The comeback?

[Berkeley Mike]

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".

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."

 

[Berkeley Mike]

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.

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.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Creatively they may be light years ahead of us as soon as they begin, so I wouldn't burden them with my aesthetic prejudices.

A fine insight.

 

[MattKing]

I've yet to read anyone saying a jpeg is objectively better than a processed Raw file.

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.
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.
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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

In recent years prices seem to have escalated. Portra 400 has reached boutique prices as has Fuji pro 400H, both of which I used to buy as the norm. Not any more.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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."

The various devices are limited to the maximum voltage. Any voltage above that is no converted by the analog to digital converter and ignored. The sensors then have all the voltage drained off to clear out the analog sensor.

 

[Kenny Harrelson]

If digital is inferior to film, format for format, why has the rest of the professional and amateur world embraced it?

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?

 

[Kenny Harrelson]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Kenny Harrelson]

Yes, but on the bright side now I can afford and have the cameras, lenses, and darkroom I never dreamed that I could have.

That is so true! I have lenses and camera bodies that I would have liked to have in the 1970s that I just couldn't afford back then. But, I would sure love to be able to buy a brand new Minolta.

 

[RPC]

Same here, and with darkroom equipment for me. That definitely has been the bright side of digital for many film users, and that has made many winners, not losers in my opinion. I can make high quality prints at home easily and cheaply, where in the past it would have been quite expensive. It more than offsets any film/paper/chemistry price increase.

 

[moose10101]

I think we can rule out what the "amateur world" embraces because they are mindless and have no informed opinion.

That eliminates about 98% of the people who use this website. Well done.

Can you explain why digital shooters should care about what’s happening to film shooters? Photography won’t disappear if film does.

 

[blockend]

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think we need everything "right now."

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.

 

[removed account4]

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?

yawn

plenty of people in the "amateur world" have very informed opinions and they just happen to be different than yours.
with regards to "right now" maybe forgot about frederick scott archer and gustave le gray ... and george eastman and
edwin land ... or the 4th earl of sandwich or people who invented the "snack bar" and jiffy lube and self service gas,
and piggly wiggly grocery stores and ...
"right now" has been a around forever. and it seems that people who suggest otherwise may have uninformed opinions
and would rather be waiting around to be served or their gas take filled, or over charged for their oil change or waiting for the guy
who made their dageurotype to die of mercury poisoning, or the cranky guy at the grocery store to eventually fill your order
or to have to wait for IDK 4 hours for a meal to be served that took 9 hours to make ... and oh yeah to wait for the film to
come back from the lab ...
seems like another thread soon to be going off the rails and ignored because of inflamitory comments ..
and another hater

 

[Helinophoto]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

unless they are a consumer that does ( pro-sumer ? )

 

[moose10101]

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 don't think those people are "mindless and have no informed opinion" either. I also think that quite a few of them are interested in quality, and many even have an interest in technique for using their device.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[Kenny Harrelson]

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.

That's exactly who I meant, thank you. If a person cares enough about photography to become a member of a photography-centric website like APUG, they're not in that 90% bracket I spoke about.

 

[jamesaz]

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.

Yes, this.

 

[Ste_S]

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.

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.

 

[removed account4]

It's quite nice and easy.

yep it can be, or it can be as difficult as stabilizing the leaning tower of pita..
YMMV

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

I'm guilty of using lightroom and photoshop for my film scans...

If anything shooting film is far more involved for me than shooting digital. Many more steps for get my final image. And I don't have a problem with this.

 

[MattKing]

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).

You edit your photos while having your bath?
I know I can't do that with my film work!

 

[RPC]

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.

I don't shoot digital and I don't scan. I develop my own color negatives and print optically with excellent results and thus don't use or need any computer manipulation, as the negatives have high quality just the way they are, having high dynamic range. Some digital users here indicate they have to make adjustments to correct exposure problems, and the digital images of the lab I color-corrected for routinely needed such corrections, which often were not completely correctable, along with other problems we did not have with film.