Has there ever been an actual "good" film simulation. like... I mean VSCO Film was pretty good. Hell, It works for Marcus Smith. he's done a lot of the photography for the new EA Sports 21 games. (I know he just uses VSCO pack 2, mostly "fuji superia/the other generic B&W one)But dont even get started on the con that is Mastin Labs.But what about you guys? whats your opinion on the matter[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:
Fujifilm Classic Negative, Acros, and Classic Chrome are the only good film simulations.VSCO was never good and you weren't either if you thought it was.Delete this thread you trashjuice drinking cum warrior.
>>3750383top kek>posts on an anime image bored about generic JPEG filters on a fuji camera
>>3750385What is your point. You're doing the same thing.
>>3750385You know, fuji's film sitmualtions goes well beyond generic JPEG filters:https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/08/18/fujifilm-film-simulations-definitive-guide And if I'd have to say myself, they are pretty good. Idk about VSCO, photo on cover looks decent, but probably if you wanna have faithful film image: shoot film.
>>3750379VSCO are the only people I've seen don't properly, they get all their sims from using a colorimeter and color calibration card on actual prints from film (hence why there's no Kodachrome) to create not only curves but complete look up tables and color profiles. If you want objectively the closest to film colors you can get, there's no other option.I would add though that I don't think their camera specific color profiles for using with their sims are worth the bytes they're stored on, just use a color calibration card when shooting and use the standard presets.They also didn't put in much work on film grain simulation.>>3750383You're an idiot, even Fuji admits their film sims aren't made to look like actual film.>>3750388>Fuji isn't just filters>Proceeds to demonstrate that they know nothing beyond the absolute basics of Photoshop and don't know how to create a color profileFucking keks, what do you expect from a guy that shoots jpeg. Listen to this guy and you're a fucking moron.
>>3750402Whole thread is astroturfed bait
>>3750379OP pic edits look pleasing but they don’t look like film. This is how most of the presets are. I think you need to really edit pic by pic to get a really filmic look.
If only the mods took shitposting outside of /b/ as seriously as they take threats of sodomy against nophotos
>>3750392Thanks for this, and good riddance to whoever was ruining the thread with their projected insecurities. Is there any of the VSCO packs you'd recommend in particular?
>>3750447i like the portra400 preset on pack 1
>>3750460No idea. there's no information on it anywhere. but other then their FAQ, they did a pretty good job purging all their relation to VSCO film (taking down their youtube vids, etc)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 1300DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.4 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2018:07:30 14:39:18Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>all these deleted posts of OP revealing himself to be samefagginglole still 6 posters
I got all packs from 1 to 7. After trying other simulations, i've found VSCO to be most consistent and real compared to actual film scans. Hell I even applied presets to some scans and it made them a lot more punchy. Only other I found quite good was RNI films, but still testing that one out. So yeah VSCO is still best, also they recently released kodakchrome for mobile check that one out.
>>3750467Sorry I deleted that post for a typo and didn’t repost. Yeah it’s like they never made presets...
>>3750469RNI has got some good presets. But as you said yourself, I find the consictancy to be off for sure. some pics definetly need heavy tweaking with RNI
>>3750468You’re a clown
>>3750474>samefags while trying to validate his vsco purchase to strangers on the internet>I'M the clowntop kek, keep up the show
>>3750476You’re not responding to OP right now you big clownshoe
>>3750485Yes I am hahaha
>>3750476>how dare half a dozen people have a conversation and not listen to my autistic outburstsyou're coming across as super needy babe, there's no need to be mad that no-one listens to you, just work on educating yourself and offering valuable posts.>>3750447All the VSCO packs are good for different things, I find myself using the instant film pack quite a lot for social media posts, whereas I use fuji reversal films more often in work for clients.
>>3750492>All the VSCO packs are good for different things, I find myself using the instant film pack quite a lot for social media posts, whereas I use fuji reversal films more often in work for clients.Stop roleplaying. You don't even use social media. You're a loner without a cause.
>>3750507>you’re a loner without a cause says the psychzoid calling samefag when he’s mad lel
>>3750510hes right, you know. you dont have clients.
>>3750530Again anon, you’re not responding to one person.
>>3750531Sure I am you autistic faggot. I'm going to fill your hairy cheeks with my fat wad of cum.Go kill yourself.
>>3750392>VSCO are the only people I've seen don't properly, they get all their sims from using a colorimeter and color calibration card on actual prints from film (hence why there's no Kodachrome) to create not only curves but complete look up tables and color profiles. If you want objectively the closest to film colors you can get, there's no other option.There are several companies that do just that. Replichrome, RNI, DXO/Nik's Analog Efex Pro. VSCO was, in my opinion at least, the least accurate. They were very clearly trying to cultivate that "VSCO look" so they could sell you their monthly subscription service on their mobile app and launch their thingken man's instagram. Too bad it backfired with the whole vsco girl phenomena of 2018, kek.
>>3750547You sound upset anon
>>3750566Lol if you really think Analog Efex looks good
>>3750569Did I say that?
>>3750469have any samples?
>>3750379Film simulation is fake and gay.
So that settles it, VSCO is the best option and Fuji users need to see a fucking therapist.
>>3750713of course he doesnt
>>3751081Your crazy if you think VSCO is the best option. RNI is a hell of a lot better for faithful reproduction of film stocks.
>>3753513>using digital film scanners for profiling instead of wet emulsionAbsolutely haram, and aimed at plebs.
>>3753520>Trying to do a faithful reproduction at allAbsolutely unbased. All the presets like this just give you a super high contrast, green mess. The best presets are the ones that do they’re own, pleasing take on portra.
Vsco is for mentally ill fags
>>3750388>Finally, we come to Fujifilm's monochrome film simulations, led by the gorgeous. ACROS profile. ACROS is the only monochromatic Film Simulation that mimics a specific family of Fuji's film, specifically the Neopan ACROS series. Many people don't realize that traditional black and white films responded differently to different parts of the color spectrum. These color-response differences combine with the details of each film's tone curve to result in a unique "look" for each emulsion. Changing the color mode from RGB to Grayscale in Photoshop just removes the color information from the image, leaving behind the luminance or brightness data. The contrast and effective color sensitivity will depend a lot on the characteristics of the color original, but in general, this luminance-only conversion tends to produce bland-looking images. You can of course just bump up the contrast in Photoshop, or even use the Curves control to create a custom tone curve, but I've personally never been as happy with the results I could achieve as I was with the black and white prints I made in the darkroom (many) years ago. I audibly kek'd. Dunning Kruger off the charts, imagine acting like you know everything without even knowing to use black and white under adjustments instead of grayscale. Or an adjustment layer for non-destructive edition. What a clown.These people are probably the reason Lightroom gets so much hype for doing things Photoshop was able to do long before, Lightroom basically spoonfeeds you.
>>3750566>vsco girl phenomena of 2018elab, I'm not familiar with this at allonly learned they had tried to become some sophisticated instagram when Natalie Biden's VSCO profile started getting posted everywhere following the Hunter laptop leaks
I've got both the RNI 5 All Films Pro and the 7 VSCO packs plus some extras. In my very limited time as a hobbyist photographer with equal limited knowledge, I've been able to get results that come wonderfully close to the bunch of pictures my family keeps. Of course, modern lenses being noticeable sharper than old, consumer tier lenses will make a difference but the feel is there. Then again, I might be visually illiterate, but damn if I don't enjoy tinkering with presets, curves and whatnot.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D5300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern824Focal Length (35mm Equiv)51 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:10:08 08:39:43Exposure Time0.4 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length34.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>3759771This looks nothing like film