Re: 16 bit editing...

[Todd Flashner <tflash@earthlink.net>]

Mark

Thanks for that.

Your results are different than what I would expect however. In your example
the 16-bit file appears to be sharper and with more contrast than the 8-bit
version. Typically when tones are "lost", as happens in 8-bit editing, it
gives the appearance of increased contrast and sharpness. Up until the point
where it looks horrible that is, which your image does not yet.

Is it possible for you to post 100% magnification detail views of the
portion you consider most telling, and include a numerical description of
the edit you applied? That would be really useful.

Thanks, I really appreciate your effort.

Todd Flashner

PS, I did a little write up of my own.

<http://www.ourwebmaster.com/piezography3000/20020106ToddFlashner1.htm>

It's horribly bloated with text, which I hope to clean up in the future,
plus I'll add a color image that tells a different tale. In time...



> Mike,
> 
> Here is a real world comparison for you.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/mark_kn/16bit_vs_8bit_editing
> 
> The image was taken with a Canon D60 in RAW mode and converted to a 16 bit
> TIF.
> A duplicate was made and converted to 8 bit.
> An equal amount of levels were applied to both images.
> The files were then resized to 640x480 for speed of loading and saved as JPG
> quality 10.
> No other manipulation was performed.
> 
> Download the images (they are ~80k each). Look at the original. Notice how far
> down in the shadows the lower portion of the image is. Now observe the Johnson
> grass in the lower right foreground on the 16 bit edited file compared with
> the
> 8 bit edited file. Draw you own conclusions.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark K.
> 

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