Is VSCO (speaking of the LR presets) seen as a tool for plebs

>>3073009
>Is VSCO (speaking of the LR presets) seen as a tool for plebs around here?

Everything short of large format film cameras is seen around pleb around here, so that's not a good question to ask. And obviously each person will say something different.

With that being said, I use VSCO kinda often. I do my own edits, but it's helped on a few shots where I just couldn't get the color right, so I'd just skim through some of them find one that was close to what I wanted and made changes to it. And it actually did teach me how to use some of the more complex tools in Lightroom. I'd say go for it, but don't use it as a crutch for your photos

>>3073009
Memepresets only for total losers.

Hence I always use them.

>>3073009
No worse than instagram filters senpai

Actually a bit better, now that I think about it.

However! VSCO is a lot less jarring if you shoot with specific filters in mind, so the more work you put in, the better your shot will be.

...a lot like everything else really.

>>3073009
It's a tool in the same way that HDR, time-lapse and drones are. Unfortunately, just like those tools, it gets overused and abused by faggots trying to make silk purses out of sows ears. Which is why they look like shit most of the time.

To me, the more effort is put into the final product the more respect I have for it. I guess photographers who are proud won't use it because they want it to be absolutely their work even if it is shit or not (like me :P ) but I don't really see anything wrong with using it other than not learning anything from it.

I like when people are like "oh, i only use it as a base" and then apply like three very minor adjustments to contrast, exposure and the tone curve. Just because you do the last 5% of the work doesn't mean that it's your aesthetic when VSCO is still doing 95% of the heavy lifting.

It's a fucking crutch for weak-minded fools who want their photos to look like every other weak-minded fool out there. If you use it, find a new hobby pronto.

why don't you all learn to make your own dSLRs since Canon/Nikon/Sony does all the hard work for us and we just use them to take the actual photos??

>>3073094

Why don't you leave the analogies to the non-fucktards?

>>3073091
But the exposure, contrast, and tonal curves are far more than just 5% of the processing. The part of the processing that I don't feel very comfortable with is the R,G,B tonal curve adjustments. That's the main part that I'm looking for when going through the presets. It's a hell of a lot faster skimming through them than fucking with the curves for a half an hour. I get what you're saying though. But to say that it's 95% of the lifting is obviously an overstatement

>>3073094
>t. can't use lightroom pleb

>>3073084
Effort does not equal quality or aesthetic

I laughed at people using presets, but then I tried them myself and I laughed harder.

Presets completely suck the fun out of photography, sometimes it's necessary spending time on LR, but that is boring AF. You don't learn any photographic skill pushing sliders around and having it prepackaged for you is the weakest way of getting anything enjoyable. If you are keen on getting distinct film looks then get a Fuji and use thier film simulations.

Or, just shoot film and have a good lab to process them.

>>3073099
You don't make any sense. First you laugh at people using presets because it sucks the fun out of photography and you should spend time on LR. Then you say you don't learn photographic skills pushing sliders around? How the fuck is it better to have Fuji cook film simulations into your images rather than do it yourself?

>>3073098
>exposure, contrast, and tonal curves are far more than just 5% of the processing

nah, man. They're the most superficial possible adjustments, especially in comparison to how much work a VSCO profile is doing under the hood. The fact that you don't feel comfortable with RGB adjustments just goes to show how little you understand about how much they're doing.

It's not just a slider preset. It's a unique camera profile that does a lot of stochastic stuff that you can't see just by looking at the modules in Lightroom.

>>3073100
>If you are keen

Because it's better to get everything right in camera than spending hours on the computer.

>>3073101
I understand what they're doing 100%, my problem with them is that I havn't been using them for years like I have with the other tools, so it's hard for me to imagine how they'll end up working in conjunction with some of the other parts of the images, it's just going to take time, but in the meantime, I'll use vsco just on images that I can't get perfect on my own.

>It's not just a slider preset. It's a unique camera profile that does a lot of stochastic stuff that you can't see just by looking at the modules in Lightroom.

I had no clue. I just assumed it was a combination of the color sliders, rgb curves, black/white levels, and some grain thrown in.

>>3073102
>Because it's better to get everything right in camera than spending hours on the computer.

I'll disagree with you on that one. I'd rather have the capability to still edit my photos 5 years down the road when trends change or if I have a different idea for an image

>>3073101
Huh. So if using VSCO means us photoplebs aren't doing any work of our own, and actual Lightroom adjustments are superficial compared to what VSCO is doing under the hood, then do we have to develop our own custom photo profiles or processing software (I.e. have a specialized degree in the subject) just to have our own aesthetic?

I thought photography was about the content, and everything else is secondary. Isn't that the point that gets hammered over and over around here?

>>3073108

No, you can do everything VSCO does to a photo on your own in Photoshop and then some. It's just harder to do it consistently, across the board and camera models.

And, yes, photography is about content more than aesthetics, a point i've belabored many times on this very board. However, if the photo is 100% your content and 0% your aesthetics, you can only ever end up with a fraction of a photo, nawmean?

>>3073114
I think the extent to which VSCO irreversibly makes a photo look like everybody else's is overstated. To me, it's like choosing a film stock. You start with an idea of the aesthetic you have in mind and you choose the tool that will help get you to that aesthetic. If your chosen aesthetic happens to look like everybody else's, then you have bigger problems than the tools you're using.

>>3073106
Why the hell would you want to do that? A photo becomes a photo after editing is finished and it's released to the public. No one re-edits a photo 5 fucking years down the line because of changing "trends", or maybe that's the rate of success you're hitting, a photo every half decade?

>>3073108
No, because it's fine and normal to manipulate a photo in LR to get the goal you're aiming for. If it's just a case of sliding a "de-shitify" slider, then it's cheap and lazy.

It's like making a cake, if you buy the individual ingredients and make it from scratch then you'll learn far more than getting a kit, or worse yet, a premade cake and all you do is add the icing. You don't learn shit about baking then.

>>3073151

that's a real neat idea on paper, but it translates pretty poorly to reality when I can spot a vsco'd out photo 9 times out of 10 from a mile away. They are not directly analogous to film, since they lack all of the subtlety and nuance that you can coax out of it.

>>3073175
How does clicking a VSCO preset in Lightroom prevent that photo from being further manipulated?

>>3073161
>Why the hell would you want to do that?

I've never gone with trends, I guess I meant more when my style changes. I've gone back to photos that were 3 years old and re-edited them to my current liking. And I've gone back to some photos I could never really get right, and re-edited them and ended up really liking them.

>>3073178
It doesn't, but most people that use vsco will use it as a crutch and not really change much from it, making it easy to spot when someone uses it

>>3073180
Well that's you bro, when I'm done I'm done, I hate spending more time than I should at the computer.

>>3073187
Kewl dood, gud 4 U

>>3073012
Same here, it only helped me with the beginning

I haven't used the presets since i first started using it however it does have some useful tools. Recently I've gotten so bored of the sterile look that you get with DSLR's and adding a bit of fade/grain/vignette whatever can help give the image some character.

File: phantom[1].jpg (215KB, 723x480px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 723x480px

>>3073161
>No one re-edits a photo 5 fucking years down the line because of changing "trends"
Hi! Please tell me more about your photography business plan, I'd like to subscribe to your blog!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	12450
Image Height	8475
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:12:08 09:30:55
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	723
Image Height	480