Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
- From: Jim Rich <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:53:58 -0400
On 4/15/05 4:24 PM, "Larry Wangelin" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 02:04 PM,
> email@hidden wrote:
>
>> 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.
> IMHO to do this test correctly you needed to have all 30 images in both
> 8 and 16 bit. Each image should have the same amount of whacking to the
> pixels for each instance. Then printed for a side by side comparison.
> Easy to batch process the lot of them for accuracy.
We did have duplicate looking images that were both 8 and 16 bits with the
same edits. And the 8 and 16 bit images of the same subject do look
different, But it is hard to tell those differences because they don't stand
out. Some of those images were whacked the same way and others were edited
other ways. And when laid side by side the experts could still not clearly
tell the difference.
As for questioning who the experts were. This took place at the GATF color
management conference a few years ago. The place was swarming with all
types of end-users. Anyone was welcome to take the test. Some of these folks
I have known from 35+ years of my experience with color. The others are at
different levels, but they are in the color business.
So for arguments sake, even if the folks who took this test were not at
the advanced level, the point is still made that everyone was guessing at
which image was 8 or 16 bits.
What I attempted with this test was to do was not about faith or religion,
it was about facts and practical matters to find hard evidence (one way or
another. pro or con) using a range of color professionals who could see
the difference between 8 and 16 bits images that were printed.
This type of test has been done by many others before me including by Dan
M. Instead of being lead like a sheep and believing the Urban Legend about
16 bits being better, I tested it myself. And all of these testers (as
well as my self) have found the same thing out. You can't see the effects
that have been advertised by pro 16-bit evangelist. If and when you can see
the difference it is only in a few minor cases , usually due to capture
problems. Hardly enough evidence to convert an 8 bit workflow that works to
a 16 bits that's more cumbersome and prone to break.
Also, please remember the last thing I posted.
" If someone can show me clearly that 16 bit files render better in print, I
am willing to change my view. "
So let me ask everyone this question:
If there were a fair and reasonable test that showed a difference between
8 or 16 bit images and it showed the type of hard evidence I and others
have seen, would you let those facts change your view about using 8 or 16
bit images?
Some might, but my guess is that a lot would not.
At that point why argue. Let all just move on.
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