The day a part of /p/ went full Ken.
>>2971759>more variable to choose from than "VIVID SATURATION" and "MONO" Does any of cameras which you suggest have a calibrated/profiled screen and a custom tonal curve? Because, you know, you cannot do whatever you like with just that shit like "recovery", "contrast" and whatever they thought off, especially if it is never the same after you take images out of camera.
And you will need to convince me that a camera will always give ME everything I want, not just a specific thing which I tend to like right now, and that I have literally zero reasons to use RAW.
>your belief in the superiority of your own post-processing choices in contrast to those of a professional color theorist Badass implication there. I never claimed that it is superior, I claimed that it is different and I said that using pretty basic english. Don't you have a problem with english yourself?
>that's not really my problem. Now, it is.
>>2971766>When the "unknown camera software developer" is Fujifilm Yes, I should totally forget all my other criteria and switch to Fujifilm because of good enough JPEGs.
>But that was over a decade ago now, and auto white balance is now quite accurate. I (almost) never use white balance. You do not have to argue that.
>then there is little reason to process every file to every variable yourself. But well there are reasons for picking RAW instead of JPEG, isn't there any?
>This is only going to keep you tied up indoors 25000 photos in 8 years. I cannot really blame myself, can I?
>Remove the posturing of "my own creative vision" and all the other buzzwords raw-and-raw-only fanboys will drop online and all you're really looking at is insecurity over one's own turd polishing ... said a fujifag (?) who does not get that I won't buy Fuji with fine JPEGs.
You are stretching my words too much for me to believe that you are arguing something what I said.
>>2971773You have hallucinations.
