>>4519399
Because presets are retarded, it's just blind changes without analyzing the image

even if it looks the same, the image you used might be different in contrasts and colors, and the preset fails

also possible the preset was used as a baseline, and then the guy then adjusted for it to look right on this image, which is the less retarded way to use a preset

>>4519400
>also possible the preset was used as a baseline, and then the guy then adjusted for it to look right on this image, which is the less retarded way to use a preset
In this the year of our lord 2026, who can find a man with good judgement? Who could ever find such a rare man?

>>4519400
>also possible the preset was used as a baseline, and then the guy then adjusted for it to look right on this image, which is the less retarded way to use a preset
No, because the preset is way off not just a bit. And that would be dishonest advertising.

>>4519399
A preset that looks good on one image, often can look like garbage on another. You need basically the same kind of scenes and lighting.
>What dis I do wrong? I copied the settings exactly as they are written
Instead of just mindlessly copying, try looking at what adjustments are being made, and what they're doing. Then you can apply that same thinking to other images.
If you want a certain look, you should learn what the adjustments do, and then do it yourself.

>>4519420
Like I said, it looks completely different on the exact same photo so I can't really look at what it does because it does something completely different that it's supposed to do.

>>4519422
You downloaded that person's raw file?

>>4519422
>can't really look at what it does
You absolutely can. Instead of looking at what specific number a setting is at, think about what it's doing.

What is happening to the greens? Are they more yellow or blue, are they lighter or darker, are the more saturated or less?
Then just do that for every color.
Do the same for your highlights and shadows and midtones. What do they look like, how is the contrast?

>>4519450
>You absolutely can.
No, because it ien't doing what it's supposed to be doing therefore you can't learn anything from it.
>Do the same for your highlights and shadows and midtones. What do they look like, how is the contrast?
Idk what those mean or how to get the info from a picture especially when all of them combine to make a result.
Not to mention that breaks thepoint of someone making a preset and showing off what it can do.

>>4519453
You downloaded his raw file? What profile did you use?
Link the RAW and I'll will post an edit that matches with the settings I used

Sounds more like you don't even want to learn

>>4519486
>Sounds more like you don't even want to learn
Yes. I'm not a photographer. It's not even a hobby. I just want to do what's said in the video for some pics to see if it looks good.

>>4519557
Enjoy your failure then

>>4519557
>I just want to do what's said in the video for some pics
Yes, but you don't care enough to hear explanations of why or why it may not work, or how to get the look without using those settings

>>4519587
There have been no explanations offered just condescending "well just make/learn it yourself".

>>4519596
>There have been no explanations offered
It's hard to give explanations when you won't answer basic questions like where you applying the same settings to the RAW file? What base profile did you use? Sometimes things might not work for a variety of reasons and none of us are psychic, you have to actually give us information to work with if you want genuine help.

There have also been explanations given exactly for how to get whatever colors you want, instead of blindly copying some numbers.

Again, if you shared the RAW, I'd be happy to do my own edit that matches the OP and share what settings worked for me. Unless you were trying those settings on like a screen cap of the before?