Using VSCO film presets for lightroom 4, and happy about it.

[johnbeardy]

I could get rich by creating a variation on those online mission statement generators and spewing out hundreds of presets with every permutation. Pricing them by the kilo, too!

[Keith Reeder]

Maybe a bit harsh in this case.

Not at all harsh - my comment was obviously (I thought) a generalisation than a comment specifically directed at the OP, and remember that I didn't write the article I linked to, nor did I air it on the LuLa forum.

But - for me - the simple fact is this: I have never, ever seen an image - not a single one - that was improved to any worthwhile extent by the application of a filter, effect or other post-processing "flavour of the month".

I'm afraid that content is everything for me, and if that's not there, all the expensive PP filters in the world won't fix things: and if the content is there, it speaks for itself, and effects are therefore redundant.

So I'm somewhat bewildered by their appeal, I'm afraid.

[Keith Reeder]

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?

Not to me. In both instances they seem to me to be a case of people trying to substitute quality and content for "out of the box" stylistic gimmickry.

Remember that you did ask "does anyone share my feelings?" I'm sure many do. I do not.

I guess you haven't actually read the linked article. Its key paragraph in the context of my reference to it is this:

“The problem is so much bigger than we thought” said Phil Anthropy. “Whoever it was who first told a hipster that extreme cross-processing and vignetting instantly elevates a photo of themselves looking bewilderedly off-camera through their asymmetrical fringe into art has a lot to answer for.”

That sums my bafflement about the current appetite for presets and predefined filters very nicely.

[Raul_82]

Not to me. In both instances they seem to me to be a case of people trying to substitute quality and content for "out of the box" stylistic gimmickry

What does content have to do here??? Yes, content is everything, but then, you just don't just show your RAW files without processing them do you? I mean, good for you if you do! vsco film presets are merely another tool to help some of us (god help us) processing our files. just that, i never said your photographs will be better if you use them, bad photos will suck anyway if they are bad, no preset is going to solve that.

[Raul_82]

1st image RAW file unprocessed (I call this the Keith Reeder way)
2nd image RAW file processed using vsco film and other lightroom tools.

People may not like the content, or may not like how I edited this image, but for me it's better than just the plain negative.

[Rhossydd]

"out of the box" stylistic gimmickry.

Have you actually looked at the product the OP's a fan of ? It's not really 'stylistic gimmickry' of the worst sort.
These are close to being just being a different default behaviour of conversion. Is that so wrong ? or is it 'right' to have to conform to everything the LR engineers decree as defaults ?

Are you as judgemental over a choice of emulsion with film users; Velvia or Ektachrome ? Some of us still make these choices too.