Re: 16-bit images...

[david schrader <davidschrader@earthlink.net>]

> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:18:17 -0700
> From: "Gus J Grubba" <gus@grubba.com>
>Subject: RE: 16 bit editing...

>In my opinion, serious work can only be performed within 16 bits. It
>amazes me that Photoshop, after all these years is still so restricted
>in this regard.


Thanks for the post.  Just curious: over the course of your testing have you
ever made side-by-side print comparisons of both an 8-bit scan and a 16-bit
scan of the same image?  It'd be very intriguing to read about such a
comparison (even better to see it; anyone on the list know if such a visual
comparison exists anywhere on the web?)  I understand the theory behind the
reason for working in 16-bits and it does seem like the preferred way to go.
Personally, I haven't explored it because I haven't wanted to deal with the
increased file sizes... I need to occasionally make big prints and thus most
of my image files are in the 200 to 300 meg range.  Maybe when I upgrade my
system :o) ...

Thanks again,

Dave Schrader





-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.