>2025
>still shooting RAW
>spend hours post process editing every single photo on a computer
Why?

>>4424166 (OP)
because i work professionally. and fuji is gay.

I'm autistic.

>>4424166 (OP)
>posting instagram reels, tiktoks, or whatever this is
cringe

>>4424166 (OP)
I dont though because I dont shoot Sony

fujifilm jpegs are every bit as awful as everyone elses. terrible fine detail. noise reduction is shit.

i'm not buying a $1699 interchangeable lens camera to "stop noticing things". if shooting jpeg you might as well buy a canon powershot g7 or ricoh gr so at least it fits in your pocket.

>raise WB a bit
>lower black point a tad
>gg ez

>>4424166 (OP)
>shoot RAW
>spend 5 minutes on the toilet tweaking white balance/exposure by very slight amounts in-camera
>send small JPEGs to phone wirelessly
>shitpost with them
>dump the RAWs onto the computer once a month or less

>shoot jpeg
>room for 3,000 photos or something
>edit them on my phone
>post straight to insta

>shoot raw
>room for 1,000 photos
>either convert to jpeg before editing or pay Adobe jew golds to rent their software
>ends up looking the same

>>4424249
>ends up looking the same
I'll be honest you were on a roll there for a bit until you admitted on having no post-processing skill issue

>>4424249
>Adobe jew golds to rent their software
There is a free version of Photoshop that has 60% of the functionality of the full version. I use it all the time, since camera raw is the same for both versions.

I have room for 6,040 Compressed Raws, with continuous 10fps, going to the 800MB/s CF card. Photos get copied to a raid of 1TB SSDs for editing and sorting, then converted to DNG and stored on a 15TB raid for archiving.

I've only filled the camera once doing a wedding/reception. Ended up with about 300 perfect photos that I found by using adobe organizer. About 10 of those I used the full version of photoshop from 2010 or something to shoop some guests out, rearrange things, find a photo of the bride at a weird angle, shoop her skinny so she thinks she looks good at that angle (angel angle) and will love the photo forever.

I'm still waiting for the gear envy and microsensor cope, the "it's not the size it's how you use it," and the general flaming until the thread dies.

>>4424258
>There is a free version of Photoshop
Yes it's called pirating it
>inb4 but I might get a virus
>Are you telling me you DON'T have an airgapped virtual machine to run sketchy software in first?

>can only take 1000 photos
Do digislugs really

>>4424186
>digislugs buy $25000 fujisnoys to shoot jpeg and say STOP PIXEL PEEPING ONLY LOOK ON INSTAGRAM
kek, i hope tarriffs make photography inaccessible for them

>>4424261
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/xp8cmtvzr7mfw2?hl=en-US&gl=US

Legit Free.

>airgapped virtual machine to run sketchy software in first?
I have better use of my time than using wireshark to inspect traffic over several days to see if pirated software has rootkits or ransomeware. That's the kind of shit I did in my poorfag 20s.

>>4424166 (OP)
>2025
>still struggles to edit a raw file
a skills issue and a (You) problem

>>4424270
>AI Magic. First two words
Blech. May as well just use Microsoft Designer.
Also, trim anything out of the URI after and including the ? symbol - "mfw2 ? hl=en-US&gl=US" - they're trackers that map your online identity.
>I have better use of my time than using wireshark to inspect traffic over several days to see if pirated software has rootkits or ransomeware
ah mang, I just malwarebytes that shit. Boss is fine with us using keys from work because he wants us to practice what we preach (cybersec analyst). Combing over wireshark is for bleeding edge issues, or becuase you're trying to work out if Jeet #317 that applied for your junior position knows what an IPv6 header is.

But editing the RAW is part of the fun...

>>4424249
>shoot raw
>room for 1600 photos
>don't have to spend $500 on a 2tb CF card because I can take a photo without spamming 40fps snapshits
>if i take more than 5 photos of something i'm going to end up deleting 4
>tweak white balance and exposure because no camera on earth can manage DR and white balance correctly and every single cameras jpeg generator has inferior fine detail and noise reduction vs capture one (and the $5000 canon's AI noise reduction looks so bad I'd rather have "worse" noise reduction in C1)
>imagine spending hundreds if not thousands on camera gear to shoot 8 bit jpegs like your phone
shooting jpeg is like buying a race replica motorcycle, putting the cheapest possible tires on it, and puttering around to work and back before flipping it over a sneeze

no wonder people who do it eventually go back to digishits and eventually go full "just use your phone" "no one cares" "i'm a brain damaged zoomer npc and run on instagram likes, if i cant tell how good your camera is from a 1.5 inch square it doesnt matter"

Yeah I shoot raw
Raw film

>>4424313
>Yeah I shoot raw
>Raw film
At least that's a proper flex.

>>4424283
>? hl=en-US&gl=US" - they're trackers that map your online identity.
Those are just parameters that sets the language to english and the region to US. I question your cybersec analyst larp.

>>4424265
>>digislugs buy $25000 fujisnoys to shoot jpeg
Aint nobody buying snoy for their jpegs lmao

>>4424258
If I gave enough fucks to boot up my laptop. I'd just use gimp with some mods. But I cbf with that song and dance. And Google photos baked in editor is the best option for mobile I've seen thus far.

>>4424194
>be me
>spend five minutes taking a dump
>go about my day
>edit photos in my free time on PC
Why edit photos on your phone while shitting? Are you so poor you can't afford five minutes dedicated to photo editing by itself on a proper device?

>spend hours post process editing every single photo on a computer

Why do fishermen who throw fish back go fishing?

>>4424462
apparently most zoomers outside of the ones actively engaged in STEM education actually struggle to use computers so editing raws is a huge ordeal for them. like they don't even know what files and folders are, so the interface of an advanced GUI program is black magic to them, and they're probably limited to stripped down phone apps half the time.

zoomers are so dumb they have to google "how to send fuji x100v photos to instagram" after trying and failing to find the instagram app on their x100v

A lot of the RAW talk is just gatekeeping.

>>4424474
gatekeeping is good. corporations hate it because it ultimately discourages people from buying new things as quickly, which is why there was a big push against "gatekeeping" coming from, ie: video games (to sell more video games). but for a hobby, a community, an art, gatekeeping is fucking wonderful. if you can be "gatekept" by being made fun of for being too lazy and photo spammy to shoot raw without proving yourself in other ways (ie: being a better photographer than the webm in the OP) then fuckin' good.

>>4424474
>I'm being gatekept for not even editing the raws of my $2000 camera cat snapshits
>i'm being gatekept for only putting an aftermarket intake and a fart can on a honda civic and taking it to a serious care meet
>i'm being gatekept because i wanted to be a "computer guy" but didn't know what a "C" was meant to refer to
>those dumb boys won't let me be a "real gamer" because i only play pokemon and then they told me tits or gtfo
>absolute bullshit

>>4424474
> a raw format
> gatekeeping
is this heroin abuse?

I don't even have a image editor installed on my new 'pooter.

>>4424816
I hope you shoot film.

Shooting jpeg is for faux-creatives. They're the kind of people who copy a "film sim" "recipe" off the internet, buy a "character lens", and take a bunch of snapshits of stairways, windows, and taco trucks as if the consumerism and lego games that preceded it all qualified it as art.

>>4424166 (OP)
Because the final result can be EXACTLY what you want it to be.
This might not be worth anything if you have no clue what you want, but it's otherwise useful.

>>4424166 (OP)
Because I still got the same shitbox Canon I bought 12 years ago. So I either have the built in profiles which are gross, or I shoot raw and switch the profile to adobe color or a film emulation and call it good. Better default profiles just isn't worth the investment. Plus profiles are like fashion, everyone used to go on about how good canon colors were but now its considered poo poo because it's absolutely everywhere and fuji is making something different.

>>4424975
thanks for reminding me some people unironically buy cameras for the jpeg presets

meanwhile capture one is still mogging 2025 camera jpegs and makes 20 year old gear look competitive

>>4424474
I remember when people didn't use to wear their insecurities on their sleeve. Your thoughts on the matter can be safely disregarded.

>>4424474
nice bait

>>4424982
should I pirate that to use with my 16 year old Rebel?

I'm crap at exposure so RAW saves me. It's a life saver for shit photographers

>>4425030
no, you’re normal. everyone has always missed exposure in changing light. but film had exposure latitude instead of DR so you get what you see but if you miss -3/+5 stops it turns out fine, sometimes better, and digital has DR so you get more than you see but if you miss -2/+1 stops it looks horrid.

digital cameras cant even render contrast consistently well. they suck if you dont shoot raw. give these fujifags dslrs without live view and they’d rope.

>>4425035
picrel, film is easy mode
you just overexpose and let someone else handle color

Would anyone be interested in an AI browser or OS extension that forces all images to render based on your favourite photographers style? No more looking at photos your autism hates thus making your screen a safespace

>>4424166 (OP)
If this is the guy I'm thinking of he had a meltdown at me because I called him out on his BS. While his photos do look like shit, they're not even SOOC. You can literally see the -dehaze radial/gradiant masks he uses in every single picture. Corny fuckin tiktok tutorial edits.

>>4424166 (OP)
Buy an ad, Ken Rockwell

>>4424166 (OP)
>Why?
because playing with curves is fun

>>4424166 (OP)
im not a brain damaged gen z/gen a fag so using a computer is not a drawn out ordeal for me.

reminder: corporate america wants everyone to only use phones and tablets because they were able to start fresh with those and set total corporate control of what you see, make, and "have" as the norm.

>>4424166 (OP)
I really hate the SOOC JPG Fuji look.
Most of the time it's way too warm with washed out colors, and the look always ends up completely overshadowing whatever merits the photo might have on its own.
Fuji JPG shooters formed their taste around the 2014-era hipster aesthetic and it really shows.
Pic rel is what Fuji redditors consider the epitome of photography.

>>4425469
looks nice

>>4425469
Looks like dogshit

>>4425469
beautiful

>>4425422
Best post.

>>4425469
Honest pic.

>>4425475
>>4425476
>>4425479
>>4425480
The underlying image is fine. However the overcooked processing is way too distracting and not even that pleasant to the eye. It's so very fake.
The problem with shooting Fuji JPG is that the processing becomes the most obvious part of the image. It might have been fun/cool for a brief moment in 2012 but it's seriously become stale. It all looks the fucking same.

>>4425469
very true, the fuji look is easy to spot
compare the top half from x100 to bottom from d850 flickr pools

Ok, if jpg is bad then do people actually edit film photos

>>4425498
Traditionally every decision you make outside of camera with film would count as "editing". Your choice of developer, whether you push/pull, your choice of print paper and its size, how long you expose it, whether you dodge/burn or not.
Today many people digitize their negatives; if they do it at home with NLP then there is a very direct editing process where you can decide how you want the conversion to look.

>>4425497
Is everyone on flickr a horrible photographer?

>>4425505
>flickr
>here's your 1000000th wide angle picture of a classic car with +25 saturation

>>4425469
Absolutely mogs Sony color science

>>4425469
You do know it's possible to make those fuji recipes so it doesn't have that orange and washed out look right?
I'm not saying it's not insanely overused (I particularly fucking hate the washed out look), but it's entirely because of the user and not the camera itself.

>>4425507
Correct, but I don't think instagram is much better.

>>4425590
this
they are a mere tool and its up to the user to make the best of it
IMO they are an interesting feature and honestly really fun to play around with
others tried similar things but honestly none do it as well

>>4425622
you can adjust the colors with a lot of painful testing (the camera screen is not fully color/contrast accurate) and in the end, you have so little control over noise reduction, DR, and sharpening that if you are smart and successful enough to own and know how to use a real computer (many zoomers are not) that lets you actually own your files (many zoomers do not) you WILL end up shooting raw anyways.

digital is not film, it does not automatically render photos well, it always fucks up contrast or sharpness or white balance or something, and most of it is the camera being retarded. thats why fujifags always post middle gray skies and totally black everything else, that's just normal digital camera stuff. that's why fujifags are afraid of "pixel peeping" but mean "any screen bigger than a phone", digital cameras cant turn raws into jpegs with good quality half as well as a computer can unless you buy a $4000 FF. when people say "phones look just as good as dedicated cameras" they are undoubtedly comparing to jpegs, because holy fucking shit do jpegs look like ass on anything bigger than a phone screen. the jpeg mode on any camera is clearly intended to be used only by newspaper photographers and clueless parents-with-cameras that paid thousands to print 4x6s and low resolution snapshits on toilet paper, and japanese tech execs have no plans to invest on improving jpeg processing further.

it is also far, far nicer to set all the preset, DRO, sharpening and white balance shit on a large screen with real, adult sized controls instead of fiddling with all that shit in camera menus to manage your jpegs while the world passes you by.

>>4425037
Negative film, at least

>>4424249
128gb sd card is what 30 euros ? in your 1000 euro camera ?? and don't say you need the express cards ultra fast zoomy card, nobody is paying u to shoot basketballs mate.

but I get it 9/10 jpegs are fine and dandy.

>>4424307
post one of your pictures

>>4424166 (OP)
what's the difference between adjusting exposition on a jpeg compared to a raw file ? Genuine question here

>>4427046
exposure? a RAW file will have a lot more information to it
you can recover adjust more of the shadows, midtones and highlights
and you can more freely adjust color / white balance
also better sharpness and noise reduction

>>4427050

In summary shooting raw is for people who are incredibly bad at photography or people who like cooking their photos in post production to extremely unrealistic looks.
Film or Jpegs on digital/phone is how any normal or intelligent person shoots.

>>4427067
If you want to act like a retard you better move to a different board, this shit is just annoying and gets us nowhere.

>>4427069

Despite what adobe and Sony claim photography is actually about capturing what you see, not making up things that didn’t exist.
Jpg and film do this, raw inevitably ends up digital art which is something totally different.

>>4427074
>film captures what you see
negative film was designed for printmaking, and thus editing after the image has been created in camera; even an image generated in camera with minimal editing can be deceptive compared to what your eyes see. tell me if picrel looks how my eyes saw it when I took the picture. either way, digital editing in raw continues that tradition. don't you ever wonder why the tools in photoshop are dodge and burn, or why the product is even called photoshop in the first place?

>>4427067
let's check the arguments against shooting raw
>STOP BEING CREATIVE ON YOUR OWN, LET FUJIFILMS PRESETS BE CREATIVE FOR YOU, ITS NOT REAL ART ANYWAYS
No.
>NO YOU CANT DO IT FOR BETTER CONTROL OVER NOISE REDUCTION AND SHARPENING OR BECAUSE THE RAW EDITORS FILES ARE SHARPER THAN CAMERA JEPGS! STOP NOTICING THINGS!!! FUCKING PIXXEL PEEEPIINNNG BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! YOU ARENT FUCKING ALLOWED TO NOTICE IMAGE QUALITY!
No, I will continue having better image quality than your fujishit/micro four thirds. Deal with it.
>DONT SPEND 20 MINUTES EDITING THATS A WASTE OF TIME
Oh like toggling film sims, white balances, DROs and shit in the tiny shitty camera menus isn't? Even with nikon's superior menus it is just as awful as using a fujifilm or a sony. I would rather be taking pictures when using my camera, not selecting "film recipes" or adjusting the auto white balance. Plus I get to do more than just fix a camera computers stupid decisions. Like crop and rotate. Oh that pisses gearfags off. Gearfags hate cropping. Gearfags pride themselves on their aspergers-given skill of perfect alignment. Meanwhile back in the world of art, eliott erwitt pushed out deep crops daily...
>BE NORMAL
No thanks, I don't take advice from "cat dads". Garry Winogrand had progeny, and has exhibits named after him, so I'd rather follow his example and snapshit negatives (film raws) without caring about settings.

Plus there's something distinctly stupid about being "good at using cameras"
Who has time for that, when auto modes raw let you worry about being creative first and being the human exposure calculator that knows what a spot meter is, knows all their camera settings, and carries a white balance card around never?

>>4427074
oh yes human vision is notorious for only having 8 stops of dynamic range like a jpeg

jk it has "20 stops"
that means when a camera cant expose a room right without turning windows bright your eyeball can see everything.
raw is literally getting closer to what you see, instead of windows and skies being almost pure white and shadows being pure black.
the best you can do when shooting jpeg is go into the menu and turn "DRO" all the way up just for that photo and then turn it back down but its still not as good looking as a single raw file
>inb4 nooo you have to use flash
why compromise the photo i want to take because you're too stupid to use a computer

>>4427090

I can’t tell if you agreeing or disagreeing with me.

>>4427092

Except tons of people cannot restrain themselves and do picture related. Flickr is full of this and Insta. I detest that people think they can call this photography, it just isn’t.

In cinema, people with the camera operation skills to shoot jpeg well are considered uncreative button pressers and solo shooters prefer to use raw video, 32 bit audio, and a very nice computer so they can focus on shooting when shooting and color and exposure and shit later.

Its not different with stills.

>>4427095
>STOP EXPRESSING YOURSELF AND MAKING PHOTOS YOU LIKE! YOUR PHOTOS HAVE TO FIT MY TASTES!
Lemme guess fujifilm fanboy

>>4427095
This looks great.

Can we see your underexposed teal jpegs?

>>4427074
When you take a jpg, the camera is still capturing RAW, you are just letting the camera engineers do all the processing for you

>>4427099
even film is basically raw. film poseurs let the lab scanner add the weird unrealistic colors for them and say "photography isnt about editing its about being seen with a retro silver box"

>>4427102
>"photography isnt about editing its about being seen with a retro silver box"
ah, another /fgt/ connoisseur i see.

>>4427097

People cannot restrain themselves express themselves with digital art all they want, just don’t pretend it’s photography.

>>4427105
>this photo isnt dull or of the back of someones head so it isnt photography
can we see your jpegs
no

>jpeg fag btfo on all fronts, reduced to malding that raw let someone have different taste than him
Wow imagine being this pathetic. Definitely a fuji user. I bet he defends the z50’s crappy autofocus.

>>4427099

Yes an engineer with a degree from university so they set it up to create something realistic your eye saw. That’s a big difference to the average knuckle dragger high school educated mirrorless user…

>>4427074
scary to think someone might seriously be this retarded

>>4427108
>trust the experts use their dull underexposed teal jpegs that are blurry af
if theyre experts why does just opening the raw in capture one result in the same colors but an overall better image, with room to correct the "engineers" inability to make white balance work right and such? why cant engineers handle backlight and windows as well as raw editors?

the jpeg setting is for photos that dont matter, as long they’re legible, for first out news, but they will usually be replaced with edited raws later

imagine paying more than $50 to shoot jpeg.

>>4427096
this is truth. jpeg fags arent really photographers. they are camera operators.

>>4427108
>i learned in college that you need to have no more than 3 colors, and they all have to be depressing
wow you’re very smart and you totally don’t have a small penis.

>>4427108
Why not just let a photographer with a degree from university setup and take the shot for you?

>>4427109

I shoot film which was designed by even more intelligent engineers from the past before microplastics forever stunted human iq.

>>4427131
See >>4427078

>>4427131
you mean you let a teenager operating a minilab scanner edit your raws or no photos and thats just what you thought after watching youtube

>>4424166 (OP)
My dream setup would be
>Sell all my GFX and FF gear
>Buy X-E5 later this year with some of those tiny F2 lenses
>Buy one Nokton for muh bokeh if needed
>Only shoot jpeg with my favorite film sim nostalgic negative
>Bring it everywhere because it's so light any tiny
>Take cool photos of my family, son, daytrips, travel

But the reality is like this
>Enjoy my medium format GFX
>Edit each photo in LR being impressed by the level of detail
>never take advantage of level of detail because all photos end up collecting dust on my harddrive anyway
>only send some to my parents and friends over whatsapp
>Still can't sell the GFX because I would regret the low ass IQ of aps-c and rebuy again someday in future

Life is tough as an autistic GAS enjoyer

>>4427153
I'm living your dream lol

I don't do this

>>4427090
>Plus there's something distinctly stupid about being "good at using cameras"

you were doing so well.

>>4427153
>my dream is photography is easy and i dont have to do anything but randomly snapshit, just like it was on film
>the reality is digital cameras are fucking horrible and it takes thousands of dollars plus shooting raw to approach the color quality, exposure lattitude, and detail offered by a $50 film camera
Yeah that's why "real cameras" dont just still exist, but are slowly becoming the standard, and as phones fill with AI slop any normies with triple digit IQs are coming back home.

Even fuji is packing on the pixels so xtrans's monochrome noise plus downsampling can get closer to the FF look. Now if only they would fix their autofocus, and sony could finally die.

Shooting jpeg on digital is a disgrace. A $50 film camera offers so much detail, exposure latitude, and white balance non-retardation that it takes a pretty high end digital camera to actually beat it. is it a sunny day? I can just take a photo on film, on digital with jpeg everyone is pink or green and half in shadow because their shirt and skin tone confused AWB, or i have to go into the white balance menu and then go into the DRO menu to make sure it's right and still get lower quality than raw

And part of that is because when you shoot film you're paying someone $10/roll+ to edit your "raws", or "shooting raw" yourself and scanning, inverting and color correcting negatives at home, which is so complex people have written books about it... so i'll stick with shooting digital as conservatively as I would film and spending 20 minutes editing my 25-50 raws at the end of the week, vs spending 15 minutes buying, packing, and shipping a film lab order or, worse, spending hours in the darkroom and at the scanner (darkroom isnt worth it unless you actually make real life prints instead of scans)

>>4427178
>Plus there's something distinctly stupid about being "good at using cameras"
that's true
who do you respect more, the person who is good at taking photos (your favorite photographer here)
or the person who has the nikon d850's menus memorized, has all the right filters in his man purse, and knows how to get the most out of jpeg (ken rockwell)

Is it weird that when looking and singular images in a vacuum, I prefer more realistic / technical editing
But when viewing a collection / series of images, / or actual cine, I appreciate a more "artistic" editing style
Is it just that extra layer of cohesion from the similar style? Like a neutrally edited photo just kind of goes with anything, but that can be less satisfying

>>4427436
It's because with cinema, and trendster non-art "vibetography" (like in the OP webm), the actual content of each individual frame is nil and the editing is actually more entertaining than the photo.

Cinema gets a pass because movies tell stories with motion and sound and not every individual frame needs to be THE moment
But the photography in the OP is so fucking dull, I cant imagine wasting an evening doing that, what the fuck, absolutely no soul
Imagine going to a new place and boiling it down to a junk shop and poorly framed snapshits of roofs with a shitty vsco preset

There's no life in the streets, there's no life in any of it, and the photos aren't ABOUT that lack of life, they don't just accept it, it's like they're pursuing it because they are afraid of life. it is the safest, most boring, "shoot this any time and just turn the white balance to 6200k to pretend its sunset" photography you'd expect from an "art" student going to a fake "college" taking a photography class that requires each 1/36 film photos are unique with no redos. Just boring filler shit.

>>4424471
this
Someone I know had to teach the zoomers at their job how to shut down a computer. this anon isn't exaggerating on how little zoomers knows about using a pc

>>4427204
why do retards like (You) always double-down?

So this is the Fuji General now? I don't know where else to complain about this so here goes.
I look at Fuji Rumors to see new releases and shit, but I can't stand how "money begging" every single post is.
Every post is absolutely littered with affiliated links to products. Constant posts about sales and other stuff to promote more affiliate links. It's incredibly poor taste and the begging from everybody on any kind of site and social media is so fucking grating.

And it's obvious he's baiting a lot of posts to get people to fight about politics in the comments. 100% engagement baiting and then a handful of the same lunatics fighting about politics over a fucking camera.

>>4427588
"fuji people" are a horribly toxic, stuck up, and outright stupid community and i recommend you avoid them exactly as much as you would avoid sony people

notice op is a fuji person. dishonest stuck up talentless full of themselves and compensating. if owning a FF flagship without a press pass, more than $1500 of m43 gear, or any fuji or sony disqualified people from the internet it would be much more peaceful.

>>4427590
I just find it funny how people can fight as if their lives depended on it over fucking camera brands.
I came from a music background before I got into photography, so I'm not oblivious to people like that. I just find it funny that it's almost the exact same language, just replace Fender VS Gibson with Sony VS Canon etc.
But then you have people fighting like it's a life or death matter in the comments section of a camera rumor site that's 100% about affiliate links more than anything. It's so fucking tasteless and annoying.

>>4427593
>I just find it funny how people can fight as if their lives depended on it over fucking camera brands.
this shit is so annoying and it's everywhere, no matter if you want to discuss games, instruments, cameras, whatever, there's always kids fighting for their favorite brand and they will regurgitate the same bullshit ad infinitum
It really doesn't matter what brand you use, your composition, subject and so on are what makes a good picture
>>4427590
you must be fun at parties

>>4427590
They hate him because he tells the truth

>>4427593
You know how in music, NO ONE who is nice and any good at anything plays a gibson unless gibson is paying them to play a gibson? It just attracts money wasting retards that think they can absorb creativity through their magic retro "soulful" gear? The people who buy "stompboxes" with "tone capacitors"?

Fuji (and leica, of course) attract those people in droves just like snoy and oversized overspecced flagship cameras attract all the "ibanez fanboys" that think EMGs, flat fretboards and 7 strings will unlock their shredding ability (and then they got mogged by someone with a mexican fender who actually practiced).

Like you got people ITT who think offloading creative decisions to JAPANESE ENGINEERS makes them... more creative. Seriously. Some things never change. This stuff centers around brands because it is timeless and brands debase themselves by exploiting it.

>>4427603
your brain is rotten

>>4427594
Yep, you'd get a better shot (or get better at guitar) if you just practiced more than buy new gear. BUT, having gear that inspires you and doesn't hinder what you're trying to do will make your work and practice easier.
>>4427603
I get what you're saying, but the language you're using is exactly why I want to get the fuck away from places like this when discussing pretty much any topic.
I have a Gibson 335 and it has the best neck I've ever played. Great guitar that I've had and played the absolute shit out of for the last 20 years and will do anything from motown to metal. But I also have cheap and mid range guitars that I've used equally as much. They all sound, feel and play differently so every guitar makes you play music differently.
I don't think cameras have the same level of individuality, but to some extent they have give your images a different look, the camera itself feels different etc.
If I had more money then I'd have a bunch of different cameras too and use them like I use my guitars for different stuff.

>>4427643
not a music person
do professional guitarists pretty much all use the same brand or is it a mix of brands?

>>4424166 (OP)

I shoot RAW exclusively with my Nikon D2x.

>>4427643
>BUT, having gear that inspires you and doesn't hinder what you're trying to do will make your work and practice easier.
brilliant point
gear is just tools and of course you'd want nice tools that work well for you or at the very least don't hinder you
big bonus points if they are really fun to use and inspire you to go do stuff

about the other points, different cameras do feel really different, then there's analog and digital and it also feels very different to use a rangefinder vs an (D)SLR or mirrorless
as far as different cameras having an effect on the final image goes, I think the biggest factor is the lenses, they have a big impact on colors, sharpness, fov, the look of out-of-focus backgrounds and so on
that's actually a bit similar to guitars, pickups, apart from single coil or humbucker make a relatively small difference, compared to amp and speakers
anything else is just esoteric

>>4427647
idk what makes a guitarist a "pro" but they use all sorts of brands, you see tons of Ibanez, Gibson, Fender, PRS, ESP but also lots of smaller brands
the main difference really is pickup type and number of strings, everything else is just personal preference, how the guitar plays and feels

>>4427665
sounds like cameras

>>4427643
>I get what you're saying, but the language you're using is exactly why I want to get the fuck away from places like this when discussing pretty much any topic.
But it's the truth, it's just that 4chan is where people will admit it. It's really offensive, because it's very true about a lot of people and it's very demeaning, so you'll get banned for really saying this elsewhere.

Companies literally lean into this with their marketing. This dynamic was installed into american culture and then THE WORLD by people like steve jobs. It's here, even if you are or can name an exception, it's here.

Corporate globalism has spent decades engineering the brand fanboy and the "BRAND sorta guy". There IS a "stupid fuji fucker", a lot of them actually, because fujifilm ltd marketing created them with their stupid fucker marketing and now they have so many douchey return customers half their products are guaranteed to sell out. There IS a "stupid soulless snoyboy" and Sony created them with their marketing, including of course, their covert shills (influencer). The leica man is now everywhere, and there are leica men devoted to cheap chinese garbage. It's absurd.