Joined on Mar 5, 2019


Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
In reply to:

georgar82: Looks like those filters are stolen or reverse-engineered from RNI Aero

If what you're saying was true, how would then VSCO itself sue PicsArt for reverse-engineering their filters?,employees%20who%20had%20opened%20an

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 12:59 UTC

Looks like those filters are stolen or reverse-engineered from RNI Aero

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 07:26 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

DanielDPhoto: Looks like a poorly copied RNI Aerochrome

It is indeed! And, unlike RNI, the VSCO skintones are quite horrible

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 07:25 UTC
In reply to:

SR Hadden: I see this just as another filter, not a substitute for real IR. The photo of the ladies on the lawn looks interesting to me just because it's weird and dreamlike. I would prefer to get this look from RNI, though. The VSCO app tracks you and collects a lot of data and links it to you, including your search history, for no good reason that I can tell.

I believe RNI tracks you too. I don't think they collect your personal details but the app clearly has google and facebook analytics sending out some data.

However I would much prefer RNI too, it's a small hard-working vendor and the quality of their film profiles is much higher than anything VSCO has ever produced.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 07:24 UTC
In reply to:

MagicCH: Interesting. I shoot with two IR cameras (Sony F828 and Ricoh GXR both modified for IR use). Did shoot year ago on IR film, but have to say digital IR is very interesting nd enjoyable if you find the right subjects. Will try the app although like many would prefer it for use on a computer as its not something I would normally do on a mobile. It will be interesting to see how it compares to real IR wavelengths, but for casual users it may be useful. For B&W photography IR does give a very different view and is long lasting if you get the bug. It is a bit of a shame that users want to simulate rather than do IR for real, but that`s what we see a lot of today, its another tool to use. It might inspire some to actually try real IR photography.

They've seemingly stolen it from another app called RNI Aero. The original still looks better to me, especially the skin-tones.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2021 at 07:20 UTC

But it breaks a non-destructive workflow, right?

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2021 at 21:17 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Siobhan_K: I think this may be a step back from RNI version 4. Why? Because you can't apply these ICC profiles as a new layer.

Applying a preset as a distinct layer is one of the standout, unique strengths of Capture One. Because you can then adjust the opacity ("strength") of the preset, or you can modify aspects of your original layer beneath the preset, or you can selectively mask the preset layer, or you can blend in additional adjustments above or below.

This capability gives one a very photoshop-like workflow, all while still working non-destructively with original RAW data. One might make global adjustments to the base layer, then apply a preset as a layer, adjust its opacity to taste, then apply additional layers to dodge-burn or clone-heal, luminosity masks, selective color grades, or any other retouches one cares to make.

I see that RNI gives four "strength" levels to the new profiles, but the inability layer and group with them . . . sucks.

The C1's inability to apply ICC profiles to layers sucks indeed. However the actual profiles in RNI v.5 are a huge leap forward from v.4, imao.

The separation of colors, skintones, tonality, it all just feels like film. I don't know how they've done it, but it's clearly something you can't do with C1 tools.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2021 at 20:39 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: I just love film simulations. They hide the "imperfections" better and makes them more appealing.

I guess it's about the color inaccuracies, overall harmony and character and the way how film renders highlights.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2021 at 20:31 UTC

Unless you're spoilt beyond any repair, this is truly impressive for such a tiny camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2020 at 20:58 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sirkhann: $99 for 3 film simulations? You must be out of your mind!

Sirkhann I bought Mastin's LR Kodak pack last year and deeply regret it too. Luckily I was able to recover my money but had to file a chargeback with my bank.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2019 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Those are negative films, and you cannot do an accurate simulation of a negative film by itself. It is totally meaningless. No one sits and stare at negative film. Do they?

Therefor you need to define how to interpret the negative.

A. I guess that the most pure choice would be to also simulate some Kodak print machine and paper. Including correction for color temperature.

B. Another choice would be to simulate some standard scanning procedure. Probably also used by some Kodak lab. Do there exist some open definition for such a scanning?

Anyhow - who, except nerds, would be interested in the conversion being very accurate? I guess it would be some pro that do not want to change their work flow and that use either A or B above.

So - I would say that the target for this product, except nerds, is extremely tiny.

Except, of course, if the blurb above is misleadinbg. maybe the strength of this product is not its accuracy, but the very easy to use tools to modify the result.

ML is a scam. I was stupid enough to buy their Kodak pack for LR last year, and it was miles away from the real film. Just a bunch of semi-random settings and contrast at +65. Completely tasteless overcooked look with orange skin.

It was such a complete rubbish in fact that I ended up opening a chargeback.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2019 at 21:15 UTC
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11