VSCO, Mastin Lab Presets, Florabella, and Pretty Presets. If you've looked for advice on retouching in the last few years, you've probably been recommended one of these preset and action systems at least once. They're designed to give you beautiful film simulation and color tones to make your images look great using a single click of the mouse - and I hate them all.
Before I get too far into this rant, I do want to admit my own guilt. I've certainly used VSCO and similar preset systems in the past. Culling through 3000 wedding photos in Lightroom and editing 600 of them is no easy task, and anything that can help simplify the process is a huge asset. Using VSCO and other systems is a great way to speed up your process, and your time is valuable, so by all means, speed it up when you can. That said, our addiction to these systems needs to be tamed.
Secondly, VSCO is singled out on the title solely because it is easily the most popular preset system available for photographers. Between mobile apps, Lightroom presets and 6 different packs of filters, VSCO has turned the film emulation presets game into a science. This article isn't designed to address VSCO solely, but using them as a face for all filter systems available for photographers.
Cookie Cutter Photography
Perhaps my biggest issue with all of these presets is that it makes you into a cookie cutter photographer. We all have access to these same algorithms, and as a result, it's easy to make your images look exactly like everyone else. Consistency is good when you're presenting your work, and preset systems will provide you with a very consistent style and look, at a huge sacrifice - uniqueness.
And I hate the "We'll fix it in post" mentality. I like to think that my skills as a photographer come from my skills with a camera, not with my skills with a Wacom pen. However, a lot of my personal style of work comes from retouching. It's a process that takes a lot of time (sometimes more than shooting does), and allows me to tweak and colors or contrast that is identified with my work.
To me, using one click presets is a lot like shooting in Auto, or Av mode. Sure, you'll get a lot of great photos out of it, but it's not usually the best solution.
The Easy Button
Perhaps my distaste for preset systems comes from my own stubbornness more than anything. One thing I learned a long time ago is that there is no such thing a shortcuts. If you want to be successful - in anything you do - you're going to have to work for it. And you're going to have to work at it more than the next guy. All of my retouching techniques were learned because I wanted to become better. I wanted to be successful, and show off photographs that others weren't able to create. I wanted to be the best in the business.
And as a result, I know Photoshop. Nine times out of ten, I can look at a photo with a specific toning to it, and with enough time, can emulate that style with accuracy. This skill wasn't learned through clicking a series of actions or presets until I found one that looked right. This was done by adding gradient maps, selective coloring layers, dodging and burning, and then trashing it all to approach it with something new.
Solutions
The easiest solution to separating yourself from these preset systems is to learn the functions within Lightroom and Photoshop. One hell of a homework assignment, eh? Certainly the tools within Lightroom and Photoshop are expansive, and you could spend a lifetime learning all the hidden tools within the system. But through that education, you'll have a better understanding on how to approach your images, and grow considerably with your own photography.
And growth is good. Acclaimed author Malcolm Gladwell once said that it takes 10,000 hours to master anything. This statement has been largely regarded as a wise way of looking at things, so why not burn through a few of those hours in Photoshop? Solely using presets within your workflow is not going to make you better at retouching, and while you're pressing that easy button, others are getting a head start on their 10,000 hours. The only way to really grow in your skills is to challenge yourself.
The greatest downfall with Photoshop comes in how completely immense and overwhelming it is. With the tools provided, the possibilities within Photoshop are endless, so finding your footing sometimes feels impossible. Here are a few tutorials that can get your started on finding the incredible power of Photoshop.
- The biggest asset within Photoshop comes from Layer Masks. Layer Masks, in short, allows you to selectively adjust parts of the image. Using these along side other adjustment layers, allows you to adjust brightness, hue, saturation and anything else selectively, giving your images those unique principles, but only where needed.
- Blend Modes within Photoshop allows your stacked layers to interact drastically different from one and another. Using these Blend Modes taught photographers how to Dodge and Burn better, the power of Frequency Separation, and get exceptional results through pure experimentation. For learning everything about Blending Modes, there is no better book than The Hidden Power of Blending Modes by Scott Valentine.
- Using Selective Color adjustments, you're able to adjust individual tones within Photoshop. While the technique takes time, it's all done in real time, allowing you to see the changes you're making to the image. Mastering this tool will allow you to mimic the color tones within popular preset systems, and give you full control of the changes made.
All this said, I own many of the VSCO packs and other preset systems. More often than not, I will have photos to retouch and I am still without a clear concept or color palette to use for retouching. Presets are a great way to quickly click through to find color grading that works well on the image, and some that do not. However, I'm never using them as a starting point, but rather, inspiration for my work that's being done in Photoshop.
Well, I for one use the SLR preset system and absolutely love it. I work in Lightroom 80% of the time and Photoshop 20% of the time and I absolutely know what I’m doing in both programs. I’ve been working in both for more than 5 years now. I’m not sure what is so bad about a preset. Presets are nothing special. They are developed with the exact same sliders within Lightroom that I would use to adjust my image without the Preset. A Preset just moves the sliders/curves to a starting point where I can further refine. No matter how an image is imported into Lightroom, it’s going to start somewhere. Your starting point may be different than mine, but it’s usually the same starting point for each of our workflows. Now, seldom do I click a preset and move on. There’s always a tweak here and a tweak there that needs to be made, but the preset will get you close in a click or two and then you refine it to the finish. If it needs to go to Photoshop from there, I can do that. I’m very comfortable and proficient in both programs. Now this may really upset the purist… but within Lightroom, I use the “PREVIOUS” button … and the Sync button … and the “OMG” AUTO SYNC button. In my opinion, those are presets.
Just seems a bit snobbish to attack a preset philosophy as if those that use them aren’t pure and undefiled.
When it comes to creative endeavors I think any tool is a good one.
If music wasn't subject to digital manipulation after recording can you imagine how boring the radio would be? ...or movies without special effects?
Good stuff Zach, I get where you are coming from but do disagree slightly. I think that so long as a preset is not the be-all, end-all of your editing process I think using them can be way more beneficial than doing it all manually. The key is having a vision, and knowing how to get there. Presets shouldn't, though obviously for some they do, define your vision for an image - but help you get to that vision. So long as you are making adjustments, taking the time to do actual post processing to refine the shot into your style/vision I think a preset is a great way to go.
Who cares, the only thing that matters is the final image. The less time I spend in front of computer the better.
Sounds like Zach is a photoshopographer.
Photoshopographer...I like that.
Except that knowing how to properly process your image is just as important as knowing how to create the base image in the camera to begin with. While photoshop (and its negative connotations) did not always exist, post processing has always existed. If you think the greats of the past just published their images right out of the camera, you are mistaken. Arguably two of the greatest photographers ever, Avadon and Adams could spend DAYS in a darkroom adjusting every part of the image until it was exactly how they wanted it. So could many others. I have no doubt in my mind that if any of the greats of the past had shot digital, all the time in the darkroom would instead be spent in front of a computer.
I've posted plenty of my before and afters on Facebook and here in Fstoppers articles. You're welcome to look through those and be the judge.
I don't understand why anyone cares if others use presets. Yes, there are images that have presets that make them look horrendous, but then again, I've seen much worse stuff from people who try to get "creative" with their own personal flavor of cross-processing everything and bringing up the blacks.
This kind of diatribe is similar to the one about natural light photographers. While there are those for whom the stereotype rings true, I don't think it's fair to go on the war path because others "just aren't doing photography the right way."
It's rather sanctimonious...and to what end?
You sir, have too much logic to be here haha. Well said.
Thank you for writing exactly what I was feeling. Live and let live, the cream will rise to the top.
You are right. This is very similar to the "rant" about natural light photographers, and I think a lot of people missed the point of that one too. No one is saying natural light photographers don't know what they are doing, just like Zach isn't (Im assuming) saying that anyone who uses presets doesn't know what they are doing.
I will say this though: There is a difference between "natural light" photographers who only use natural light because they don't understand lighting, especially flash/strobes, and one who knows how to light an image and simply prefers the way natural light looks. Similarly, there is a difference between someone who understands the fundamentals of retouching an image and uses presets to save time or help with consistency, and one who uses presets because clicking a preset button is the only way they know how to make their image look better.
I personally didnt get the idea that the article was directed at the ones who choose to use natural light or presets, but rather the ones who don't have any choice but to use them because they don't know better.
To me, honestly, you are right. Who cares? It doesn't change the way I shoot. In fact, it makes direct competition (same bid/market/pricepoint/etc) easier if the client and I both know i have more knowledge than the other person. But maybe, just maybe, there are natural light/preset photographers who read this and decide that part of being a professional (not just calling yourself one) is investing in education so you can truly understand your craft, and not just make pretty pictures.
Thank you Robert. You're absolutely right.
This article isn't designed as an attack at those who understand retouching, but use VSCO as a base or for inspiration. In fact, I make mention of that in the last paragraph...but people have gotten too heated to read that far.
The purpose of this article is to encourage others to learn the tools they have available. The only way to get better is to have an open and honest look at how you do things, and then investigate ways that you can improve.
I'm sure Picasso had his "presets"...no one complains. lol
"Why I Hate..." concluded with "I own many of"...interesting. My grandmother had one of the best gumbo recipes in Southern Louisiana. However (comma) even when she shared it with my mom or aunties, they never got the same dish. To think that every cook even ones who purchase pre-made roux (the base for gumbo) are going to have the same flavoring in their dishes is ludicrous. There is still the culinary experience and artistic integrity that comes with each soup...or not...not always the "lazy" factor. Now I get, where this article was going...and hopefully I'm allowed that same respect. I can't justify FS for knocking all of the painstaking efforts of the artists behind presets and actions...that deliver such bases to the industry (pro-togs, faux-togs, foe-togs, bro-togs, and mwacs alike.) Likewise I respect FS...so I won't retort with an article called "Why I HATE FS Articles that minimize the artistry that goes into the creation of presets/actions...and their assumptions that all who use them are lazy or lack creative ingenuity to make them their own." Zach...I expect better...because I know you have it in you. Aloha, t- PS: They are purchased...not filters that come with photoshop...so as much as you HATE...you funded. Sounds similar to our Middle East relations...oh wait...they're JUST PRESETS!
The crop tool, sharpen and blending modes are not presets?
My style is created behind the camera, not behind the screen. My style is a mix of how I direct people, how I shoot, what gear I use and how I light my subject. That's why I call myself a photographer, not a retoucher.
I use VSCO a lot, editing well over 500 wedding images takes me no more than an hour or two..
And with well over 1.000.000 possible combinations of the tools you get from VSCO, I really don't believe that using presets should make your work less unique..
I find the presets on VSCO well made and tasteful. It's not the use of presets that I find redundant all over the web. It's destination wedding photography, in places like Iceland or the Pacific Northwest, where you barely see the couple, they're usually not looking into each other's eyes but somewhere else, but still holding hands, maybe centre-framed, but definitely dwarfed by awesome scenery. And then VSCO'ed.
But you have got to love VSCO 03 Porta 160 filter as it gives you a hand...
Hmm.
1. Zach, I admire your verve.
2. Yet I (almost) won't be drawn into a bear-bating dialogue. :)
3. Me and my favorite presets get along just fine. Both VSCO and Alien Skin Exposure.
http://lifeascinema.blogspot.com/2013/07/halcyon-days.html
http://lifeascinema.blogspot.com/2013/07/cherokee-nation.html
http://lifeascinema.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-jungle-book.html
My issue with this argument is you essentially reduce the quality of photography to the merits of its post production. Does using VSCO make a photographer a "cookie cutter" artist, as you say, simply because it aesthetically resembles the work of others? Were photographers in the pre-digital environment producing "cookie cutter" work because they shot using the same pool of film stocks (that VSCO and others now emulate?) Can you candidly say that your work in PS and LR without presets is substantially different than the norms of professional photography today? Are layer masks, blending and dodging/burning not established (read: cookie cutter) trends in popular post production? Does using VSCO as a foundation negate the use of these techniques in a workflow? I respect and enjoy your work, Zach. And I understand your frustration. Maybe, like me, you're simply sometimes concerned (or irritated) by the amount of novice photographers who use presets to create lackluster images. But I feel that's a separate issue. An article like this, in which you suggest that (based on the programs I use) my photography is "cookie cutter" and I have not "mastered my craft," is simply inflammatory. I use VSCO in my workflow and still clock about 40-80 hours of post production per wedding. Am I mediocre? Yes or no, I don't think it's sensible to arrive at an answer to that question by only considering my post production techniques. Personally, I'd like to think my photography is about more than its post production.
I have never used VSCO, but I've heard of it because I have a VSCO app on my phone that I don't use. Most of my photos are edited in Lightroom only. But as I viewed the samples in the article, I preferred the VSCO examples over the alternative each time. Zach has made me curious to explore VSCO presets. ;~)
The author of the article voted me down for liking his VSCO samples more than his non VSCO samples? Really? Who's fault is that? Heh.
It felt like you were trolling. Plus, any and all of us reserve the right to vote things up or down.
But hey, keep doing you.
I am not trolling. I seriously, seriously have never used VSCO filters. Here's my feed using almost exclusively LR only. I have NIK and played recently with Analog Efex Pro, but I find going into those filters takes me longer than just doing my edits in Lightroom. I seriously like your VSCO shots. Sorry if that seems like trolling: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/jayhawk/sets/72157630578089098/
You're seriously accusing someone of trolling for preferring the preset over your version?
I'm curious about film shooters, are they cookie cutter / uneducated / lazy photographers because they don't create their own film stocks?
Ironically, this article also inspired me to look into VSCO. To me it's another tool; a means to an end. Certainly not a crutch. I don't use actions and presets currently, but in the past they have helped me find ways to get a look that I want by dissecting what it does. I think these VSCO presets will also help me learn to get certain looks that I don't completely understand just yet.
Regardless of my opinion on vsco or any preset systems I don't think the comparison in these photos gave an even playing field. The vsco images were completely unretouched other than adding the filter while the ones without them had full skin retouching and all. I think you could have gotten your point across better if the same retouching (or lack there of) was applied to both versions of the image.
I tend not to be a huge fan instgram style film effects. To me at best presets are a way to get a rough start with an image. Nothing against using presets I just view them as a starting point. I have for myself created actions in photoshop and presets in camera raw to speed up work my workflow.
I tend to prefer being behind a camera more than a computer.
Gotta admit, I say it is about the final photos, and not what software a photographer used. It is like saying that because I used a strimmer instead of shears I am a lazy gardener!
I can do manual post processing and I spend my free-time playing with it and learning but I also use plugins such as NIK and AlienSkin as to be quite frankly honest all they do is speed up what could of taken me hours to achieve. I have to process up to 5000 photos a day for a week in July and deliver them the next morning, to not use a pre-set for a few would be suicide. I can understand this argument for a fashion or portrait photographer, yes, but for what I do, to label me as lazy and a "cookie cutter photographer" is a bit wrong.
Man, FStoppers has been really dropping the ball with these articles lately.
All I understood from this entire article is that you think you're above using certain tools available for photographers. It's all about what you do with them, people who use these presets for professional work rarely just click and button and leave things as they are, it's a starting point, just like the camera setting for your RAW files is a starting point.
Such an arrogant / pretentious article that I'm borderline ready to stop visiting this website entirely.
Side Note - The image you used as example look worse with your personal and "unique" edits (they aren't unique at all BTW, looks like you use a crappy preset on them then did some obvious / brutal retouches).
Also wanted to add, what about film shooters? Should they create their own films types so they can be unique from the Kodak's and Fuji's of the world? What;s the difference between that and using a preset? Serious question. Seems you didn't really research / think about this topic enough before writing your subjective article and in my opinion you come across as an idiot.
This all comes back to my brothers theory. We spend millions of dollars a year to improve cameras sensor quality and people slap a shit grainy filter over it. Has anyone noticed this ever. We are creating great image quality only to try and get our photos to look like the shit of the past
Uniqueness in Photography means two things : Creative and proper exposure along with a tasteful post-processing (Dark-room). So i agree with you Zach and i see your point from the uniqueness perspective, Creating a visioned shot rarely can be achieved by a presets. I find myself always go back to my photos for a certain retouching again and again and again, can't stand depending on presets. But for me its a just started to be a semi-professional work. I can't say how it feels if you have 3-5 weddings a week or something similar to that. Im sure im gonna create my own actions and presets :)
This has certainly been a heated discussion. I shoot with two film cameras and one DSLR. I currently don't own any presets. I looked at VSCO samples and from my experience with Kodak BW400CN, it has a sepia tone about it. To get a authentic B&W look from BW400CN, I'd decrease the saturation in Lightroom; Ilford's XP2 has a cyan tone based on my experience. I could be using the wrong lab, but BW400CN and XP2 are developed in C-41 chemistry. Since Kodak Alaris had discontinued BW40CN, Ilford XP2 is the only C-41 B&W game available.
I'd be more inclined to go with Mastin Labs. I read one of his blog entries; he shoots film and digital and the process of creating film presets. I didn't see anything from VSCO about their process of creating film presets.
PS: I ordered a few rolls of Adox Silvermax film which promises 14 zones of B&W. Now, if I can just find a B&W lab that uses Adox Silvermax developer...
I'm the guy who can develop film at home, but really hate to do that. So before the digital age, I went to the local Kodak lab 1-2 times per week. Nowadays I still can develop RAWs in front of my computer, but hate the entire process.
I'm guilty, spank me!
If Zach doesn't like presets that's fine don't usevthem but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Time spent on an image is down to viability. If you are creating a beautiful framed photo that a client is paying a lot of money for you can afford to spend time making a beautifully edited image in PS if you are giving a disc of 1000 pictures or even a few hundred it's just viable. Some images I'd spend an hour on but you can't do that on a wedding. It was the same in film days. You couldn't make an entire of hand prints from a wedding you'd prrof and then spend time on prints. It's also down to how much you're getting paid and the value of your work or what you could possibly sell at. Presets do beautify photos just as photoshop does.
«Acclaimed author Malcolm Gladwell once said that» oh my bullshit detector goes off anytime somebody quotes Gladwell as a reference :(
gladwell does not research, Gladwell's 10k hours are bullshit.
if you want to give your text a little bit of consistence, you should learn about "deliberate practice", google it.
If you or your clients like the end result, who gives a crap how you got there. Points like this and the comments below is why I cannot stand to have conversations with photographer. **nose in the air** "Eh hmm. I have never used a preset! Only what I do is correct and all these other idiots aren't on my level"
Just get over how other people work. Don't like presets, or vsco or the Florabella/momtographers go to...who cares? tell me about gear. about technique. About how you like to create (which you did in the middle kind of) but anyone else tired of these pompous articles lately?
Completely tired of them.
I believe those systems and presets are designed for right, we can't take much time for retouching or masking or etc.. for every single photo which is not even our master shot.. i by myself use those systems for my instagram because its easy to use.. its better to say that, thats not a good idea to present the projects or main shots on these networks because u would loose your frame, detail and many other things but i think its ok to use the presets for your other lines such as instagram or any other social networks which is not that much important to present because it saves your time at all.
You shouldn't be using a calculator unless you know how to do the math.
Presets should really only be used as a jumping off point, why not hit a button if it's one step closer to your look. I make presets and actions for myself all the time for situations and starting blocks.
If I know a button will turn my knobs near where I would turn them then yes I'd use it but never do I push it and say done.
Looks like the comments are going well here Zach. When I started out I would edit mobile on the VSCO app. I never used the presets when I started out because well, they either blew out the lights or killed the darks. Not saying I never experimented with them on a couple shoots but it was NEVER my starting point or look to for a specific look. I agree, I go to each shoot differently. When I first started shooting I was told a couple things as I knew little about photography and less about the tech that went into it. I was told shoot manual and edit from start to finish without presets, that and use LR for most and PS for the heavy hitting. Those few things forced me to learn a hell of a lot more than I would have with program and full auto along with just slapping the same preset on each image. I had never used a DSLR before but forced myself to learn every single button along with setting. Then the same with LR. I was lost but the familiarity in PS and Ai was easy to get used to it. Great post man!
The people who get the most out of the VSCO presets are the people who understand how they work, why they work, and how to use them. It's not a solution for learning or understanding how your software works, that's up to you. Those who don't learn it never would have anyway.
Meh. I think people can do whatever they want and if it works for them then great. Who's to say what works and doesn't work for somebody else?
This would be great for the subject of a good article in my opinion.
Who cares what tools did the photographer use in processing his work? only other photographers who are either want to learn his technique or want to call him names! :)
I really don't get those who say that this photographer is lazy because he is using this or that! Each photographer is free to use or not use the tools available to us, and for professional photographers earning money from their work, what really matters is the end product, that what keeps them in their business.
Also what you shoot dictates what tools you use, for example, fashion or portrait photographers will probably need to do more selective editing (as samples here shows) and in that case, presets will not be good for them, on the other hand, documentary photographers can't do any of this selective editing on their work anyway.
Presets are not only about saving time, its about showing you so many different looks for your photo that you can quickly compare and decide which way you want to go, even if you eventually didn't use the preset itself, but created your own. Ofcourse photographers who have a very specific look and style will not benefit from that anymore.
Also different cameras create different looks, I do presets for each camera brand I use to get the initial look I want and start from there.
Note: Not all professional photographers use photoshop or do selective editing or spend hours processing their photos. It depends on what you shoot. Many respectful photographers use presets, whether they bought those presets or created them.
Another Note: VSCO is not about presets only, they are also funding and helping artists, they funded one of my documentary projects.
One thing is for certain VSCO still doesn't look the way film actual renders out; digital is still too harsh, so using VSCO on the wrong style of image, you get a strange & cheap looking hybrid. Reminds me much of the days of pee-yellow sky wedding photography (Totally Rad anyone? :)
Don't use presets then? I mean, using them for inspiration is kinda the same as using them as a starting point... What's the difference between someone shooting film and using say, velvia and then taking it into the darkroom? Different strokes for different folks is all. There is still the taking the photo part. Presets can't save lousy composition.