How on earth I can do editing like this?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 750 Image Height 842 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2844974
it's film, digitalfag
>>2844974
mess with black and white points and play with the red/blue/green channels in Curves
>>2844979
Photographer user name is "andrewtkearns" on Instagram you oldiefilmfag
>>2844984
Can you give me the link of any videos or blogs?
vsco
>>2844998
This. What are your favorite VSCO presets? I've been using Agfa Vista 100+ for my latest series (social snappies with flash) and it worked really well.
>>2844998
There are 7 vsco film packs.
Which one?
>>2845013
Try everything.
>>2845046
If I were to buy one, which one would you suggest?
>>2845047
Torrents.
>>2845053
No see, you must have read the question incorrectly. Let me try again.
IF I WERE TO BUY ONE PACK, WHICH PACK WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT I PURCHASE WILL REAL AMERICAN DOLLARS?
>>2845055
I SUGGEST TO SPEND THIS DOLLARS ON BEER.
But if some one threaten to murder you with an ax - buy first pack for relevant films or fifth pack for MMMAXIMUM HIPSTER MODE.
>>2845055
Fucking think for yourself for once. GO look at and google examples. See photos that look hipster enough for you? Download that pack.
Jesus.
>>2845060
Awesome, thanks.
>>2845061
It's not like their website's interface is very friendly. It's over designed, in my opinion.
>>2845055
Hey man, that is vsco film 6 pack.
I just watched his editing video on YouTube and mentioned that in video.
>>2845055
His editing tutorial
https://youtu.be/JrcZMr9vP_w
>>2844974
Shoot a colorful van in a foggy day
Try Color Efex Pro and the other Nik stuff before you shell out for VSCO. I've gotten very similar results with Nik and it's free. (And unlike most free software, it's actually well-developed and easy to use.)
>>2845167
Agreed I love the nik stuff
>>2845167
Vsco torrent is also free.
Why the hell /p/ underrate vsco filters and overrate nik?
>>2845061
What is "hipster"?
>>2845179
In 2016? Pretty much any photo that's processed beyond corrections is hipster.
>>2845175
First of all, not everybody here is into pirating software and Nik is legitimately free.
Secondly, VSCO is just a collection of single-purpose preset filters. Nik is a huge suite of separate programs with a ton of capabilities. In addition to the film filters in Color Efex Pro, Silver Efex Pro, and Analog Efex Pro that directly compete with VSCO, you also get a ton of other stuff, from a skin softener that's actually pretty good to excellent contrast correction tools to noise reduction and sharpening that are better than Adobe's. There's no excuse not to have Nik in your toolbox now that it's free.
>>2845199
Vsco is not a software
VSCO presets are mostly strange. Somebody really use it?
>>2845396
Yeah all these Instagram so called celebrity photographers use vsco.
>>2845396
lol what the fuck is this supposed to emulate?
>>2845424
Polaroid 669, they say that at least.
>>2845167
>>2845199
I like Nik a lot, but when I'm doing walk around stuff for fun it can be a bit too involved.
It's fun to choose a film type before going out, shoot with that in mind, batch apply it, and see how you did.
The slight lag between launching it from Lightroom and applying the settings and moving back kill me. I don't know how I survived as a teenager with 5400 rpm hard drives for everything. I must be weak now.
That said, their noise reduction is fucking magic.
>>2845000
I like the early pull Polaroid stuff. Low contrast best contrast.
>>2845064
Agreed. Plus they have two semi-distinct websites, but with mostly overlap between the main VSCO one, and VSCO film.
Shoot any type of film, when your done the roll, open the back of the camera for 10 seconds to fade it.
>>2845622
dont do this
OP now that you spent that money, there is a free plugin set called Google NIK Collection. In there you can find the Analog Efex Pro, coupled with Color Efex Pro and Silver Efex Pro you will have a full selection of color and B&W presets for all your needs. For free.
Stay fag, OP.
>>2845429
I agree that VSCO has its place, don't get me wrong. I just recommend Nik first because it's a free clean-conscience option and a good place to start digging into the world of filters and presets and the like.
I agree that it can be a bit of a pain in terms of time, but thankfully I have a pretty good system to deal with that, and most of /p/ are free from deadlines and are the types to spend a lot of time on one image anyway. I'll admit that waiting for CEP to load on my old 2011 MBP could be maddening.
I only avoid recommending VSCO because I'm not going to tell other people to pirate somebody's product, and their presets are kind of ridiculously expensive if you get them the legit way.
Just buy a Fuji and shoot Classic Chrome jpegs.
>>2845622
kek
>>2845647
This
>classic chrome
>highlights: -1
>shadows: +3
>color: +3
r8 my first vsco edit
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software VSCO Android Version Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Height 1600 Image Width 1200
>>2845674
looks cancerous enough. alright i guess.
that mix of low fi limited tonal range with high end modern glass type sharpness sure is weird.
>>2845674
Do not like all the browny blacks
>>2845674
Needs dodging on the swan mate
>>2844987
so wat
>>2845743
You fucking pervert.
>>2845675
Some presets have minus to clarity.
Most crappy ones.
>>2845642
No I did not fag. I only spent money on VSCO film 6 which is 1000 times better than nik shit.
Can anybody upload their nik edits here please?
>>2845674
This would have been a great shot if it were shot on film. Now it's a shot that is trying to be something else.
You guys need to stop trying to mix two mediums into one. The digital approach is so fundamentally different to the analog one that you can't expect to recreate it by just tweaking the colors. Sure, you get your colors to look like film, but you can't get your picture to look like film.
I'm not saying one of them is better, I'm just reminding you that they are different, no matter how hard you try.
Take this crop from a test shot for a recently bought camera for example. Do you see the glow of the window frame? The way it burns into the shadows of the structure on the outside? The gradient on the left side of the frame?
You could have had this in the leaves and branches of the tree in your picture, but sadly you don't. You have a sterile image lacking liveliness, something that is completely ok, but it doesn't match well with the analog look.
>>2845836
Check you PM.
>>2845875
Agreed.
But /p/ is full of film fanbois.
>>2845875
>only film blooms
holy shit you are the biggest retard Ive ever seen
>>2845938
Thanks Leafy.
>>2845673
>>shadows: +3
>>color: +3
full fag mode
>>2845938
mad as fuck
>>2845199
No reason other than the terrible destructive workflow, right?
Mostly everything in Nik can be done non-destructively in Photoshop and Lightroom. VSCO presets are also non-destructive.
>>2845938
>mad and jelly as fuck
digipleb blown the fuck out. you know its true. digital can barely record shapes, let alone light subtlety. might as well go into sculpture, leave image recording to the patrician medium.
Film faggots every fucking where.
Time to go.
>>2846460
digicuck is mad.
>>2845146
>some fucking hipster as bad as any califag shitting up oregon
Urge to kill, rising.
>>2846474
IDGAF about if he is a hipster or not the only thing I care is takes really amazing photos. And that tutorial is really helpful.
>>2846470
You old piece of crap.
Please kill yourself by wrapping up the film tape around your neck.
>>2846480
mad?
>>2846480
>implying backing tape would be remotely strong enough to choke someone out
Confirmed for never having shot a single fucking thing on film. Stupid digicuck
just realized the pic op posted was at pacific city, oregon
was just there a few weeks ago
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 800 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 72 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:23 22:44:03 Exposure Time 1/1250 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 36.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2846490
>implying hipster film cucks are difficult to choke out for even small insects
What's with this a huge misconception about the 'look' of film being faded with no contrast? No film actually looks like this. The contemporary faded look fad is 100% digitally done (whether the photo was shot digitally or on film).
This crap probably started when people began scanning old prints and negatives with shitty scanners and no knowledge of how to get nice quality scans.
Film doesn't have a 'soft nostalgic' aesthetic, people's shitty digitizing techniques do. If I flip through photo albums from my childhood that my dad shot on cheap Fuji shit the prints are nice and crisp with good colors. If I throw some slides my dad shot before I was in born in a slide projector and flip through them they look absolutely amazing and nothing like this 'film look' shit I see everywhere.
/rant
>>2846474
>implying OR isn't a fucking pretentious hipster shithole anyway.
Have you even been to Portland?
That is so fucking funny that nobody give real answer to the question of OP.
Poor OP fag.
>>2846530
Pretty much every photo I've seen printed in a book from before 1980 has faded blacks. Especially black and white prints.
People aren't going for "nice film tones" when they emulate film, generally. They're going for "make it look obviously like film". If you edit your digital shots to have nice colors and tones, it just looks nice, not old or retro or nostalgic. So they take it over the top to force your mind to old crappy fun prints you didn't care much about because the moment and the life you were living was more important than spending hours in the darkroom.
>>2846667
Have you been to anywhere in Oregon besides Portland? Maybe Eugene is the only other place like that and it's not even that bad. Oregon is a great place so long as one isn't ignorant enough to judge the entire state off one annoying city.
>>2847365
Oregon is the home of hipster faggots in states
>>2847452
Again, you apparently don't know the state very well. Do you typically use sweeping generalizations in your day to day speech?
be free juge
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1122 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 40 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4928 Image Height 3264 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:26 03:54:38 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 10 sec F-Number f/25.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/25.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.01 m Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 27.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4928 Image Height 3264 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
