Previous news story    Next news story

Visual Supply Company releases Film 03 presets pack for Lightroom & ACR

By dpreview staff on Feb 12, 2013 at 22:12 GMT

Visual Supply Company has released the VSCO Film 03 camera profiles and film emulation preset pack for Adobe Lightroom 4 and Camera Raw 7. The software comes with customized camera profiles for Fujifilm, Canon and Nikon image files and allows native non-destructive editing of desired film effects within Lightroom and ACR. The latest version includes a toolkit to achieve an 'authentic instant film' look. Version 03 is currently available for immediate download at a retail price of $119 (~ £75/ €90) from the company's website.

Visual Supply Co is currently offering a two-week discount of 25% for new customers and 50% for current users of VSCO Film owners.

Press Release:

Visual Supply Co Releases VSCO Film 03 for Lightroom 4 and Adobe Camera Raw 7

Fuji FP-100c Cool effect. (Image by Eleanor Petry)

Emeryville, CA / February 12, 2013 – VSCO has announced the release of VSCO Film™ 03 for Lightroom 4 and Adobe Camera Raw 7, available now at http://vsco.co/store for $119. VSCO Film 03 contains revolutionary camera profiles and presets for RAW digital image editing, built to streamline photographers’ workflow and produce beautiful results.

VSCO Film 03 for LR4/ACR7 includes gorgeous film emulations inspired by Polaroid, Fuji and The Impossible Project. All film stocks contain multiple variations to emulate the various ways instant film looks in different situations. Additionally, VSCO Film 03 includes a new custom toolkit specifically tailored to help achieve an accurate & authentic instant film look. Tools such as clarity down, sharpness down, old lens, various toning looks, and heavy vignette are new additions which aid image processing.

VSCO Film 03 utilizes native Adobe Lightroom and ACR controls and functionality enabling photographers to get the look they want from their RAW files without ever leaving the Adobe Lightroom or ACR environment. VSCO Film 03 includes custom camera profiles for Fuji, Canon and Nikon professional level cameras.

For two weeks only, VSCO Film 03 will be on sale for 25% off. Current owners of VSCO Film 01 or 02, will receive 50% off VSCO Film 03 thru February 26th, 2013. For those who don’t yet own VSCO Film, simply buying any one pack for full price will entitled them to receive VSCO Film 03 at half off until February 26th, 2013.

Comments

Total comments: 74
Under The Sun
By Under The Sun (8 months ago)

Just bought it on a discount. I'm a newbie on post processing on Lightroom so I consider it a good way to learn how to "move those sliders" by looking at the various presets. So much angst for a measly 80 bucks. No need to buy it, if you think you can do the same or better for free.

0 upvotes
JameOl
By JameOl (11 months ago)

Just an experience to share:
VSCO are good but their presets never worked as a straight-from-the-box-solution for me.

What I found more useful is presets from http://reallyniceimages.com/ some of their stuff is truly amazing (check their Rollei Digibase). Not blaming vsco, just an alternative ;-)

Check the sample: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3793/8778124145_cb637b42c8_b.jpg

0 upvotes
PabloNeruda
By PabloNeruda (Mar 7, 2013)

hey there, I love VSCO but if you want to get the same look with less money try this:

http://www.adobelightroompresets.net/lightroom-presets/ultrafaded-presets/

Cheers

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Sannaborjeson
By Sannaborjeson (Feb 22, 2013)

Ooops boys, see what's released by the same day: http://reallyniceimages.com/index.php/all-film-the-ultimate-package/

0 upvotes
John
By John (Feb 20, 2013)

As someone who knows LR inside out, can I tell you something...

There is no way on this earth that the grain settings in LR can accurately emulate the grain patterns of traditional film from Kodak, Fuji, or anyone else. PERIOD.

If you really want to dispose of $119 I'd urge that you donate it to charity as it would do more good.

0 upvotes
Curt Geiger
By Curt Geiger (Feb 20, 2013)

You'd need to be completely clueless to waste your money on these. You can get equivalent or better looking presets for much, much cheaper elsewhere. I can't understand why DPR give these guys coverage whilst ignoring the better and cheaper presets from LR experts. Check out the Adobe LR exchange for more.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?s=5&o=desc&exc=25&event=productHome&from=1

0 upvotes
Paul Storm
By Paul Storm (Feb 18, 2013)

odd to charge ($100!!!!) for something that you can essentially tune yourself in LR once you get a hang of the controls. The LR grain engine (and Silver Efex's too, sorry) is not as rich as DXO's Filmpack but the serious flaw with Filmpack is that their grain is pulled from a library (an image overlay) and the grain patterns repeat themselves. Just create a 50% grey tiff and load it into Flimpack and change it to "large format" and you will be shocked!!

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Sannaborjeson
By Sannaborjeson (Feb 14, 2013)

A bit overpriced. I started using their Film 02 for people and street photo, but ended up with instagram presets (from www.reallyniceimages.com).

I think VSCO picks really good bespoke photos for their demo, but in real-life examples their film presets do not change much in picture, so my hipster's vote is for more exaggerated and bold Instagram-inspired presets.

1 upvote
Tete
By Tete (Feb 14, 2013)

I like this, and am very interested. Yes you could do it for cheaper. You could use real film and develop it yourself as well. If thats your kick then do that. I say if you can take a good photo and this process / preset helps you accomplish your goal / end product, then sweet. All that matters is the end product, not how you got there. I don't see how someone can knock this and then use photo shop or any post production tool. A tool is a tool, use it or don't.

3 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 14, 2013)

Completely wrong.

The true artists aware the process, not the result. Unless this type of product is used intentionally and consciously as a "fake" effect, the final image will only be considered as an el-cheapo commercial image, it will not even considered as a photograph.

0 upvotes
fuego6
By fuego6 (Feb 14, 2013)

Meh - to each his/her own. What is a "true artist" anyway? Is that what we've come to now - we can't appreciate the final image itself regardless of the methods and steps to get there?

6 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 14, 2013)

@fuego6 You must study the art at first, then talk.

0 upvotes
Tete
By Tete (Feb 14, 2013)

@plasnu. When I go to a gallery or am on these here internets, I see a photo I like then that's it. I like it. Then perhaps ill see what technique used or perhaps delv a bit deeper into the photographer. If I find out they used this product and not true film, my opinion does not change. I still like te photo. When I see a photo I don't like, I then ask myself, if I did like it, what would be my attraction to it. Why would I like this photo. Perhaps I'm in experienced, but I always try to think about the good of someone else's work and just look at it for what it is. These products are all tools. Tools to achieve a goal, perhaps stylistically or simply repair or cover up other short comings. Regardless, it's fun for me to investigate how they achieve an image but that, to me, has no consequence as to weather I like it or not. I'm no art student or have any real formal training. Just my perspective. Types via iPhone. 💩

3 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 15, 2013)

@Tete, I don't care about your preference, and no one will. I'm talking about the artists, not you. One thing you may want to understand is this type of method is completely opposite against the contemporary art aesthetics and ethics, unless the product is used in a postmodern context.

0 upvotes
Tete
By Tete (Feb 15, 2013)

@plasnu what are talking about. Shooting color was once against all odds no? Think eggelston? I'm not really sure how to respond as your comment is so artsy. Or narrow or intelligent. Or some combination of the three. Regardless, my question is, will someone in commercial / commissioned or any field for that matter look at work with these techniques applied and find it unacceptable? If its not about the result then what the hell is it about. It's about what squares think about it. I'm obviously not on the same level of thinking as you, or hold traditions that close. The only tradition I really care about is wether it's a good photo or not. The rest is irrelevant to me. The yoda speak is kind of uppity as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm the resident simpleton. Unless someone has a better interpretation / translation of what this guy is talking about to better enlighten me.

2 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Feb 18, 2013)

@plasnu, OK, you are the man, we don't know damn about art. You are 100% right. Thank you for enlightening us.

2 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Feb 13, 2013)

Good lord - Film O2 only just became available for Aperture.

What IS this obsession the world has with Lightroom?

2 upvotes
Nikon007
By Nikon007 (Feb 13, 2013)

SLR Lounge's LR plug-ins do just about everything a LR preset can. I don't use them but the tutorials are impressive. They also cost less.

http://www.slrlounge.com/store-product/lightroom-4-presets-system-by-slr-lounge

A few of the free tutorials.
http://m.youtube.com/user/slrlounge?&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fslrlounge

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 13, 2013)

Unhip product of the year. Target brand pre-ripped jeans for suburban young adults.

Real hipsters use real film.

3 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Feb 18, 2013)

What the heck have tone response presets to do with hipsterism? I certainly wasn't hip when I was choosing (on a shot-by-shot basis) whether to use Velvia, Ektar 25, Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Reala, VPS, Tri-X,Tech Pan, TMax, etc., when film ws the only choice available and I was shooting 200-500 images a day for a living (from 35mm to 8x10). I was choosing contrast and colour response appropriate to the subject. I still do that -- with or without a preset -- in the digital realm. If you're doing what you do just for the snob appeal, then, brother, *you're* the plastic fantastic.

1 upvote
bernardod
By bernardod (Feb 13, 2013)

I made some free film emulation lightroom presets and photoshop actions in case someone wants to try them :). They are intended to be always free and any feedback would be awesome to improve it.

http://www.facebook.com/FilmBotActions
https://sourceforge.net/projects/thefilmbot/

7 upvotes
Experte
By Experte (Feb 13, 2013)

Just tested, your presets are good, very good actually. How are the emulations done?

3 upvotes
bernardod
By bernardod (Feb 13, 2013)

calibrated using color calibration charts, I wont argue its 100% precise, I would say they are more "inspired on those films".

I really appreciate your time on testing it and the good comment about it :)

0 upvotes
bernardod
By bernardod (Feb 13, 2013)

I'll keep on growing these collection of templates, always the idea of making it aviable free for everyone, I was very frustrated as I could never get dxo filmpack because of the price, so I started doing it myself

3 upvotes
PhotonMayhem
By PhotonMayhem (Feb 13, 2013)

Overpriced...
this mobile app does all those things for free:
http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.app.illuminations.fashiongrade
(max 22MP)

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Feb 13, 2013)

Use film, it's cheaper.

1 upvote
benbammens
By benbammens (Feb 13, 2013)

I don't know about that. A roll of Kodak Portra 400 is about €9 these days... Without developing which is €3 more...

So you pay €12 a roll and still have to scan and process it...

5 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 13, 2013)

I wouldn't last a week.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (Feb 13, 2013)

...and how many rolls could you shoot for the cost of your Mac/PC, software, hardware etc?

Say you do what I do, shoot on quality but ultimately cheap sub £100 camera, shoot B&W, self develop and scan. Still get real authentic results much cheaper.

Each to his/her own.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 13, 2013)

Who said it has anything to do with cost?

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Feb 13, 2013)

Not cheaper, but better.

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Feb 18, 2013)

Not better, either. You really ought to keep up with the times -- those Sinar P2s on the used market are there for a reason.

0 upvotes
JIMIX PHOTO
By JIMIX PHOTO (Feb 13, 2013)

Hey, it's like putting a prop up front an F-16 jet engine intake and play the Merlin engine sound inside the cockpit, so the pilot imagines he flies the Spitfire.

Seriously, aren't we ever going to stop imitating things, faking them, pretending that something looks/sounds/tastes/feels the way something did in the past?

The technology is still here, so perhaps it's better to shoot some real films instead?

4 upvotes
nathanleebush
By nathanleebush (Feb 13, 2013)

So why are audiences rejecting 48fps, if its a "newer, better, more realistic" technology. Why add film grain to Harry Potter 7? We're a nostalgic species, and we like tradition.

2 upvotes
JIMIX PHOTO
By JIMIX PHOTO (Feb 13, 2013)

Film grain has nothing to do with tradition. It's got a lot to do with chemistry though ;) Fake film grain added to a clean digital image is nothing but an additional noise which is supposed to simulate the look of film. That's why I took the liberty of asking what is the point in that? Isn't it better to shoot on film if one wants to get the... grain? IMHO, this whole world of fake things sucks. The very philosophy that makes people progress and then return to "tastes" of the past with the means of artificial ingredients. We are nostalgic, I grant you that, but we're also inconsistent and weird creatures, loving to live in a fake reality. I shoot on film too, but most of my work is done digitally these days. I shoot medium format only, choosing the Kodak Portra 160NC most of the time, and - ironically - I choose this particular emulsion for its fine grain, which - when digitalized - can be gotten rid off almost entirely ;)

0 upvotes
Bryan Costin
By Bryan Costin (Feb 14, 2013)

Film is just as artificial, of course. Your Portra uses combination of chromogenic dyes carefully balanced for a specific color response and contrast curve, and an emulsion designed to minimize the natural grain of analog film. You decided how you want your end result to look, and then chose the means to make reality look the way you prefer. Creativity is the point for all of us, isn't it? One man's creative process is another man's artificial fakery.

0 upvotes
JIMIX PHOTO
By JIMIX PHOTO (Feb 16, 2013)

I didn't say I get rid of the grain from the Portra. I said it can be gotten rid off easily once digtalized. I'm just in opposition to the very basics: we invented digital photography, and what is said has been one of the greatest advantages of it ever since - the clean, noise-free image AND the far greater ability of the digital image to retain detail in the shadows when you want to pull it from underexposed areas. All that is said to be a huge advantage of the digital over the film, which is supposed to be as good as dead. What I'm saying is, this seems to be illogical for people to pursue the idea of a sterile image, even at the highest values of the sensor sensitivity, and then to get so excited about the idea of applying fake noise to their photos. Wherever you post your images, there will be plenty of such people, who, at the same time, will criticise you for not having denoised you images enough. Inconsistency and lack of logic is my point. Either we progress or move back.

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Feb 18, 2013)

There's more than "faking film" about the addition of grain (although I will agree that the effect is often taken too far in pursuit of simulation); the dither that a properly-stochastic "grain" (artificial pseudorandom noise) adds to a picture increases *apparent* detail (it doesn't actually add detail, but it makes it more difficult to notice the limits of the existing detail) and tends to smooth tonality as well. Actual noise from the camera is less than random (it tends to be more dashed, or even checked, than dotted, so to speak) and looks, well, noisy. Removing the relatively ordered noise and replacing it with something more random-seeming (okay, it's not random and clustered, but more of a Gaussian distribution) will often improve an image that wasn't captured cleanly and with a lot of depth, or when the colour space is reduced (black and white just plain looks better with grain -- it gives the sense of having more than 256 greys available).

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 13, 2013)

"Perfect! Now a picture taken by a $3000 camera can look like a picture taken with a $70 ebay purchase."

Saving more than the same amount otherwise spend on outrageously expensive polaroid film within no time at all.

5 upvotes
dilonious
By dilonious (Feb 13, 2013)

here are some before/afters we did today.. not surprising that fp100c is pretty lovely, its my favorite film to shoot.

http://www.sarakbyrne.com/vsco-film-03-before-after-examples/

of course there are a few that take it a bit far, but so do the real stocks they are emulating.

3 upvotes
KyleChx
By KyleChx (Feb 13, 2013)

Have 01 and 02 and really love these film settings. Their B&W presets can get you dang close to the results of silver effex (but with less adjustments).

really excited to see the addition of fuji cameras!

3 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Feb 14, 2013)

I also like this a lot. The best part is perhaps not having to fiddle with external tools, messing up my workflow. I'm not sure how "authentic" their film looks really are, but that's besides the point for me. The important part is that I like the resulting look, and I really do that.

0 upvotes
IanDavis
By IanDavis (Feb 13, 2013)

Ordered a set of plugins to try it for myself. I like Nik plugins and Alien Skin, but I prefer to not have to create tiff files for whenever I want a specific look. We'll see how it goes.

1 upvote
HomoSapiensWannaBe
By HomoSapiensWannaBe (Feb 13, 2013)

C'mon guys & gals,
Move those damn Lightroom sliders and get the look you want. Play with the Tone Curve. No need to buy overpriced add-ons like this, unless you just want to!

8 upvotes
Lucena
By Lucena (Feb 13, 2013)

This is not a simple presets. They creates camera profiles to simulate film. Its gorgeous and works with almost all cameras and situations.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Feb 13, 2013)

sure they're gorgeous, but not at the price they're asking.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 13, 2013)

You can sell almost anything into this market if you create the impression that it will magically convert pedestrian shots into "art". The more you charge the more desirable the product will appear to be.
But it ain't the camera, it ain't the lens and it ain't the software either.

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 13, 2013)

This is for people who like their shots to actually match certain types and brands of Film. It even discerns different ways that the film would physically be processed (see demo video). If you just want some random 'effect' then sure by all means use Instagram or whatnot.

2 upvotes
theFlasher
By theFlasher (Feb 13, 2013)

"If you just want some random 'effect' then sure by all means use Instagram or whatnot."

The problem is that the vast majority of folk don't know or care about Provia, Ektachrome, Portra or whatver..... the sample pics LOOK like they were processed in Instagram and you are paying $$$$ so that your pics can look like they were taken on an iPhone and then processed in Instagram.

Like someone else said above" Move those damn Lightroom sliders and get the look you want."

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Feb 13, 2013)

"Like someone else said above"

So why repeat it ? Some care for the difference, and some don't. We've already established that.

1 upvote
Under The Sun
By Under The Sun (8 months ago)

theFlasher, I have a few clients who really like the look of old film and willing to pay for it. its not about the preference of the majority, its about the preference of the photographer and his/her client (if that person makes a living in photography). For me spending 80 bucks for a bunch of preset can easily be covered in less then a day's work.

0 upvotes
Nikon007
By Nikon007 (Feb 13, 2013)

Nothing more than presets, why should it cost almost as much as LR itself?

4 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 13, 2013)

The free market is a beautiful thing. If you don't see the value in it, don't buy it. Many people will.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 13, 2013)

The images on the website (clicking on the above image takes you to there) do look fantastic. OK the cold tone, cross processed look is a bit overused, but the two Polaroid 690+ images are very nice. Impressive.

2 upvotes
acidic
By acidic (Feb 12, 2013)

Back in the day, I had a catalog of film scans of out of focus lightboxes exposed to a middle gray. Blank 4000dpi scans from Velvia, Provia, Kodachrome, Ektachrome made up my film grain library. I found myself often adding grain to my dSLR images via layer in Photoshop for my clients. You see, in the early days of digital photography, I still had many clients who thought digital images looked too artificial and sterile. A bit a grain and curves/saturation adjustment always did the trick to make the photo look more realistic. Also, heavy handed WB adjustments were to be avoided. Photos obviously taken in open shade should have still had a bluish cast, otherwise it looked fake. Funny how things change.

Now it's time to move backwards ;-)

3 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Feb 12, 2013)

How many ridiculous presets and plugins are made not to shoot film.
By the way, which scanner is simulated? Noritsu???? Ha-ha
Or what paper, if supposed an optical print?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Todd Ka
By Todd Ka (Feb 12, 2013)

Perfect! Now a picture taken by a $3000 camera can look like a picture taken with an app on a $300 phone, so it can look like it was taken with a $70 ebay purchase.

6 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 13, 2013)

and you get to pay 120 bucks for that.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 13, 2013)

Sounds like you don't remember or never knew how beautiful a properly shot Velvia or Tri-X image looks. Achieving the color palette or grain structure of the many wonderful films is something companies like Nik have been doing for quite some time. And there's a reason.

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 13, 2013)

Changing the color and contrast balance is something many people do to their photos already. This just provides presets for doing so and they can drastically change the mood of photo. It is not the same as instagram unless you want it to be.

0 upvotes
Under The Sun
By Under The Sun (8 months ago)

Haha thats one way to put it. But seriously it is still gives us a choice and choice is always good.

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Feb 12, 2013)

Any word on an Aperture version?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 13, 2013)

Both 01 and 02 have Aperture versions so I'm guessing 03 will be released for Aperture.

0 upvotes
Randy Benter
By Randy Benter (Feb 12, 2013)

A visit to their web site was frustrating; it is heavy on the art, light on information and difficult to navigate. I could not find any reference to a trial version, which is disappointing. I am interested in both the custom camera profiles and the film emulations. I could not find out if they have a single custom profile for each camera or if they have multiple custom profiles for each camera.

0 upvotes
dilonious
By dilonious (Feb 13, 2013)

no trial version (no way to uninstall/deactivate Lr presets)

each film stock is a custom camera profile and has a few presets of different intensities.

you get standard, canon, nikon, and now fuji when you get 03.

0 upvotes
dgblackout
By dgblackout (Feb 13, 2013)

This might help http://vimeo.com/59473771

A little walkthrough of it.

0 upvotes
BingoCharlie
By BingoCharlie (Feb 12, 2013)

I wonder how this compares to DXO's Film Pack 3?

1 upvote
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Feb 12, 2013)

I think it must be similar to DXO. Not so good perhaps. DXO has a lot of experience on this.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 12, 2013)

I like the presets a little bit better, but of course DxO is cheaper and supports more platforms and software.

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Feb 13, 2013)

Or Alienskins Exposure 4 which is also very good,but I do use DXO filmpack a lot and love it,it needs to be updated to output to a separate/new layer though.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 12, 2013)

I wish these guys had a standalone version, I don't use ACR or Lightroom.

1 upvote
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Feb 12, 2013)

I say the same, but I use Lightroom. I just prefer standalone versions.

1 upvote
michaelbs
By michaelbs (Feb 13, 2013)

Why? It is so easy when it is a preset.

0 upvotes
SlavaKM
By SlavaKM (Feb 17, 2013)

It'll get you close. Snapseed is $19 http://www.snapseed.com/home/desktop/features/

0 upvotes
Total comments: 74