So what's wrong with using vsco again? [EXIF data available.

>>2732716
Nothing. It's just more fun to actually shoot Portra.

>>2732717
it's cheaper to shoot digital

>>2732720
Obviously.

>>2732720
Only if you actually take photos. Hence the "film is full frame for $200" argument from a lot of film fags here.

>>2732716

that guy looks like he enjoys his girlfriends strap on. as expected from a digifag.

>>2732728
My first thought exactly. Is it the same guy?

>>2732716
yo that crane and building changed from red to orange

isn't this an official comparison on their website? lmao

>>2732750
no it's a comparison on a blog

File: vsco faggot.jpg (443KB, 1280x1912px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1280x1912px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:30 18:27:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	1912

>>2732756
kek

>>2732756
ahaha fuck

The colours and completely different, especially the crane and the building. Who the fuck cares what you shoot though, if you get the image then that's all that matters

>>2732756
Fucking Gold!!

>>2732829
>lightroom, adjust red hue
done

Nothing. I actually use vsco with film scans

>>2733165

oh so youre one of those faggots making pasty hipstery scans of portra film, an emulsion engineered to be crystal clear in its tonality and color rendition? i hope you choke on your gf's strapon.

>>2733190
no, I just use the same vsco preset as the film I shot. I just do it for C41 color though

dynamic range and highlight rolloff

File: 31cfc65d-8192-45ae-a3b0-06314d704533..jpg (2MB, 1280x1912px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x1912px

>>2732756
Woah, buddy. You want to crank up the grain, tell everybody hard you can VSCO. More filter, saturation, vignette, and F A D E. Fading is the only true way to VSCO.

Crush The BLACKS. CRUSH THE BLACKS.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	VSCO Android Version
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2015:12:30 18:27:17
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	1912
Image Width	1280

File: vscofaggotmkii.jpg (226KB, 700x1046px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 700x1046px

>>2733285

oh youre right anon, i forgot to vsco-fy the file too. good catch. this is the updated one. smaller pickle count too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:31 19:02:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	1046

>>2733302

how do u get this aesthetic

>>2733337
v s c o
s
c
o

>>2733337

its my headpreset for 160VC aka. fuck with the curves :^)

>>2733348
>>2733347

I was rusing, lads.

Nothing wrong, in fact it gets you customers so there's that.
Not using VSCO if you're a trendy photographer (instagram, fashion for your local bitches, assistant to a wedding photographer) is like being heterosexual at a gay bar.
Just kidding I only do this as a hobby, so I don't see the point in paying (implying you didn't pirate it) for presets.

>>2733422
>pirating VSCO

Not just me, then?

>>2733442

No, it's literally everyone. Do you really think people shell out $120 for lightroom presets?

VSCO set the price ridiculously high so that it would increase the perceived value so that morons would be more likely to pirate them over the many competitors so that it would increase word-of-mouth advertising thus giving vsco a good foothold to launch vscocam and by extension vsco grid and giving them a great chance at taking on instagram and that billion dollar buyout that they're hoping google will extend their way.

>>2733745
That's crazy enough that there's some (some) sense in that.

>>2733745
>billion dollar buyout
for presets?
I'd give them a million or some millions just for the brand name and recognition it has.
Or am I missing a potential brand value in there?

>>2733766
>some (some)
*a lot (a lot)

>>2732756
top kek

>>2733768

for the image sharing platform they've built.
for the fact that they've guiled millions of photographers into using the vsco aesthetic instead of their own.
for the fact that they're extremely on-trend and a frontrunner for the growing premium and/or aspirational brand niche (see also: gold iphone, .

they were never trying to make money on presets (which is why they've never turned a profit, even on software that costs you almost a grand for the full suite):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-24/fancy-photo-app-startup-vsco-raises-30-million-more

it's always been about getting you guys to adopt their look and sign up for vsco grid.

>>2733799
>for the image sharing platform they've built
Whoa, this kind of thing reminds me how out of touch I am with trends.
I had no idea they have an image sharing platform.

Well if that's the case then yeah I guess I see more value in the brand.