Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
- Subject: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
- From: Jim Rich <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:49:05 -0400
I am willing to discuss this topic as long as there are no flames or
personal attacks. And if there are such things I would hope that the list
mom will do his or her job.
So here goes.
First my comments and observations are not really about the future. They are
more about the past and today.
I am one of those people that has taken say 30 images. Half of them were 8
bit and the other half were 16 bits. I then whacked the pixels by making
large tone and color corrections over 25 times per image using Photoshop. I
then printed the images.
Then I asked a group of experts (over 30 people) to tell me which images
were 8 bit and which ones were 16 bits. This test showed they were right
about 50% of the time. This illustrated that the experts were guessing and
they could not clearly say that image a, b or c was 8 or 16 bits. .
This is very hard evidence that the current 8 bit image processing
technology is very good when the experts can't see the difference on the
final prints between 8 and 16 bit files.
What is also interesting at the last Seybold conference is that a well known
photographer who was on the panel got up and said (to my dismay) that if you
are producing photographic prints it is a reasonable expectation that most
of your files can be processed in the 8 bit mode. And that 16 -bits is
only necessary for a very few situations.
Now if the argument for using 16bit files is frame in terms of the future.
Well, no one really knows what the future will bring and is only guessing.
However, I agree you should be doing things to position for the future if
they make sense. Capturing and archiving images in a high bit mode makes
sense.
Having religion about only using 16 bit images for image editing,
technically does not make a lot of sense, especially for the masses. Again
this conclusion is based on hard evidence (prints) and not histograms.
And lately I have seen that using 16 bit images can even be detrimental to
a workflow especially if the tired and true tools and unknowing clients are
used to 8 bit files. The tools are available to edit 16 bit images. However
if a business is considering doing the 16 bit workflow for what ever reason,
a few tests need to be done to determine things like are there hits on
processing speed, will image quality be worse or the same and will the
workflow have the right capabilities. Based on those test, it is necessary
to determine what makes sense.
In terms of how many people use 8 or 16 bit images. Only two people know the
exact numbers and they are not telling. Just kidding. No one really knows
and it is just a guess.
My guess is that there are millions if not billions of 8 bit images in the
world and the majority (over 80%) of end-users use and edit 8 bit images.
Does this make the case for using 8 bit images. I don't think so. What
matters is the end result and in some cases your belief system.
So if one is to argue that 16-bit images are gaining in popularity, that
might be true, but when it comes to image editing and printing those images
the hard evidence says it does not matter if you use 8 or 16 bit images.
I personally don't care how a person or a business processes images. If they
want to use 8 or 16 bits that file. The tools are there to process images
both ways. And if you do edit 8 or 16 bit images you are not a bad person
as some might have you think.
Lastly, I undertook this project a few years ago without an agenda such as
to show that 8 bits was better than 16 bits or vice versa. However, if
someone can show me clearly that 16 bit files render better in print, I am
willing to change my view. To date no one has been able to show me the
difference.
That's my .04.
Jim Rich
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden