Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
- Subject: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:31:40 -0700
At 9:37 AM +0100 8/3/01, Martin [apple account] wrote:
The debate on 8 bit vs 16 bit colour is hotting up on Dan Margulis's Color
Theory mailing list.
Dan's position is that in "real life" retouching there are no visible
benefits to working with 16 bit images.
I think that says more about the way Dan looks at, and treats, images
than it does about the benefits of 8-bit vs 16-bit workflows.
Images that tend to posterize during color conversion (gradients,
skies, etc.) tend to do so much less when you do the conversion at
16-bits/channel.
Color neg absolutely needs 16 bits, IMHO. It captures a much wider
dynamic range from the scene than does transparency film, and you
need the extra bits to do the necessary tonal shaping and compression.
The other reason I use 16 bits is that my film is precious and
fragile. I only want to expose it to the rigors of scanning once, and
when I do so, I want to make sure that I've captured everything the
scanner can pull off the film.
Others' milage may vary...
Bruce
--
email@hidden