Re: 16 bit editing...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Bob,

My problem is that I don't see any differences on the monitor. So whether the
printer can replicate a 16 bit file or not is irrelevant. Plus, the advantage
is suppose to reveal itself during an editing session prior to down-verting
(made up word) to 8 bits. In others, proponents say there is an advantage to
editing in 16 bits, then converting to 8 bits. Meaning, one should be able to
see the differnce between a 16 bit edited image, converted to an 8 bit file vs.
an 8 bit file edited in 8 bits. But I never have! Maybe my subject matter won't
reveal it. But I've never seen it in any of my images or any other images.

As far is computer resources are concerned, it's not the storage space, but the
extra processing time penalty and the extra memory requirements. 16 bit files
slow everything down. 

--- Bob Frost <bobfrost@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> Is it simply that our current printers can't take advantage of 16-bit files?
> If so, then using 16-bit now is more for future-proofing our images, than
> getting an obvious immediate gain. File size is not so much a problem these
> days, surely? I've two old computers, one with a single 1.2 GB hard disk,
> one with a 30GB hard disks, and a new one I've put together with 240GB of
> disk space. Together with DVD-RAM disks that store nearly 10GB, storage is
> not the problem that it was a few years ago. So if keeping my files in
> 16-bit means that in a year or two I can reprint them on a 16-bit printer,
> then that is probably a good enough reason.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Greer" <mgreer316@yahoo.com>
> 
> > I know and understanding all of the theory behind why using 16 bit images
> is
> > preferable to using 8 bits images. Like I wrote initially, mentality, it
> makes
> > perfect sense to me. But read what I wrote, nobody has yet produced a side
> by
> > side comparison that I've seen of an image that actually reveals the
> issues
> > with using 8 bit images. I just haven't seen it. That's not to say I don't
> > believe it isn't possible. But why after all these years has a simple 16
> bit
> > vs. 8 bit side by side comparison of the same image undergoing the same
> editing
> > functions been produced so that the diferences can be seen? Why all of the
> > theory explanantion when a simple side by side display on the web would do
> the
> > trick? I read a lot of people rehashing the same theory, but still no
> > comparisons. And believe me, I've tried! I've taken real 16 bit images and
> > preserved them at 16 bits in an editing session. I've taken that same
> image,
> > bumped it down to 8 bits, then edited it with the same editing steps. The
> > result? No difference. I've done this with several different images at
> > different points in time over the years.
> >
> > I remain ready to be convinced. Maybe it only reveals its superiority with
> > certain types of images. I don't know. But it's a heck of a penalty to pay
> when
> > the advantages are apparantly so hard to come by.
> 
> 
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.


=====
Visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://www.mikegreer.com. Also, Greer and Associates (http://www.greeraa.com) offers studio photography, digital imaging services, web site design/construction, and training. 

Mike Greer

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanner Discussion Archive]     [Gimp Users]     [Gimp]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [Photo Sharing]
  Powered by Linux