:59
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	9.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1246
Image Height	1286
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3065514
Whether it's retouching or the camera, it is so selective. If you look at areas along the shoulder and neck with all the hair strewn about, there are parts of the skin (and over the hair) that are unequivocally on the same plane of focus as parts that are in focus, but they're blurred.

It is very difficult to believe that Jason didn't retouch the skin himself.

>>3065514
What the fuck is this? Some bad skin "retouching" and leaving the hair in because he has a hair fetish.

>>3064543
next to being fucking trashy the bride looks completely messed up due to the distortion

File: 1493291081617-01.jpg (168KB, 911x1366px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 911x1366px

>>3064813
I hadn't actually finished processing this.

t. JL

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:28 14:02:20
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Brightness	9.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Image Width	911
Image Height	1366
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3065555
fuckin kek

>>3065555
facepalm.jpg

File: D3R_5955-bokeh-1200.jpg (73KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1200x798px

>>3065555
I like it

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3065601
don't associate our lord and saturatior with JL, you cunt

>>3065555
look at her belly and sides.. they look really dirty!

>>3065614
Thanks man. That's pretty much my signature.

>>3065601
Love your work.

File: 1492437618590.gif (2MB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x230px

>>3064543
>V6 rental car doing a burnout in the background

>>3065853
It's a SS. V8. Learn to car.

>>3065935
it's still a fucking Camaro
and for that trash i'd would have been better (and cheaper) to find someone with an IROC

>>3064558
He means he has either no idea, or no taste

>>3065463
>>3065437
Just curious, what would be the appropriate method for retouching the skin; how would you do it?
Asking purely out of interest and so I dont make the same mistake.

>>3068439
Use frequency separation and if you have to smooth out the skin texture, do so gently so as to not entirely kill the skin texture.

>>3068450
This

File: cJsO_ck7MiU.jpg (69KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1280x853px

set cool scenes my man

>>3065432
they're shit trend or no trend

>>3064813
good troll

>>3065432
4 years ago was 2012
his edits look literally like they're from 2007

That belly button looks like a butt hole

off camera flash, get a cheap stand and used flashes. save some cash. but do get brand name, no need to buy it twice or three times.

File: original.jpg (138KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 650x366px

Hi people. This guy is a spanish photographer, who say that nikon d750 with 24 and 85 mm f1,8 nikon lenses is the really best gear for wedding photo, in focus speed, sharpness, quality/price and confortability terms, and also say nikon dont pay him. Do you agree?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:30 13:52:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	650
Image Height	366