Thank you for this definition. For all intents and purposes, anything clipped may as well not exist. Would you be able to explain a bit more about "any additional signal voltage gets bled off to ground."
Last edited:
Clipped is the electrical term for the stored signal voltage reaching the maximum for the circuit device or circuit and any additional signal voltage gets bled off to ground thus the term "clipped".
Humans will take any tool and work it to its very best level. Once we understand its capacities and how it is applied too our task, which may evolve as we do the work, we refine our execution. We cannot help ourselves.Exactly. The superior method is the one which excites the photographer. The one which makes you work late into the night, and makes you wake up early in the morning to continue. Regardless of all the arguing over measuring pixels and grains, the most important measurement is passion. With the right amount of dedication, both methods can be used to create great things.
A fine insight.Creatively they may be light years ahead of us as soon as they begin, so I wouldn't burden them with my aesthetic prejudices.
I've certainly read camera reviews that preferred the in-camera jpeg related algorithms to the software based raw convertors available for the files created by the camera.I've yet to read anyone saying a jpeg is objectively better than a processed Raw file.
That's true. I struggle to better the jpeg engine on my Fuji for a good balance of colour and tonality. Even so if someone messed up the exposure they'd recover more data in raw than jpeg. Or they might simply prefer some look they can't get out of the camera. Wouldn't call jpegs a snob element even so.I've certainly read camera reviews that preferred the in-camera jpeg related algorithms to the software based raw convertors available for the files created by the camera.
Also undeniable. Labs went bust by being overleveraged in film when digital burst on the scene. Photographers who'd mastered their craft had to learn new ones. It wasn't all roses and for the first decade film was superior in practical ways, but the tide had turned.Speaking more generally though, I think much of the digital vs. analogue passion comes not from the particulars of the two different media, but rather to the market effects that have occurred as a result of the change.
It's a mixed bag, but on the whole film photographers have certainly lost out. Film gear is a fraction of the price, and some films are less expensive. Paper and chemistry seems pricier than I recall and slide film is nuts. Not relevant to most here but Super 8 is insanely priced now.There would not likely be many caring so much if us film shooters hadn't lost so many products, and didn't have to pay as much as we do for the ones still around
Thank you for this definition. For all intents and purposes, anything clipped may as well not exist. Would you be able to explain a bit more about "any additional signal voltage gets bled off to ground."
If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it?
I don't understand the rancor on both sides of the film vs. digital debate.
I personally think a lot of the rancor exists because even though people say both sides should all be able to get along, the fact is that digital killed film camera production and a lot of films and film products that film shooters used to like shooting with. Film never killed any part of the digital experience. So when digital shooters say we should all get along because we can cohabitate, it's very hard to because, each day, more of what film lovers love is being obliterated into nothingness by digital. It's like, digital shooters can't comprehend this concept of what is actually happening to the film shooters. That's reason enough for rancor.
Yes, but on the bright side now I can afford and have the cameras, lenses, and darkroom I never dreamed that I could have.
I think we can rule out what the "amateur world" embraces because they are mindless and have no informed opinion.
That changed with the internet, the medium we're using, If it wasn't for the world wide web electronic cameras would never have gained the traction they have. "Right now" has become the impetus of the entire communications world, not just photography. Whatever aesthetic compromises digital may possess, the instant nature of its application pushed them into second place.Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think we need everything "right now."
We all know that 90% of the world will follow any fad or fashion, irrespective of anything else - whether it's better or worse than what it replaces - simply because it's new and "everybody else is doing it." I think we can rule out what the "amateur world" embraces because they are mindless and have no informed opinion. And to a certain extent, professionals jump on the bandwagon as well. Since when did the old system of taking pictures for a client, developing and printing said pictures and then getting them to the client stop working? It didn't. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think we need everything "right now." A timely manner is good enough. Would the world stop turning if we couldn't upload an image to Facebook in 60 seconds?
That eliminates about 98% of the people who use this website. Well done.
I think (hope!) his referral to "amateur" is the average consumer, ie, not people genuinely interested in photography.
Consumers just want to snap and share and don't care about the camera or technique, medium or quality in any deep sense.
I think (hope!) his referral to "amateur" is the average consumer, ie, not people genuinely interested in photography.
Consumers just want to snap and share and don't care about the camera or technique, medium or quality in any deep sense.
I think (hope!) his referral to "amateur" is the average consumer, ie, not people genuinely interested in photography.
Consumers just want to snap and share and don't care about the camera or technique, medium or quality in any deep sense.
Digital is a tool as is film. Artists use oil, watercolors, etc. It's not one or the other. How we create aesthetic, emotional and spiritual feelings in ourselves and others through art are variable. There will be different tools in the future. It's all good.
You talk, but you don't explain.
I don't call having to work with computers to manipulate this and that on my images as oppose to not working with them easier.
It's quite nice and easy.
I'm not sure what digital work flows you're used to. I come home, plug my camera into my laptop. Have a bath and edit the photos on Lightoom on my phone (that have synced from my laptop to my phone via the cloud).
Later, I'll print the keepers on an ink jet at A4 over a few beers.
It's quite nice and easy.
I'd also add in the context of "The Comeback", the majority of people shooting film now will also be using Lightoom or similar with their film scans. Most people will be getting their film dev and scanned at a lab.
You edit your photos while having your bath?I'm not sure what digital work flows you're used to. I come home, plug my camera into my laptop. Have a bath and edit the photos on Lightoom on my phone (that have synced from my laptop to my phone via the cloud).
I'm not sure what digital work flows you're used to. I come home, plug my camera into my laptop. Have a bath and edit the photos on Lightoom on my phone (that have synced from my laptop to my phone via the cloud).
Later, I'll print the keepers on an ink jet at A4 over a few beers.
It's quite nice and easy.
I'd also add in the context of "The Comeback", the majority of people shooting film now will also be using Lightoom or similar with their film scans. Most people will be getting their film dev and scanned at a lab.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?