Is VSCO overrated? Both on PC and Andoid/iOS? I'm not talking

>>2995886
>Is VSCO overrated
In what regard?
>I'm not talking about pricing but presets itself. It's a bad example, I guess, but here's my picture with X1 preset.
That is a bad example.
>Is it even okay to use presets in your opinion?
No.
>Or everything should be done by your hand?
Yes, every processing option should be chosen by you individually for each frame
>You can find better stuff here: vsco.co/explore/vsco/collection/0
No.

Their LR/ACR presets are fine, they do what they need to and the profiles are well done. If you're shooting with the intent of processing it that way, then there's really nothing wrong with using it, just make sure to adjust the sharpening/grain afterwards.

>>2995886
>Is VSCO overrated?

its popular. popular stuff tend to be a bottom of the barrel performance+great marketing deal.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (332KB, 1050x695px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1050x695px

>>2995886
I find they work better as quick palette options, rather than relying on them as full film sims.

Pic related; I chose a vsco preset that gave me the reds and greens that I wanted, then tweaked from there.

>>2995904
>moop chooses a palette that changes an uggo girl from pasty pink to sickly green
10/10 choice moop

>>2995904
before is way better
after is green as money

girl looks like a trap though

>>2996371
>>2996432
Spot the people that have never been in woodland.

It's a giant green softbox.

>>2996480
>not knowing what is white balance

>>2996494
>not understanding white balance

>>2995904
Honestly I also think before is better... second one looks really unflattering and over-contrasty

File: Screenshot+2017-01-06+08.29.03.png (5MB, 2452x1188px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2452x1188px

>>2995886

>Is VSCO overrated?
I think it's abused but not overrated

>here's my picture with X1 preset.
Yeah that's a shitty example. VSCOCam presets can look very nice if you know how to work them. It seems Canon and Fuji colors play nice with VSCOCam. But then you're using Jpegs so you're under more pressure to get everything perfect in camera. Not a bad thing I guess. There are a lot of people using the camera colours + vscocam workflow very nicely.

>Is it even okay to use presets in your opinion?
Yes, as a starting ground. Not as a one click wonder button. Presets are a huge part of helping defining your style. But they're a starting ground. I use my own presets I've been building the last two years but there's still a good 15-20 minutes on each image after that to make it look nice. Even then I let them sit for a week, come back with a fresh eye, and tweak them again before doing anything with them.

>Or everything should be done by your hand?
Of course. Presets are just step one, not the whole package.

>You can find better stuff here:
There are MUCH better examples of VSCO then this.

I use their Lightroom presets, but not often. I've started with one or two presets I like a while ago and kept tweaking them until they became my own thing. It helps me keep my style consistent and I can focus on photographing instead of 40 hours in front of Lightroom a week. Attached example of a preset after about 10 minutes of work.

>>2996494
>>2996502
His photo is way overcooked but the WB is fine; he has obviously split-toned his image and needs to turn down the shadow saturation a bit, but Iif you think everything in an image has to be perfect within the bounds of WB and colour accuracy then maybe you should go back out with your D810 and 30 stop ND filter and take more oversaturated HDR photos of creeks and grass.

>>2995904
0/5 you went too far

You can use it as your guideline for something you're doing. Use pure VSCO I think isn't worth it because it's just blend.

What exactly is VSCO?

I downloaded (gratis) a load of VSCO Lightroom presets, they all just change the colors a bit and a few add grain.

I tend to go for accurate colors out of camera and get the best photo I can without post-processing. I am a newbie photographer, so maybe there is something I'm missing, but is it really just a load of presets? Like Instagram but for people who own Lightroom and want to put filters on full quality pictures?

Is it a big company? Are they making a lot of money off of these filters because of the aesthetic? It looks like they are just like Instagram, only a bit more professional and geared toward an artistic audience?

>As humans, we’re compelled to create. It’s in our DNA. It may not always be pretty, it may not always be easy, but it’s our fundamental response to life. Creativity isn’t limited to an artistic class; it’s the radical expression of each person’s voice in this world. It takes different forms, a mad juxtaposition that reflects the individual’s own unpredictable, winding path. It isn’t limited to the polished aspects of life, but embraces all facets of human existence, the ups and downs, the loud and quiet. Here, we’re telling the story of our people, calling others to add their layer to the multidimensional, textured creativity on VSCO.

Can someone translate this?

>>2997139
Hi, since you appear to be new to photography I can explain what these "filters" are.

Look at the names of the presets, look at the numbers next to them. Those are the names of film emulsions.
>b-b-but what do the + and - stand for then.
Over and underexposure.

Is vsco somethinh that is hard to achieve manually?

I do my pp all by myself and manually. Just wondering if I'm missing something or if this is just for those who wants to save some time editing.

File: IMG_8805-Edit.jpg (864KB, 1936x986px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1936x986px

most often i can get the look i want entirely using the VSCO toolkit;
for pic related i used the following:

Kodak Ektar 100 -
Orange skin fix +
Tone: Kodak 2
Contrast--
Clarity +15
Fade (None)
Fade Shadows
Sharpen: High ISO
Color: Saturation -

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:11 10:45:27
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2995904
Great edit, really adds depth to the image, the colour play between the green of the foliage and browns/reds of the model have come together nicely.

>>2996371
>>2996432
>>2996529
>>2997083

>when you try not to samefag but make the same grammatical error in every post.

>>2997378
dropping periods and capitalization hasn't been a distinctive trait on this board since 2008 (^:

Oh and just to quantify that grammatical error in respect to the board, that mistake has been made more in this thread than the 300 post gear thread.

>>2997379
>>2997380
10 second rekt

>>2997378
>outing isi this comprehensively
Muy bueno affendi.

>>2997384
>isi
Try again friend, i hadn't posted in this thread yet :^)

>>2997378
>when you compliment your own photo and accuse everyone critiquing it of being isi
oh moopco

>>2997386
>accuse everyone of being isi
I haven't said anything was said by anyone, that's all your own projection jamie.

# of ips hasn't changed, you're here just for your version of "trolling", which seems to involve following me around commenting on everything i do, trying to find photos of me on the internet, like some creepy fucking neckbeard chasing their dream waifu. Which fits with you still living with parents at home with a massive superiority complex over everyone.

Oh, and if you weren't isi, you wouldn't have taken the bait ;)

>>2997389
paranoid narcissist, much? >:^]

Oh what a surprise.
>>2995904
>moopco gives relevant reply with example
>>2997378
>isi tries her hardest to derail the thread through endless negative samefagging

Every time.

>>2997394

Still on 14 ips, why you so triggered?

>>2997394
Wow, you really are trash

It's not a case of a boys club here at all, it's just that the only female regular is an abhorrent skidmark on the underpants of society.

File: arukiddinme.gif (2MB, 335x334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 335x334px

>>2997378
-but that's not true, I'd never use elipses by choice or even accident. I'd also never start a sentence without a capital letter for one post and drop it for the next.
>when you try to accuse someone of samefagging but aren't autistic enough to actually pick up on a writing style in the post.
Moop, seriously go to specsavers m8. If you're not Moop, book an appoiintment at specsavers.

>>2997407
Still, the poster count remains unchanged.

Also, unless you're Isi, why are you upset? That's pretty odd for someone not involved.

>>2997401
that's not isi, you're dense

>>2997420
Yes it is, you absolute moron

>>2997424
No, it's not.

File: 1481226443942.jpg (51KB, 358x429px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 358x429px

>>2997414
>Still, the poster count remains unchanged.
No shit. You don't say. You telling me the post count remains unchanged when you get a dank (You) from someone you gave one too.
I'm not upset, I'm simply responding to your baseless allegations you ninny.

>>2997594
>too.
My life is over, I'll never recover from the shame.
Goodbye moopco.

>>2997594
>>2997595
>trig'd

>>2997594
Wow, you're a fagget.

I see VSCO more as overused rather than overrated. It's a good program that should be used to enhance or supplement a photo, not to prop it up on crutches.

>>2997964
-And you're a nonce.

File: VSCO.jpg (109KB, 478x597px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 478x597px

>>2995886
VSCO is objectively beautiful if you use it well. None of those shitty presets, have a few starting presets for different situations then tone yourself accordingly. It's great if you want a very balanced white balance, you may need to desaturate some of the colors in the whites yourself but you'll get a very clean look.

>>2995904
fucking terrible example

File: Weeks.png (62KB, 1204x1904px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1204x1904px

Y'all niggas posting in a shill thread.

>>2998005
Looks great to me,
Looks like someone has a very jealous bee in their bonnet.

>>2998008
oh my god

>>2998020
c'mon nigger, that's some serious abuse of contrast, and wtf happened to that lovely burgundy? it's fucking braaaaaahn man.

>>2998031
The dress in the original looks full magenta, it looks burgundy/red in the real world. The colour of the dress in the edited version is VERY similar when pantone matched with the dress.

And yes, contrast is important, whites approach white, blacks approach black. The low contrast look is shite and a crutch for people that aren't familiar with the technical side of processing. Probably the same people that have never used a colour darkroom or been to any real exhibitions.

I print 90% of the shots i like, sometimes the "heavy handed" nature of editing for print does detract people here, but the bigger issue here is that everyone's a fucking pussy when it comes to editing. Look at the processed nature of togs currently making bank, compared to the people here either "trying to keep it pure", or doing shitty hipster edits, or worse yet, admitting they're awful and allowing the camera to make the editing decisions for them.

You need to learn the differences between being commercially viable and fitting in with people on 4chins. Protip, one of them makes you rich, the other makes you a cuck.

>>2998050
>thinks i'm talking about the dress

nvm m8, good luck with your "commercial viability"

File: IMG_20170107_223045_634.jpg (76KB, 1080x718px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1080x718px

It's pretty useful on the go when you don't have access to a PC and you want to post pictures on your instagram etc. On the go

>>2998063
So you think the ground and trees are supposed to have that magenta hue?

k

>>2998020
>>2998050
the image is absolutely disgusting - an absolute and complete piece of shit. i am usually very patient on this website compared to some but the image looks like garbage - i am doing this to help you.

File: gethrs.jpg (359KB, 1200x772px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1200x772px

vsco is da bomb

Wish they had the phone presets available for LR. The film sims are okay, but often very hamfisted when it comes to contrast. Basically only the triple minus presets are usable. Phone presets on the other hand have very nice colour contrasts (like C1's green and violet or C8/9's blue and orange) but of course exporting from an iphone to use on desktop isn't very viable.

>>2995886
ive never used vsco lighroom presets but i think its definitely overrated on cell phones. i see people put vsco presets on their photos and you can tell just by looking at the photo that theyre using vsco filters

personally i think its okay to use presets but its much better to edit stuff on your own if you want to take yourself seriously, i only ever use presets for fun

>>2995904
wow looks just like an old photograph, only critique i would make it more yellow and less saturated and maybe add some film grain & scratches

if possible can i rehost this on my website? really looking to improve my work

File: Untitled-2.jpg (173KB, 1200x772px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1200x772px

>>2998135
difficult to get more generic

[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	2017:01:08 16:59:34
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	772

>>2998360
but look at dem tones