>>4462613I'm sorry but this looks like complete shit. It's like a cheap copy of a Wes Anderson palette (which is already corny to begin with). Just kitsch.
>>4462629>>that doesn't look anything like a phone picture.>35mm f2 that can't resolve the 40MP >smartphone tier detail smearing>fake grain>fake colorsI think you just have a case of wishful thinking. Read this, an actually non-paid review of the camera for once:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-fujifilm-x100vi-the-hype-camera/>>4462636>the colors still pop and everything looks really warm>fuji cameras pulled off the digital filmic look wellNeither are true besides your pointing out the obviously overbaked and ugly fake "warmth". Please improve your taste before posting quality judgments about equipment. You can do this by shooting RAW and learning to develop. The problem with Fuji users is that they're skipping the necessary adolescent stage of learning to develop pictures, where you're experimenting with silly shit like cross processing, extreme tone curve shifts, "retro looks", and so forth, before you eventually arrive at a good, TRANSPARENT style (where the 'look' of the image draws the least amount of attention of all its qualities). This results in a class of low-tier hobbyists whose images are all 'look' and no substance, like that snapshit of the Swiss ferry, or pic related.
