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

>how the gown blends into the ocean foam

this guy is a fucking genius

>>3085018
Is he literally fucking her right there?

>>3085018

Pretty sure this is the Oceanside pier right near my house.

Also, pic is total garbage. It literally looks like sewage.

>TWO inverted watermarks
>That white balance
>Those crushed blacks
>That over sharpened edges
>Sewage water
>Poor composition
>Diagonal horizon
>Poor subject isolation
>Horrible over saturation
>The white haze on the piers beam
>That dress ruined in the saltwater
>The groom fucking her
>Horrible pose

Why does Sony give him free shit?

Also

>Water on lens
>Using an a7 anywhere near salt water
>All the noise on the sky

Fuck my life

>>3085018
>posting another shitpic of his because because you're bored

>>3085038
>Camera Model Canon PowerShot G1 X

>>3085040
Oh shit, I thought he was a Sony shill

He ruins fucking every good camera

fuck off op

>>3085057
>I thought he was a Sony shill

He is.

>>3085144
This

>>3085147
>>3085144
kek/10

>people this bad at photography make a living doing it
why live

>>3085018
B...b...but...uuu...tttt.t at least he's not fat anymore, right.

Went a from a whining, crying, sniff-sniffing fat, crippled, meme hat wearing Nikon shill, to an alpha Sony fan-fag.

Gets paid to travel and take shit-snaps.

Travels to Thailand to swallow ladyboy loads.

All the while sit in my darker room shit posting.

JL is a cuck-chump-hump.

What a complete turd.

R--r--ight

File: b739df3302c19ed0ad4fe26c54aca290.jpg (245KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1000x665px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	760
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2013:09:22 11:14:01
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	-2.7 EV
Subject Distance	3.98 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: weddings+jason+lanier+photography+(162).jpg (658KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1000x665px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	762
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:08 23:54:44
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: jason-lanier-photography-reviews-and-testimonials-1-of-1-12.jpg (414KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1500x998px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh)
Photographer	JASONLANIER
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	806
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2013:04:21 02:23:02
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3085166
This one I never get. It's so bad it goes far beyond a matter of taste or opinion, but he thinks it's good enough to use to advertise his services? The fuck?

Has anyone ever posted a bad photo by jason actually taken on a sony camera?

>>3085236
He takes bad photos on any camera, because no matter what body, the photographer using it is the same.
Unless he intentionally ruins all photos in post that are not made on a Sony. That would make him a fake and a hack.

>>3085278
But no one has posted a shot he's done on sony?

Just seems odd that some people on the board are all "hurrdurr jason is bad cos sony and he's bad". Then a slew of shots taken on nikon and canon cameras.

The only explanation I can come up with is that it's jason making these posts himself to make anti-jason/sony posters look dumb as fuck.

And I can't imagine anyone being as obsessed with him as all these posts make out, unless they are all by him as some sort of false flag.

It's all just weird.

>>3085281
Anyone can see those photos are ruined in post, because he is a bad photographer. You wouldn't take photography advice from a bad photographer, even on buying gear, would you?
Also most of /p/ is "anti-Sony" because of one sonyposter, it is a natural reaction from a closed society to oppose the retard. It only makes things worse that Sony makes bad decisions on all its designs.

File: DSC00181-Edit-Edit-3-Edit.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>3085281
theres plenty of shit ones with sony as well m8.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:24 21:32:21
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	11.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3085286
>the subject appears to be the foaming water with a side decoration of wedding
Was he paid in fish?

>>3085284
>ruined in post

Yet he charges about $8k a day and is consistently fully booked.

>>3085293
He brings expensive equipment, assistants, and confidence to his shoots. The world is full of these people that find success in being more fluff than substance.

>>3085300
>poor workman blames others for having better tools

Get over yourself, loser.

>>3085165
>he's a Benny Hill fan!

All is forgiven

>>3085281
>some people on the board are all "hurrdurr jason is bad cos sony and he's bad"

wtf is wrong with you guys? as if any of you idiots could ever tell what brand & model that dude used...

with that level 9000 post-processing shit it doesn't fucking matter, because it all looks the fucking same. just look at those corny shots, don't really think the sensor's idiosyncracies are all that striking. can't believe that dude actually gets to be a professional.

are the same guys on /p/ hating on vsco presets the ones that enjoy images like that? would make perfect sense to me...

>>3085286
I kind of like these, in the way I like bad HDR and Toxic Avenger movies.

>>3085305
i think no one gave a shit about him until he came up with that video on switching from Nikon to Sony. His arguments were all shit but his video was still shared by multiple photo news sites like petapixel.

>>3085305
>mean negative comments

You do know this guys in the top 1% for wedding togs as far as pricing and demand go.

Surely attracting wealthier clients is a sign of good taste, well at least as far as finances are concerned. Why are you so desperate to stay poor?

>>3085317
Well, if you want to lower your standards in order to make money, then more power to you, I guess.

>>3085318
Lower standards don't cost more money.

Have you ever considered the fact your opinion is wrong and YOU have bad taste, not jason.

Surely if you are such an aesthetics genius, you would be sponsored and in massively high demand?

>>3085317
so you don't agree with my calling out the bullshit about his gear, or that his photos are nothing but over-post-processed crap?

and good for him, but that doesn't make looking at these pictures any more pleasant for me. wealthy people have bad taste too, you know.

>>3085301
I can never tell who is joking in these threads

>>3085322
What's wrong with him talking about his gear except for your subjective opinions against his gear?

>over processed
What a meaningless phrase, please explain it's relevance when jl is still fully booked

Why do you present your opinions as objective truths? I'm gonna guess you have a big ol' inferiority complex.

>>3085324
I don't know who's joking, but the guy with all the money and sponsorship deals is the one laughing.

I think Jason drinks alone at home and gets in fights about himself on the internet. Actually I fucking know that's what he does. In fact I'm damn sure he's here right now.

>>3085325
i meant the discussion on here; how the camera model affects the pictures oh so much, but they all end up looking exactly the same.

it's got nothing to do with his booking status, i don't care for that. i even said that it's good for him that he benefits from other people's bad taste (and maybe additional bragging rights about having one of the most expensive guys as your wedding photographer).

and after all this is a matter of taste, and i wouldn't even find these pictures nice if he was super-ironic about them. i find them absolutely tasteless. you're welcome to disagree, of course.

>>3085327
might want to watch that projection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uingvvBaA-0

>>3085330
hahahaha.
at least the bad taste thing is coherent.
dude looks like the human version of his pictures.

>>3085330
Take this fedora shit to the proper board!
>>>/mlp/

>>3085342
>hurrrdurrrhurrr he wears a hat so he's bad at life

As I said friend, watch the projection.

>>3085344
dude! noone said that he is bad at life. at least i didn't.
i'm just saying that he does not possess the slightest understanding of what is visually pleasing and what is not.

>>3085346
>implying what is visually appealing is objective

You're really not getting this are you pal.

>>3085347
i guess you're not really getting it either, pal. i mentioned before that i'm not trying to convey anything objective here.

>>3085350
So you're implying people should listen to you spread hate because your opinion is somehow worthy of recognition?

Fuck off you depressing sack of shit loser.

>>3085355
sure, this is a message board about photography. you will encounter people's opinions every now and then, and guess what, some will diverge from yours, whether you like that or not.

spreading hate sounds a bit over the top, though. i'm not a hateful person in general.

>>3085330
Or you know post the vid where he's actually drunk and ranting about people who criticize his work on the internet.

File: 1492205987281.gif (2MB, 350x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x259px

I think what it all boils down to is the fact that everything everyone get's criticized for here on /p/ in rate my picture threads from saturation to clarity and overprocessing, he is actually making money off of all the things that should be no-no's. He has managed to carve a niche audience out for himself to make money.

I mean it's the same thing as those videos you see on youtube of really shitty martial arts teachers teaching total bullshit like secret energy attacks and their students are playing along with it like those evangelicals who can also do hadokens.

But people still buy into that stuff, and they love it. It may be total shit, but there is always an audience willing to go with it.

On a separate note, it should make you wonder, maybe all the shit people tell you here as far as critique is not so valid afterall?

File: 1493870291069.jpg (384KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1000x667px

Here's an unedited export, just slightly adjusted the white balance

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D800
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Photographer	JASON LANIER PHOTOGRAPHY
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	974
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:01 22:03:23
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

>>3085359
Or maybe /p/ hasn't realized that the taste of everyday clients is actually not that good and you don't have to be a technically stellar photog to succeed. People skills and marketing are way more important.

>>3085355
>>3085344
>>3085330
>>3085326
>>3085325
>>3085317
>>3085321
>>3085301
>>3085293

> if this is Jason
For fuck sake just hire a proper retoucher. It's ok to delegate. You have the money and there's thousands of them available. Even if the client wants some shitty trendy thing like blown out highlights at least do it right.

>if this is one of his friends or family

Look unless he's paying you money to defend him on the internet you've got better shit to do with your time.

>if this is someone who has enjoyed and "learned" from his youtube videos

hey everybody gets led astray at some point in their life, instead of doubling down learn to let go, cut your loses and move on to better instructors

>if heaven forbid you bought one of his classes

yikes. well hey try this - instead of being mad at everyone who points out the obvious try redirecting your anger at Jason for misleading you

>if you bought a Sony system because of him

eh it's not the end of the world, they can still take decent pics. just know their limitations before taking certain paid jobs

>if you're a photog that just relates to Jason because you edit your photos exactly as terribly as he does

you should feel bad man. real bad

>>3085356
>spreading hate sounds a bit over the top, though. i'm not a hateful person in general.

So that's why you're lurking round in a thread with the sole intention of making fun of another human being?

Not only are you an absolute cunt, you're fucking batshit delusional as well. Fuck off and take a long hard look at your life.

>>3085372
I'm not any of those things listed, I just think untalented hacks whose lives revolve around badmouthing others are sad little cunts.

And here's an idea, why not go off what's actually selling to deduce what is "good editing", top tip, it's not your photos, it is JL's photos.

Get a life son.

>>3085381
says the guy calling other people on messageboards "absolute cunts" and "depressing sack of shit losers", because they're making fun of their favorite professional photographer who - as you stated yoursef - makes a shitload of money with his pictures?

mr. lanier is apparently above all criticism, judging on his videos on trolls and whatnot.

don't be so fucking sensitive, it's not that i attacked you personally.

>>3085236
>>3085281
>>3085293
>>3085301
>>3085326
>>3085355
>>3085344
>>3085330
>>3085326
>>3085325
>>3085317
>>3085321
>>3085301
>>3085293
>>3085381
ITT: moopco defends a fellow sony shill and god awful photographer

Just look at all these (you)'s, look at you telling other people how they are "fucking losers" and should "get a life", when you live by leeching off of welfare and have never worked a day in your life. The fucking projection lmao, please for the love of god fucking end your miserable life already you cancerous cunt

>>3085387
>don't be so fucking sensitive, it's not that i attacked you personally

No you attacked someone that isn't even here to defend themselves, you pathetic piece of shit.

Just be less of a dickhead bruh.

>>3085402
Oh no! Mean trolls on the internet """""attacked""""" someone who isn't even around to defend himself from this awful, awful criticism! It's good we have white knights such as yourself to stand up for the little guys and defend the honor of those who can't defend themselves! How brave!

File: 12998495_10208716949937757_1549927770630594162_n.jpg (89KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x639px

>>3085407
He needs to work on retouching and takes the occasional bad egg. Everyone deal with it. Art is weird and sometimes what you don't like, others do.

>>3085402
alright, jason. i think your photos are beautiful and inspiring, and i really like your fedora. keep up the good work!

>>3085381
Well you just confirmed the fuck out of it there. Figures shitty photographers are shitty liars too.

>>3085381
"Good editing" can be seen on the website, instagram, facebook page of any of the thousands of successful photographers with 10k+ social media followers. All of them except JL of course, and you apparently since you edit to the same godawful standards while pretending "oh this is what clients want hurdur." No it's just what total hacks give them. No client says "hey make the wood on this bridge look like it was drawn with a fucking crayon." Did you even look at the photos you're defending? No sane person would defend the indefensible. You're batshit off your rocker. You don't seem to understand the gravity of your error here. Go pull up his website (or yours) and press your face against his photos, really rub it in that steaming pile of shit you find so acceptable. It's the work of a third rate small town photographer in his 40s/50s. His business is all from talking himself up on youtube. Where are you even getting these numbers for how much work he supposedly gets? From him? And what the fuck is a "top tip"? And why have you ignored every single fact based take down of this loser's photos? Come clean, what is your real personal stake in this? Because it's more than what you've admitted to so far.

>>3085505
It's literally moopco, he's been saying the same shit on discord whenever jl gets mentioned or if he brings it up himself.

>>3085513
who the fuck is moopco?

Good lord, lay off the clarity slider bro.

>>3085519
You are.

>>3085505
>who is blair bunting

>>3085286
look how giant his foot is... why is he barefoot??

File: bender_neat.jpg (292KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1001x1001px

>>3085018
Is this from From Here to Eternity?

>>3085025
just 2 manatees in love

>>3085164
the space between them, oh gosh
>>3085165
pre Pirates of the Caribbean rape
>>3085166
why are they so sharp and that bridge cgi?>>3085286
are these toys?

>>3085363
lel

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Image Size
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1001
Image Height	1001

File: P1120032 TWO.jpg (2MB, 1618x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1618x1000px

>>3085037
I usually get this look on skin/hair when I try to over-emphasize mechanical/machined features and fine details
This has no business making it onto wedding photos

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-G70
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:08:19 21:46:29
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1618
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Quality	Unknown
White Balance	Unknown
Focus Mode	Unknown
Spot Mode	Unknown
Image Stabilizer	Off
Macro Mode	Normal
Shooting Mode	Aperture Priority
Audio	No
Flash Bias	0.00 EV

File: Photoshooped.jpg (79KB, 750x488px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 750x488px

>all this smudgening
>all these fine grainy details on weood, hair, dirt, skin
>bloomy highlights
>blacks all the way down
>subjects look shopped in

LOOOK MA, I'M USING PHOTOSHOP!

>>3085584
and i didn't know that for so long. you guys could have told me.