• 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: 8 bit vs. more bits
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 8 bit vs. more bits


  • Subject: Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
  • From: bruce fraser <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:21:53 -0700

At 10:15 AM -0400 4/18/05, Roger Breton wrote:
> If I seem to have presented 16-bit as an absolute, that wasn't my
intention, and has never been my belief or my practice.

Your practice? Aren't you advocating and practicing an all ACR to ProPhoto workflow? For all kinds of good technical reasons. Nothing wrong with that but it is *pure* 16 bits, no?

Yes. But I also make 8-bit screen shots, and I've been known to work on 8-bit legacy files rather than rescan. Also, it's a photographer's workflow, not a prepress shop's workflow. (Even for a photographer's workflow, I wouldn't attempt to dictate that someone shooting 200 widgets on white seamless has to stay in 16-bit all the way to output.) If all I cared about was getting as many commercially-acceptable images out to a single print process as possible, I'd be looking for the minority of images that might pose problems in an 8-bit workflow and special-casing those.


I err on the side of caution by staying in 16-bit until I'm forced to downsample because it avoids guesswork and it costs me less in the long run. I've never claimed that that applied to everyone on the planet. I have the infrastructure to support high-bit workflow relatively painlessly-fast machines, plenty of RAM, tons of storage, fat pipes. You get into diminishing returns the longer you stay in 16-bit, but I've been bitten too many times by 8-bit artifacts that suddenly show up on conversion to output space on otherwise well-behaved images that it's simply easier for me to stay in 16-bit space for my personal work.

What I responded to in the first place was the bald claim that there is no reason to ever work in high-bit mode, which was presented as an absolute, and with which I disagree.

--
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: 8 bit vs. more bits
      • From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: 8 bit vs. more bits (From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
  • Next by Date: Re: 32 bits in Photoshop?
  • Previous by thread: Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
  • Next by thread: Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread