finally, a “what to buy” article that says “don’t buy”

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    the point is that 2000s digital cameras are even more mediocre (except the high-end kind it mentions at the end that aren’t seeing a revival)

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        the article does address the “distinct look” part:

        If you want noisy or blown-out photos on purpose, plenty of apps can fake it for you.

        here’s a photo from their review linked there:

        Captured with the included Chrome 400-P emulation on my iPhone 17 Pro, this photo from Prague’s Church of Our Lady of the Snows exhibits film-like grain, high contrast, and slightly desaturated colors. Ben Keough/NYT Wirecutter

        • ptu@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          That one is a more traditional film photo, not CCD bloom. But fair point.

          It’s just that I have found myself in situations where groups of drunk 20-somethings ask me to take their photo with a vintage digicam. And having seen the results I get why they’re fun, the flash is strong and it makes things pop up so differently.

          I guess it could be simulated, but I doubt they had the latest iPhone in their pocket and taking the photo wouldn’t have been as fun anyway. Also that flash would be difficult to make it work realistically.