Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Using VSCO film presets for lightroom 4, and happy about it.  (Read 15918 times)
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« on: August 17, 2012, 06:55:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone share my feelings? I find these presets as a really nice way to start developing my negatives. Newest version includes a lot of new films emulations, including the VC and NC versions of Kodak Portra.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2012, 05:27:52 AM by Raul_82 » Logged
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2012, 06:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply

They are not much cheaper than a full version of LR 4 !
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2012, 06:42:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They are not much cheaper than a full version of LR 4 !

That is one sad truth! Yet I really don't regret buying them, since i found myself using these presets a lot. But of course I realize that if you don't really need the features then it hurts to pay only for presets, since, theoretically, "you could do that yourself", but I found out that with my regular editing process I usually end up with a good but more "digital" result. Off course this is all subjective and a matter of personal taste Wink


Logged
jpegman
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 105



« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2012, 02:30:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Not only is the price too high ($238) for both LR4 sets, but, their "samples" don't show any before and after effects - only the preset name used!

And, if you have CS6, add another $119 to the price!

No trials before you give them your credit card number - to see if it looks like what you can justify. Not a great way to run a company in my opinion.

Just my $0.02

Jpegman
Logged
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2012, 07:44:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not only is the price too high ($238) for both LR4 sets, but, their "samples" don't show any before and after effects - only the preset name used!

And, if you have CS6, add another $119 to the price!

No trials before you give them your credit card number - to see if it looks like what you can justify. Not a great way to run a company in my opinion.


Actually if you own VSCO 01, then the 02 comes half the price. And I don't know why would you like to have it also in ACR (I mean, what does ACR does that Lightroom won't do for you?), so it would be 179$ by my calculations, for both 01 and 02 versions, although it would be much wiser to buy only one of the sets. Since they are basically presets, I don't see how they could give them away on a trial version without give their magic recipe for free. In fact to "hack" this will be a piece of cake, all it would take is to make a list of every plugin specific settings and post it somewhere, that's it (which I won't do off course)
That been said, i recognize that they could provide us some before and after samples. I also think they are trying a more "visual glamour" (for giving a name to their strategy) impact, kind of what Apple also do, you know what I'm talking about the ohh-that-is-one-fine-designed-item-and-beautiful-website-so-it-must-be-good kind of stuff. In fact, the first time I hear about them was on a best web designs awards site, not at all focused on photography.

After following them on Facebook for a while, I saw some positive user's reviews, some sample photos, i send a couple of emails regarding some doubts about digital backs files compatibility, and one day I bought my copy. I guess you could say i'm a trusty person. Now I'm starting to think I might as well be the only one on LuLa that has purchased VSCO Film. whatever dudes i'm enjoying it  Tongue

And enough free advertising for these boys, damn, they should hire me for their marketing dept.    


« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 01:19:19 PM by Raul_82 » Logged
Keith Reeder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2012, 03:56:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Y'know, I see posts enthusing about presets, film emulations and whatnot, and can't help but think of this: http://www.hayibo.com/hipsters-stunned-as-vintage-cameras-fail-to-make-them-professional-photographers/
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2012, 05:44:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Y'know, I see posts enthusing about presets, film emulations and whatnot, and can't help but think of this: http://www.hayibo.com/hipsters-stunned-as-vintage-cameras-fail-to-make-them-professional-photographers/
Maybe a bit harsh in this case.
From what I can see, the VSCO presets are just a way of making things look less 'digital' rather than giving a radical 'look', not necessarily a bad thing in itself.
Preset vendors like VSCO offer a solution for people who don't have the time, knowledge or imagination to create their own.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2012, 07:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Preset vendors like VSCO offer a solution for people who don't have the time, knowledge or imagination to create their own.

And you called Keith's comments harsh? Wink
Logged

Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2012, 07:24:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Y'know, I see posts enthusing about presets, film emulations and whatnot, and can't help but think of this: http://www.hayibo.com/hipsters-stunned-as-vintage-cameras-fail-to-make-them-professional-photographers/

Comparing a hipster's polaroid camera with tool for use in RAW editors, that even offer canon and nikon's specific profiles seems a bit exaggerated, wouldn't you say?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2012, 07:39:00 AM »
ReplyReply

And you called Keith's comments harsh? Wink
Building customised camera calibration profiles isn't exactly page 1 skills. Being able to recognise what characterises a specific film stock's look and then knowing enough about LR's controls to replicate it isn't simple either.

I'm not knocking anyone for using presets like the VSCO ones, quite often the really subtle presets are the hardest to create.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2012, 07:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

The gap is less about skill - more the imagination. Glad the OP is happy, but what a phenomenal waste of money.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2012, 08:35:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The gap is less about skill - more the imagination.
Not so sure about that.
Recreating the characteristics of a film stock really should be an objective task without much need for imagination.
Logged
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2012, 08:41:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The gap is less about skill - more the imagination. Glad the OP is happy, but what a phenomenal waste of money.


I tend to think that imagination is better distributed if at least an 80% of it is being used to visualize and obtain the desired photography and the remaining 20% gets used for the "creative" editing that comes after. I also think that by inverting that principle, you might be getting images, you might be getting art, you might be getting illustrations, but you also get a step away from photography (i'm not saying that would be a bad thing, i like lots of stuff made that way). In the money department, hey, i have seen a lot more money wasted on some "perfect" or "extremely rare" gear or lenses, and I mean A LOT of money. 
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2012, 08:46:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Not so sure about that.
Recreating the characteristics of a film stock really should be an objective task without much need for imagination.

I was quoting it back at you, though I'd mean the decision to do it in the first place.


(edited to insert quote)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2012, 10:27:33 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2012, 10:26:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Not so sure about that.
Recreating the characteristics of a film stock really should be an objective task without much need for imagination.
Although the characteristics of a film stock were originally a set of subjective choices by the film maker...

I take your point though, that recreating someone else's subjective choice of characteristics may be an objective task  Smiley
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2012, 10:43:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Although the characteristics of a film stock were originally a set of subjective choices by the film maker...
That poses the interesting question of how much of the characteristics of an emulsion are the result of a specification of 'look' or just the by-product of other more objective requirements eg sensitivity, contrast ratio, low grain etc.
Logged
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2012, 10:49:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That poses the interesting question of how much of the characteristics of an emulsion are the result of a specification of 'look' or just the by-product of other more objective requirements eg sensitivity, contrast ratio, low grain etc

I don't really know how digital camera profiles are made, but I think the same could be applied to those?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2012, 10:57:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't really know how digital camera profiles are made, but I think the same could be applied to those?
Not really comparable.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2012, 11:32:56 AM »
ReplyReply

That poses the interesting question of how much of the characteristics of an emulsion are the result of a specification of 'look' or just the by-product of other more objective requirements eg sensitivity, contrast ratio, low grain etc.
Agreed. It undermines the credibility of b&w presets where the characteristics of a given film vary with the choice of developer, its dilution or agitation technique. That's probably true of colour too, though my hands-on experience of developing colour has been more "binary" (perfect or ruined).

John
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2012, 11:40:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Well there's the next wave to get ahead of; Tri-X in Rodinal preset, HP4 in Acutol at 1:50 dilution shaken instead of stirred......

Someone's probably done them already though.

my hands-on experience of developing colour has been more "binary" (perfect or ruined).
Better than most then ;-)
Mediocre was as good as I ever managed.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad