As a summary, some people believe it does not really matter\nas long as the photo is great and other advocate why and how to avoid it. Other\nrightfully point out it is sometimes better not to fix it whereas other explain\nin detail how to do it the right way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a classic case of different opinions in photography\nbetween those who do not want to consider something else than the purely\nartistic result and the scientists obsessed by being consistent with some\nphysical principles. As usual too, both are right and wrong at the same time.\nIndeed, what matters in photography is the result, the emotions a photography\ncan carry, and whether you like it. Period. Clipping, no clipping, who cares.\nAt the same time, it is true to say that blowing your sensor which can no\nlonger deliver any information but \u201cI am blown\u201d (white burned) or \u201cI am blind\u201d\n(black clipped) is not really what someone can call good practise, to say the\nleast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am trying in this post to find a way to make all these\nopinions somewhat aligned, in a very much Swiss-like consensus way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How to detect it and how to fix it <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
There are also plenty of information about the topic. I\nwould recommend reading:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[1] How to Avoid Burned-Out Highlights<\/a> Most of the people know well the \u201cphysical\u201d clipping: when the sensor is blown. Technically speaking, it means the pixels of a given channel (R, G, B) or its luminance (Based on the square root of R, G, B weighted according to the human eye characteristics) is at its maximum value (typically 255 for 8 bits JPG) or its minimum (0). <\/p>\n\n\n\n But it is also important to remember that what matters is\nthe \u201cvisual\u201d clipping: the pixels that are almost blown or clipped also matter\nbecause (at least for JPG images), there can be no way to really fix them\nproperly and get information from the clipped regions of an image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s have a look at the clipped pixels highlighted in blue for the blacks and red for the highlights in the image below. First, one could argue that using JPG for such conditions is not the best idea, RAW would have been by far a better choice but without going to start another countless debate RAW vs. JPG, the image has been poorly exposed as there is no clipped pixels in black (they would be in coloured in blue in the image below) whereas they are quite a few blown ones (in red below). So, basically, it says the image should have been significantly less exposed.. But whereas the number of actuals blown pixels in red is not\nso significant, the number of visually clipped pixels is at an unacceptable\nlevel. It is making the image ugly whereas it was an interesting one. There are\nalmost blown from a physical perspective, but for our eye, they are just blown\u2026\nyou can try to reduce highlights or exposure, there is basically no information\nrecorded into the sunny mountains part of the photo. The image will stay poor.\nSo, what matters is not the truly clipped pixels but those which look clipped. Using\nLightroom or other software tool is not enough even if, again, you can\u2019t do\nmuch to fix it when you shoot JPG. That\u2019s a good transition to the next point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe it does make sense to differentiate JPG from RAW\nimages when it comes to clipping. For RAW images, with modern sensors, clipping\nimages is rare. Or you really do it on purpose. Or you have no idea how to use\nyour camera\u2019s exposure systems! The below example shows how tolerant sensors\nare now to clipping:<\/p>\n\n\n\n I know it is not so simple and you can clip some parts of a photo\ndespite your goodwill and expertise whilst shooting RAW. My point, however, is\nto say it is rarely a problem and it is easy to identify and to anticipate as\nit will only concern extremely high contrasted images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to JPG, this is a totally different story. It can\nbe easy to clip parts of an image and it can be difficult to fix it as we have\nseen above. What matters is first to know quite well how to detect that the\nimage will have some clipping. Second, you need to know whether it is a problem\nfor your image or it is not. There is no good answer to this (from my\nperspective, though, it will very often be a problem). One approach would be of\ncourse to shoot RAW anytime there is a risk of clipping, just to have more\nlatitude in the process, but it is not always possible or desirable. At least\nyou know what to do. So, it looks important to understand the causes and the\nconsequences of clipping and how RAW can fix it while bringing the usual inconvenient\nof shooting RAW (processing time, file size, buffer limits, \u2026). If you don\u2019t\nshoot RAW, you normally have reasons for this choice. This is a good transition\nto the next point: this is where good and bad clipping matters as well in your\ndecision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bad clipping is the one you should not get. Just expose\nbetter your image by underexposing it when you have bright parts or\nunderexposing it when you have potentially too many black clipped pixels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The good clipping is just inevitable. Below an example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we analyse the image below, we can see we have both blacks\nclipped and highlights burnt. In red the burned pixels, in pink the \u201cvisually\u201d\nclipped ones. In dark green the black clipped ones and in light green the \u201cvisually\u201d\nclipped. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Having significant both red and green zone just say you are\ngoing beyond the capabilities of your sensor. Just buy a better one with a\nhigher dynamic range\u2026 or use an artificial way (flash, umbrella, filters \u2026) to\ndecrease the contrast, which of course is not always possible or desirable\ndepending on the kind of pictures you are shooting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, if you aim at having high (or low) keys images, the\nresult will be clipped, fair enough but the pre-processed images \u2013 before you\nstart to work at them, the RAW images or the JPG out of the camera should not\nbe clipped. And to illustrate this, a cute gallery that I like of high\nkeys-on-purpose images:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[2] Stop Doing This to Your Photo\u2019s Highlights<\/a>
[3] What is Clipping in Photography and How to Fix It!<\/a>
[4] Restore Those Clipped Channels<\/a>
[5] 6 Ways to Reduce Blown Out Highlights in Your Outdoor Photography<\/a>
[6] Highlight Clipping in Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw (and Why You Should Care)<\/a>\u00a8
[7] What Is Clipping and How To Fix It<\/a>
[8] Blowing Highlights And Clipping Blacks: The Rule Behind Lost Details<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n“Physical” and “visual” clipping<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Backlight-small-Tristan-mountaineering.jpg\")
Example: a JPG image of a very high contrast scene<\/em>. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Backlight-small-Tristan-mountaineering-with-clipping.jpg\")
Same image with highlights in red, blacks in blue (none in this case)<\/em> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\nClipping is not the same animal when you shoot RAW or JPG<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Guillaume-SG-backlight.jpg\")
The Good clipping and the bad clipping<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/San-eternal-sunshine.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/San-eternal-sunshine-clipped-parts.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
![\"Knot\"](\"https:\/\/live.staticflickr.com\/7893\/31710059907_c89c132149_b.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Mopti-clipping.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/tristanromain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Tokyo-backlight.jpg\")