>>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.
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.