So what's wrong with using vsco again?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2850 Image Height 1800 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2015:09:01 09:54:24 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 421
>>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
[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
>>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
>>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 :^)
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.