>>8 bit good: 16 bit bad >Did you forget the smiley face? If you read some of the newsgroups, the wars between 8-bit and 16-bit imaging proponents make Nikon vs Canon (and even digital vs film) look tame. It's not just a debate, a matter of opinion, a discussion, but a religious war. I've never understood why "8-bit" (256 levels) had such fundamental significance attache to it. It's not set by imaging considerations but by the simple historical convenience of working with 8-bit bytes [noting that not all systems used 8-bit bytes in the past]. Sure, 16-bits may be excessive: arguably 10 or even 12 per channel my indeed be enough ... But (apart from images that are spot on first time) ill-conditioned 8-bit image files do show , to the eye, visible effects after only a moderate amount of PS work. High contrast images especially so - where you are after the detail that *IS* in the shadows and that which is in the highlights. With film (cough) it was there on the neg. In an 8-bit file it is not: it's gone already BOB -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
