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: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:56:08 -0400
Marco,
My comment is based on this observation.
If one in ten images are causing a problem in workflows as Bruce and the
and many others who have reported, it seems from my 35 + years of
experience that the capture process or image editing process or
somewhere in the imaging process, those ten percent of the images are being
damaged.
I did some conservative math based on my imaging experiences with 8 bit
images . The numbers shake out like this just for one person. Say one
person works on 30 eight bit images a day for the last 20 years, five
days a week. That is over 120,000 8 bit images.
In that number, 120,000, I have seen maybe 50 images with the types of
problems that are being discussed here. Not 12,000 which would be 10%.
And that is only one person. Rhetorically speaking, how many thousands of
people are involved with image capture and Photoshop?
When I have seen images with banding , I have almost always found the source
of it (99% of the time).
If the 8 bit images I am hearing about require special handling to keep
them from breaking and need to be edited in 16 bits, the conclusion I have
come to for this moment is that there is something damaging them.
It could be poorly integrated technology or just operator error. However,
I know Bruce and other Photoshop experts who are all careful with image
editing, so I have to discount any operator error in those cases.
I think the number 10% is way high. My guess, IF ( a big if) there is a
technical problem with 8 bit files, the percent of failure with 8 bit
files is well under 1%.
But if the 10 % number is are anywhere near accurate and if I was a
technology vendor such as scanner or camera vendor or Adobe I would be on
the verge of freaking out.
And that is the basis of why I used the word damaged in my last post.
Jim Rich
On 4/20/05 6:05 PM, "Marco Ugolini" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Sure. I thought we were agreeing already. I was not talking about damaged
> files. Plenty of retouching is done daily on perfectly sound files.
>
> I don't see how what I said is in contradiction with what YOU are saying.
>
> --------------
> Marco Ugolini
> Mill Valley, CA
_______________________________________________
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