• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?


  • Subject: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:00:55 -0700

At 12:39 PM -0400 4/17/05, email@hidden wrote:
Bruce Fraser writes:
So, I ask if the following is a fair summary of your position:

1) Bruce states that the argument has never been that identical edits applied
to 8-bit and 16-bit files would produce better results in the 16-bit version,
but he argues that it is possible that they might.

2) Bruce has not offered up any images that would demonstrate such a
superiority for 16-bit correction (as opposed to identical edits applied to 8-bit),
but he suggests that such images might exist.


3) Bruce's comments on "night and day difference" and "totally obvious to
anyone who looks" are based on his experience and perceptions; however, he has
never personally tested a series of corrections done to a 16-bit file on a live
image versus identical corrections done to an 8-bit one.


No, that's a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife characterization.

My position is very straightforward.

I proved to my own satisfaction many (>10) years ago that many of the problems I encountered with 8-bit files-posterizaton, striped skies, exaggerated saturation accompanying contrast moves, and unwanted hue shifts-largely disappeared when I edited (and converted to output space, which is a big edit) in 16-bit instead.

I seem to be far from alone in having noticed this phenomenon.

I quite sensibly decline to do all my work twice with the goal of making half of it fail, and with the exception of beta-testing procedures that need examples for bug reports, I don't make a habit of saving the failures.

If someone wants to pay me my day rate to do so, I'm quite certain that I can come up with real-world examples, but I decline to donate my time to a foolish quest with whose premiss I'm in disagreement.

Anyone who sees no benefit to working in 16-bit space simply shouldn't bother doing so. But they shouldn't come crying to me when their images fall apart on output.

My personal opinion is that this is a manufactured controversy-I decline to speculate on the motivation of those who have manufactured it-and I'm utterly disinclined to waste my time arguing the point when I have better things to do with it.

--
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
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


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Bruce and Dan are both right: was: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
      • From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop? (From: email@hidden)

  • Prev by Date: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Next by Date: Re: DTP41 question
  • Previous by thread: Re: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Next by thread: Re: Bruce and Dan are both right: was: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread