the way older cameras capture the world is aesthetically unique. it's nice we have hd cameras but i think there's something being lost with more advanced tech, even if it was inevitable. i'd say there's a softness to old cameras that is gone with these sharp hd ones. lighting too. for example, my 2000s digital camera makes objects brighter but surrounding scene slightly darker. it's not just personal use cameras, movies look different too. this also extends to quality in general. there's a look and charm to 360p that 1080p won't have even if it's "better".

the goal of the camera needs to be refocused. When you're not thinking about it, you might say cameras that can capture the most in the highest definition must be superior, but if you realize how humans percieve things it is not necessarily in this manner. Eyes can technically see every detail in a given space, but how are you mentally taking it in? Are you focusing on the sharpness of every object, every pore and hair of the person you are looking at? No, we see what we feel about the subject. These minute details are meant to be taken in unconciously, not put on the forefront. Older cameras with lower resolution have a realness that is more authentic to the human experience.

My favourite animations can't be described as having fluid animation or extremely exaggerated expressions, yet these are the pretentious areas of importance for all good animation in some people's eyes.

You can design something in a way that doesn't make full use of technological possibilities and you can say you like it better.

>>2

"Older cameras with lower resolution have a realness that is more authentic to the human experience." holy shit, you're so right. like with your whole post but especially that last line.

>>4
Human experience? I think you mean Mooninite experience

>>3
your comment is how i feel about media in general. it's even in line with what art i seek out. "good" animation isn't important to me. (i seek out a lot of janky ovas and old tv series.) the way a lot of ppl see "good" and "bad" art is pretty fucked imo, but i'm getting a bit off topic.

my op was more on the technical side of things (as someone new to photography tbh.) but you raise a great point. when it comes using cameras for art, or any tool/medium, it's how you use it. (and of course who is using it.) every generation of camera produces differently. one of my favorite photographs "bliss" (windows xp background) would be different if taken on a polaroid, smartphone, so on. though not every piece of art needs to do this to be great imo, i do prefer the look of 2000s digital cameras. even over what we got now because of their way of capturing the world is more to my interest. i'll also say this might come from watching ppl use those in their youtube vids as a kid too.

>>5 TRUE. how i could i be so careless?

I tend to feel the same about video games too. I have never actually enjoyed a game with super good graphics. My favourite games have all tended to have more simple/unqiue artstyles to them (Minecraft, osrs, overwatch)

>>8 same. there's so many wonderful choices to pick but i've always had a soft spot for the 8 bit era, 90s computers, and the look of the early 3D consoles. i love how a lot of devs would use pictures as textures back in the late 90s and early 00s.

>>8
I've been playing sekiro and doom eternal for a couple hours a month over the past year and I feel like those games do a lot with stylizing conventionally good graphics. I don't think it's about any particular type of graphical fidelity, just about the amount of care put into the art. and it's obviously a lot harder to put intentionality into game assets if all of them have a million polygons.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 is a great machine!