Hacking VSCO E-M5 Camera Profiles for Olympus E-PL5 or E-PM2

Just a heads up that I was able to successfully modify Lightroom Olympus E-M5 VSCO Camera Profiles to work with Olympus E-PL5 or E-PM2 raw images.

NOTE: Both the Olympus E-PL5 and E-PM2 use the same sensor as the E-M5.

1. Grab dcptool from here: http://dcptool.sourceforge.net/Introduction.html

2. Use dcptool to decompile any VSCO .dcp Camera Profile to .xml

3. Open the .xml file in any text or .xml editor.

4. Modify the following line near the bottom of the .xml file to match your camera model: <UniqueCameraModelRestriction>Olympus E-M5</UniqueCameraModelRestriction>

5. Use dcptool to recompile the .xml file to .dcp

6. Copy the .dcp file to the appropriate Camera Profiles folder.

7. Restart Lightroom and enjoy using Olympus VSCO Presets with your E-PL5 or E-PM2 images.

The difference between original Olympus output using the Adobe Standard camera profile, VSCO with Olympus Camera Profile, and VSCO Generic is substantial.

Whether they're any good or not is subjective.

VSCO makes Camera Profiles for each of their presets for various popular camera models. They also make a generic set of presets that work with all images to produce a film effect.

I wasn't content with the generic set of presets, so I set out to make the E-M5 preset work with E-PL5 and E-PM2 images since they use the same sensor and will produce images more inline with how VSCO intended.

I provided the tutorial for anyone interested in using the Olympus E-M5 presets with RAW images produced by the E-PL5 or E-PM2.

Call me confused, but my VSCO sets in LR are for "Olympus" cameras.  Not for any particular Olympus model at all.  What on earth are you referring to?

VSCO regularly updates all their VSCO Film sets. The latest versions use custom Camera Profiles for specific camera models to better create the film effect that VSCO is out to emulate.

For example, go to the bottom of this page to look at all current supported camera models for VSCO Film 01: http://vsco.co/film/01/lightroom4

If you purchased any of their sets, the updates to those sets should be FREE!

Below you can see the VSCO Camera Profile that automatically gets loaded when I select the Fuji 160C for Olympus camera.

If you don't hack and you don't have a supported camera model, you can still use the Olympus VSCO presets, but the Camera Profile will stay at Adobe Standard.

The difference between an Olympus VSCO preset that uses the Adobe Standard profile and a custom VSCO Camera Profile is significant.

Below are 4 images. I matched the Basic Lightroom Sliders in the Original Olympus image to match what the VSCO Fuji 160C uses for sake of comparison. Also the Detail sliders are matched across all 4 images.

The following image was shot on a Olympus E-PL5 at ISO 3200. VSCO does not make camera profiles for the E-PL5. They do make camera profiles for the E-M5. I hacked the Fuji 160C camera profile VSCO made for the E-M5 so that it would work with images shot on a E-PL5 (result shown in 3rd image below). To really see the difference, you'll need to look at the images full screen. It is substantial even though the thumbnail may not make it look obvious.

Original Olympus RAW Image with Basic sliders matched to Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C

Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using Adobe Standard camera profile

Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using hacked VSCO Fuji 160C Camera Profile for the E-M5

Standard (Generic) VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using Adobe Standard Camera Profile

SFXR wrote:

Call me confused, but my VSCO sets in LR are for "Olympus" cameras. Not for any particular Olympus model at all. What on earth are you referring to?

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

First off, thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me how to determine the correct value for the UniqueCameraModelRestriction element for an arbitrary raw file. I'm trying to make a copy of an E-M5I profile that will work with raws from the E-M5II, but I haven't yet figured out the correct Camera Model value to use for it.

I'll continue attempting to work it out via trial and error, but I thought I'd see whether you knew exactly how to determine which Camera Model value to use for any arbitrary camera.

For instance, should I look in a raw file? When I look in a raw file from my E-M5I, I don't see any values that match the value in my VSCO UniqueCameraModelRestriction elements in .dcp files for that camera. Same is true if I view the metadata for an E-M5I raw in LightRoom.

If I figure out the correct value for the E-M5II on my own, I'll report back here, but it'd also be great to know how to determine the correct value for any arbitrary camera for future reference.

texinwien wrote:

First off, thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me how to determine the correct value for the UniqueCameraModelRestriction element for an arbitrary raw file. I'm trying to make a copy of an E-M5I profile that will work with raws from the E-M5II, but I haven't yet figured out the correct Camera Model value to use for it.

I'll continue attempting to work it out via trial and error, but I thought I'd see whether you knew exactly how to determine which Camera Model value to use for any arbitrary camera.

For instance, should I look in a raw file? When I look in a raw file from my E-M5I, I don't see any values that match the value in my VSCO UniqueCameraModelRestriction elements in .dcp files for that camera. Same is true if I view the metadata for an E-M5I raw in LightRoom.

If I figure out the correct value for the E-M5II on my own, I'll report back here, but it'd also be great to know how to determine the correct value for any arbitrary camera for future reference.

The correct UniqueCameraModelRestriction value for the E-M5II is "Olympus E-M5 Mark II".

I figured that out by using dcptool to decompile one of the Adobe camera-specific profiles for the E-M5II and checking the value there. Still not sure whether or not there's an easier way to determine the correct value for an arbitrary camera - whether or not there's a master list of these, for example.

texinwien wrote:

The correct UniqueCameraModelRestriction value for the E-M5II is "Olympus E-M5 Mark II".

I figured that out by using dcptool to decompile one of the Adobe camera-specific profiles for the E-M5II and checking the value there. Still not sure whether or not there's an easier way to determine the correct value for an arbitrary camera - whether or not there's a master list of these, for example.

Great sleuthing!  My first thought when reading your prior message is that I'd find it in the EXIF metadata that's attached to the image, but there's isn't a clear answer there.  The model of the camera is there, but I can't see any combination of fields that would yield a reliable value for the .dcp file.

Just out of curiosity, what are the values for "Make" and "Model" in your image metadata?

Mine is "OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP." and "E-PL5".

uberjer wrote:

texinwien wrote:

The correct UniqueCameraModelRestriction value for the E-M5II is "Olympus E-M5 Mark II".

I figured that out by using dcptool to decompile one of the Adobe camera-specific profiles for the E-M5II and checking the value there. Still not sure whether or not there's an easier way to determine the correct value for an arbitrary camera - whether or not there's a master list of these, for example.

Great sleuthing! My first thought when reading your prior message is that I'd find it in the EXIF metadata that's attached to the image, but there's isn't a clear answer there. The model of the camera is there, but I can't see any combination of fields that would yield a reliable value for the .dcp file.

I'm not sure who chooses the DNG name for each camera model. I read up on that in the DNG specification, where they give some rules about how to come up with a name, but they don't say who's responsible for that or give clear instructions on how to determine the DNG camera model name from existing information.

Just out of curiosity, what are the values for "Make" and "Model" in your image metadata?

Mine is "OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP." and "E-PL5".

For the E-M5 II, the values are as follows:
Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Model: E-M5MarkII

So there's no way to reliably get from those to the DNG UniqueCameraModelRestriction value, which is "Olympus E-M5 Mark II".

Weird.

uberjer wrote:

texinwien wrote:

The correct UniqueCameraModelRestriction value for the E-M5II is "Olympus E-M5 Mark II".

I figured that out by using dcptool to decompile one of the Adobe camera-specific profiles for the E-M5II and checking the value there. Still not sure whether or not there's an easier way to determine the correct value for an arbitrary camera - whether or not there's a master list of these, for example.

Great sleuthing! My first thought when reading your prior message is that I'd find it in the EXIF metadata that's attached to the image, but there's isn't a clear answer there. The model of the camera is there, but I can't see any combination of fields that would yield a reliable value for the .dcp file.

Just out of curiosity, what are the values for "Make" and "Model" in your image metadata?

Mine is "OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP." and "E-PL5".

I put together some instructions, as well as a list of terminal commands that can be used to make copies (untwisted or not) of E-M5I VSCO camera profiles for use with the E-M5II.

With minor modifications, the commands can also be used to make copies of existing VSCO profiles for any camera that work with just about any other camera (so you could use something other than the E-M5I profiles as the basis for the copies, and you could generate final copies that work with a camera other than the E-M5II).

You can decide whether or not you want to create 'untwisted' copies of the original profiles or not - the instructions cover both options.

Hope someone finds this useful. Feel free to leave a comment here or shoot me a private message if you have questions or run into any issues along the way.

il_alexk wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

A couple of potential reasons:

1. Some people (me included) enjoy 'hacking' just to see what's possible.
2. Some people (me included) are proponents of the 'time is money' principle. If I find a thing desirable and I find that the price of that thing is lower than the value of the amount of my time that would be required to create a complete replacement of that thing, I'll usually buy the thing rather than making a copy of it on my own. In my case, the value of the amount of my time that would be required to create a complete replacement of the VSCO presets and camera profiles is much higher than the price of those presets and profiles, et voila, I decided to purchase them. YM (and the value of your time) MV.

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

A couple of potential reasons:

1. Some people (me included) enjoy 'hacking' just to see what's possible.
2. Some people (me included) are proponents of the 'time is money' principle.

My farther uses this argument when he pays to his internet provider to help with connecting his mobile phone to the home wifi.

Anyway, there are thousands of equally good free presets for LR. The main reason for this is that "lovely profiles are so simple to produce anyway" so people do not bother with charging you money.

In my case, the value of the amount of my time that would be required to create a complete replacement of the VSCO presets and camera profiles is much higher than the price of those presets and profiles

So why not to use the presets that are already available for free? It takes 5 minutes to find them on the web, thus hacking a commercial product is going to be more expensive both in terms of time and money. Plus, you are limiting yourself to a relatively small number of very expensive presets, compared to what the collective knowledge of LR users has to offer.

il_alexk wrote:

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

A couple of potential reasons:

1. Some people (me included) enjoy 'hacking' just to see what's possible.
2. Some people (me included) are proponents of the 'time is money' principle.

My farther uses this argument when he pays to his internet provider to help with connecting his mobile phone to the home wifi.

Depending on the value of your father's time, how much time he thinks he'd need to figure out how to set this up and how much frustration he's likely to experience in doing so, this may well be a logical decision on his part.

Anyway, there are thousands of equally good free presets for LR.

Really? Are there thousands of equally good free presets made specifically for the E-M5? Are they all organized together in one place?

The main reason for this is that "lovely profiles are so simple to produce anyway" so people do not bother with charging you money.

In my case, the value of the amount of my time that would be required to create a complete replacement of the VSCO presets and camera profiles is much higher than the price of those presets and profiles

So why not to use the presets that are already available for free?

A number of reasons. One of the foremost reasons is that I don't find it very interesting or enjoyable to search around for, download, install and test a bunch of disorganized profiles of unknown quality from creators whose skills in this area I often have little to no way to judge, just to see whether the profiles are to my liking.

Another reason is that, for what is a small price to pay (for me), I can purchase 80 model-specific custom profiles for each of ~100 (and growing) cameras (yes, that's right, around 8000 model-specific custom camera profiles) plus roughly 400 brand-specific presets (times 6 brands, plus one for 'all other' brands, for a total of around 2800 presets) from a single, professional outfit who specializes in creating profiles and presets, and who has plenty of good online samples of images processed using their profiles for me to judge prior to purchasing them.

It takes 5 minutes to find them on the web,

My google-fu is pretty good, and I'll tell you right now that it takes more than 5 minutes with a standard query like "free em5 camera profiles" to find "thousands of equally good free presets for LR" for my camera / lens combinations, at least.

In google's first 10 results for that search (for me), there are 3 resources that point to LR profiles for the EM5. Two articles mention and link to the same, third-party resource that requires me to register before I can even learn how many profiles they may have that are relevant to my cameras. One link pouts to a forum discussion that contains another link to a three-page list of LR profiles. Only two of the profiles on that three page list are of interest to me (based on my camera and lens combinations).

The other 7 out of the first 10 google results for my search don't contain links to free, third party profiles for my camera. One is for huelight's paid profiles. The others are simply irrelevant, AFAICT.

I timed it, and it took me about 9 minutes to go with reasonable care through the links in google's first 10 results that looked like they might be of interest to me to be reasonably sure whether or not they were actually of interest to me

In short, your 5 minute estimate is clearly an understatement. And I haven't even begun to download, install and test any of the links (nor have I seen any well-organized samples of images processed with these profiles, at least not yet).

thus hacking a commercial product is going to be more expensive both in terms of time and money.

First off, I disagree that it will be more expensive in terms of time and money, especially since my 'hacking' only really has to be performed once for a single profile and camera, after which it's a series of quick copy, paste and replace operations.

Furthermore, I can quickly repurpose all of my command line commands to make copies of all of my commercial profiles for any other camera, for instance, for my GM5, as well as my E-M5II. The more cameras I do this with, the less time will have been required for each new camera-specific profile - the returns for my initial effort are practically guaranteed to increase over time.

Additionally, I prefer 'hacking' to searching for, downloading and testing resources of questionable quality from unknown sources. I'd rather spend twice as much time 'hacking' the commercial profiles than searching for, downloading and testing the free ones.

And, finally, there's an additional value to the 'hacking' - I've learned a few things along the way, as I usually do when I work out how to 'hack' something.

Plus, you are limiting yourself to a relatively small number

This is, of course, a false dilemma. I'm in no way limiting myself by purchasing commercial presets. If I feel the need, I can still go out and search for free presets and add as many as I want, to my heart's content.

I have used free presets and profiles in the past, by the way, and haven't been all that impressed with any of the ones I've tried.

of very expensive presets,

Perhaps you consider $0.0125 (and falling, over time) per custom camera profile and $0.036 (and falling, over time) per brand-specific preset expensive. I certainly don't. See math below.

compared to what the collective knowledge of LR users has to offer.

The team at VSCO has created and released more than 8000 model-specific camera profiles and 2800 brand-specific presets. It's likely they have more experience than any other single profile-creator / preset creator, other than Adobe, perhaps

The Math:

I've never paid full price for a VSCO film pack (watch for promotions), and it has thus cost me less than $400 to by VSCO's film packs 01-06.
Because I can write the cost ff the packs off as a business expense, the actual total cost for me has been less than $200.
This includes 80 model-specific custom camera profiles times roughly 100 cameras (right now - the number of cameras grows as VSCO adds support for newer camera models over time, which updates paid customers get for free, in perpetuity).
This also includes roughly 400 brand-specific custom presets times 7 (one set of roughly 400 presets for each of 6 brands plus one 'Standard', non-brand-specific set) (again, right now - the number of brands grows as VSCO adds support for new ones).

8000 (and growing) camera-specific profiles plus 2800 (and growing) brand-specific presets for $200 (after tax writeoff).

If we split the $200 evenly over profiles and presets, so $100 for profiles and $100 for presets, each profile has cost me just over one US penny ($0.0125), and each preset has cost me a little over three and a half US pennies ($0.036).

While that calculus may not work out for you, at my hourly rate, it's a very good deal, indeed, for me

VSCO regularly updates all their VSCO Film sets. The latest versions use custom Camera Profiles for specific camera models to better create the film effect that VSCO is out to emulate.

For example, go to the bottom of this page to look at all current supported camera models for VSCO Film 01: http://vsco.co/film/01/lightroom4

If you purchased any of their sets, the updates to those sets should be FREE!

Below you can see the VSCO Camera Profile that automatically gets loaded when I select the Fuji 160C for Olympus camera.

If you don't hack and you don't have a supported camera model, you can still use the Olympus VSCO presets, but the Camera Profile will stay at Adobe Standard.

The difference between an Olympus VSCO preset that uses the Adobe Standard profile and a custom VSCO Camera Profile is significant.

Below are 4 images. I matched the Basic Lightroom Sliders in the Original Olympus image to match what the VSCO Fuji 160C uses for sake of comparison. Also the Detail sliders are matched across all 4 images.

The following image was shot on a Olympus E-PL5 at ISO 3200. VSCO does not make camera profiles for the E-PL5. They do make camera profiles for the E-M5. I hacked the Fuji 160C camera profile VSCO made for the E-M5 so that it would work with images shot on a E-PL5 (result shown in 3rd image below). To really see the difference, you'll need to look at the images full screen. It is substantial even though the thumbnail may not make it look obvious.

Original Olympus RAW Image with Basic sliders matched to Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C

Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using Adobe Standard camera profile

Olympus VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using hacked VSCO Fuji 160C Camera Profile for the E-M5

Standard (Generic) VSCO Fuji 160C Preset Applied using Adobe Standard Camera Profile

SFXR wrote:

Call me confused, but my VSCO sets in LR are for "Olympus" cameras. Not for any particular Olympus model at all. What on earth are you referring to?

Were those shot on the defunct section of the Bay Bridge? Very nice.

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

A couple of potential reasons:

1. Some people (me included) enjoy 'hacking' just to see what's possible.
2. Some people (me included) are proponents of the 'time is money' principle.

My farther uses this argument when he pays to his internet provider to help with connecting his mobile phone to the home wifi.

Depending on the value of your father's time, how much time he thinks he'd need to figure out how to set this up and how much frustration he's likely to experience in doing so, this may well be a logical decision on his part.

I don't know if this has anything to do with the value of his time. I'd call it "old school" vs "new school". Anyway, my kids are capable of connecting their phones to any WiFi within the first 30 seconds after visiting our friends.

Anyway, there are thousands of equally good free presets for LR.

Really? Are there thousands of equally good free presets made specifically for the E-M5? Are they all organized together in one place? ...

... Thousand lines ... skipped

It takes 5 minutes to find them on the web,

My google-fu is pretty good, and I'll tell you right now that it takes more than 5 minutes with a standard query like "free em5 camera profiles" to find "thousands of equally good free presets for LR" for my camera / lens combinations, at least.

Just drop the "e-m5" from your search. Start with a photo with a proper white-balance, than use generic presets, which is actually the way LR works anyway. I'll be surprised to see a significant difference between VCSO EM-5 profiles and other generic profiles that assumes a proper WB to start with.h

The team at VSCO has created and released more than 8000 model-specific camera profiles and 2800 brand-specific presets. It's likely they have more experience than any other single profile-creator / preset creator, other than Adobe, perhaps

Shall we restart a Linux (free) vs Windows (commercial) war? There are plenty of other examples, when freeware matches the quality of commercial products.

The Math:

I've never paid full price for a VSCO film pack (watch for promotions), and it has thus cost me less than $400 to by VSCO's film packs 01-06.
Because I can write the cost ff the packs off as a business expense, the actual total cost for me has been less than $200.
This includes 80 model-specific custom camera profiles times roughly 100 cameras (right now - the number of cameras grows as VSCO adds support for newer camera models over time, which updates paid customers get for free, in perpetuity).
This also includes roughly 400 brand-specific custom presets times 7 (one set of roughly 400 presets for each of 6 brands plus one 'Standard', non-brand-specific set) (again, right now - the number of brands grows as VSCO adds support for new ones).

8000 (and growing) camera-specific profiles plus 2800 (and growing) brand-specific presets for $200 (after tax writeoff).

If we split the $200 evenly over profiles and presets, so $100 for profiles and $100 for presets, each profile has cost me just over one US penny ($0.0125), and each preset has cost me a little over three and a half US pennies ($0.036).

While that calculus may not work out for you, at my hourly rate, it's a very good deal, indeed, for me

My math is different. After playing with available presets, I've learned that there are no presets that work for me as they are. Hence I always edit photos according to my taste, not to the collective taste of VCSO engineers. It takes me exactly 30 seconds to get the colours I want, plus I have ~10 my own presets that I use as a starting point for my edits. Surprisingly, they work equally well for all cameras I've ever owned (see my comment about WB above).

Compared to your workflow, I don;t have to spend minutes to circle through 2800 profiles, to find the one I want for every photo. This makes a huge savings for me, at least at my hourly rate.

il_alexk wrote:

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

texinwien wrote:

il_alexk wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

Sure you might be able to get then to work but are they any good.

Lovely DCP profiles are so simple to produce anyway, why bother with the hacking.

So true...

A couple of potential reasons:

1. Some people (me included) enjoy 'hacking' just to see what's possible.
2. Some people (me included) are proponents of the 'time is money' principle.

My farther uses this argument when he pays to his internet provider to help with connecting his mobile phone to the home wifi.

Depending on the value of your father's time, how much time he thinks he'd need to figure out how to set this up and how much frustration he's likely to experience in doing so, this may well be a logical decision on his part.

I don't know if this has anything to do with the value of his time. I'd call it "old school" vs "new school". Anyway, my kids are capable of connecting their phones to any WiFi within the first 30 seconds after visiting our friends.

Anyway, there are thousands of equally good free presets for LR.

Really? Are there thousands of equally good free presets made specifically for the E-M5? Are they all organized together in one place? ...

... Thousand lines ... skipped

It takes 5 minutes to find them on the web,

My google-fu is pretty good, and I'll tell you right now that it takes more than 5 minutes with a standard query like "free em5 camera profiles" to find "thousands of equally good free presets for LR" for my camera / lens combinations, at least.

Just drop the "e-m5" from your search. Start with a photo with a proper white-balance, than use generic presets, which is actually the way LR works anyway.

Usually? LR offers camera-specific profiles for some cameras, both E-M5 models included (Camera Muted, Camera Natural, Camera Portrait and Camera Vivid).

I'll be surprised to see a significant difference between VCSO EM-5 profiles and other generic profiles that assumes a proper WB to start with.

It sounds like you're not really sure whether there'd be a difference -- just conjecture on your part, right?

The team at VSCO has created and released more than 8000 model-specific camera profiles and 2800 brand-specific presets. It's likely they have more experience than any other single profile-creator / preset creator, other than Adobe, perhaps

Shall we restart a Linux (free) vs Windows (commercial) war? There are plenty of other examples, when freeware matches the quality of commercial products.

Not a good analogy. Linux has thousands of volunteers working together to improve a central codebase. You're talking about many individuals working on their own to output different profiles and presets.

The Math:

I've never paid full price for a VSCO film pack (watch for promotions), and it has thus cost me less than $400 to by VSCO's film packs 01-06.
Because I can write the cost ff the packs off as a business expense, the actual total cost for me has been less than $200.
This includes 80 model-specific custom camera profiles times roughly 100 cameras (right now - the number of cameras grows as VSCO adds support for newer camera models over time, which updates paid customers get for free, in perpetuity).
This also includes roughly 400 brand-specific custom presets times 7 (one set of roughly 400 presets for each of 6 brands plus one 'Standard', non-brand-specific set) (again, right now - the number of brands grows as VSCO adds support for new ones).

8000 (and growing) camera-specific profiles plus 2800 (and growing) brand-specific presets for $200 (after tax writeoff).

If we split the $200 evenly over profiles and presets, so $100 for profiles and $100 for presets, each profile has cost me just over one US penny ($0.0125), and each preset has cost me a little over three and a half US pennies ($0.036).

While that calculus may not work out for you, at my hourly rate, it's a very good deal, indeed, for me

My math is different. After playing with available presets, I've learned that there are no presets that work for me as they are. Hence I always edit photos according to my taste, not to the collective taste of VCSO engineers.

Oh sure, I edit mine to taste, as well. The VSCO presets and profiles simply offer what I find to be a good starting point in many cases.

It takes me exactly 30 seconds to get the colours I want, plus I have ~10 my own presets that I use as a starting point for my edits. Surprisingly, they work equally well for all cameras I've ever owned (see my comment about WB above).

Compared to your workflow, I don;t have to spend minutes to circle through 2800 profiles, to find the one I want for every photo. This makes a huge savings for me, at least at my hourly rate.

You've gravely misunderstood my workflow I've only installed the presets and profiles for the cameras I use, so I don't need to scroll through 2800 to find the ones I want, but all 2800 are available to me if I decide to use them in the future.

In short, $0.0125 per camera profile and $0.036 per preset is simply not expensive (for me - YMMV), and I'd rather shell out that little bit of cash than waste my time trying different profiles created by people whose skills I have no way of judging, beforehand.

I've given that a shot, already, and haven't been too impressed with what I've found. Again, YMMV.

They were taken up in Seattle.  I was trying to find a vantage point where I could shoot the city skyline and stumbled upon this closed section of the bridge.  The bridge is used during the day time and is closed at night.

It totally looks like the bottom half of the Bay Bridge though.

uberjer wrote:

VSCO regularly updates all their VSCO Film sets. The latest versions use custom Camera Profiles for specific camera models to better create the film effect that VSCO is out to emulate.

For example, go to the bottom of this page to look at all current supported camera models for VSCO Film 01: http://vsco.co/film/01/lightroom4

If you purchased any of their sets, the updates to those sets should be FREE!

Below you can see the VSCO Camera Profile that automatically gets loaded when I select the Fuji 160C for Olympus camera.

If you don't hack and you don't have a supported camera model, you can still use the Olympus VSCO presets, but the Camera Profile will stay at Adobe Standard.

The difference between an Olympus VSCO preset that uses the Adobe Standard profile and a custom VSCO Camera Profile is significant.

This is an old post but this information was so helpful to me.  Thanks!!  I've been struggling to get VSCO up and running to my likings, but this explanation has helped a lot.