Comments on: VSCO Film for Lightroom & Camera Raw

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:43:09 +0000

Yep, МЫСЩ does good stuff but to me it’s a bit pre-marketed and not always work straight from the box.

For those who seriously in emulating film I would recommend to check these guys and their film presets for Lightroom: http://reallyniceimages.com/index.php/all-film-the-ultimate-package/

By: Dan_Smith

Dan_Smith — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:45:06 +0000

Nice ones.
But I personally prefer these film presets: http://reallyniceimages.com/index.php/all-film-the-ultimate-package/ (for Lightroom only unfortunately). To me they work a bit better than vsco, as the latter newer work straight-from-the-box and may be used as only the starting point.

By: Dick Brigleb

Dick Brigleb — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:56:54 +0000

It isn’t even, technically, a file format.

By: Steve Laskevitch

Steve Laskevitch — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 01:26:53 +0000

Do most folks find presets and profiles difficult or hard to discover?

These may be better than other commercial preset libraries. Yes, it’s cool that they leverage profiles.

But when I teach Lightroom, very very few students find it challenging to create presets of their own for a custom “look”, film or otherwise. And using something like the ColorChecker Passport, we can get different cameras at the same or a really similar starting points.

I guess I don’t mind clicking more than once to achieve a look that’s all mine. Then again, I got a kick out of making composite images in a darkroom. (no, I don’t miss it…)

By: Mark Andrew Photographer

Mark Andrew Photographer — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:49:05 +0000

What makes VSCO special vs other presets are the use of custom camera profiles. On my D3 and D700 they produce something that’s almost believable as Fuji 400H. They really allow me to have a specific look that can be consistently replicated across all my images

By: K Brown

K Brown — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:04:19 +0000

Kinda pricey…

By: D to the 3rd

D to the 3rd — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:45:37 +0000

Curious - why is it everywhere that RAW is capitalized? I thought this was a format of an image, not an acronym. [Adobe's convention is simply to say "raw," as the term is a simple adjective and neither a proper name ("Raw") nor an acronym. Apple & others prefer the (aggro, to my eye) "RAW" convention. --J.] Am I missing something? (not a photographer, so - I may be way off?) Just curious.

By: Manata

Manata — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:18:01 +0000

what the world needs.. more boring presets to make all images look the same.

By: imajez

imajez — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:47:23 +0000

On subject of the profiles I wonder how they’ll mange with v2012 in ACR 7.

By: imajez

imajez — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:45:40 +0000

It’s funny how people argued that film was superior to digital for so many years yet when a photographer recreates ‘film looks’ like here, they appear really poor quality – in a good way I should add.
Some very nice work on Jeremy’s site.

Random observation – I rarely come across other Jeremy’s, but if I do, rather bizarrely they are usually photographers too.

By: Sean McCormack

Sean McCormack — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:03:13 +0000

Hey John,
I reviewed these a while ago for Pixiq. They are good. The studio pack is best value, and while relatively pricey, does a great job.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/vsco-film-studio

Sean

P.S. Tabbing through the form jumps you to the top of the page for some reason.