Hi Terry,
I used to believe the same thing and I found out there was this huge debate about it so I did several tests and found I could not distinguish between a file that was worked all the way in 8-bit and a file that was worked in 16-bit and converted to 8 bit at the end. I'm talking sharpening, levels and curves, hue and saturation. even cropping.
Now I save the raw images as 8 bit (Of course I keep the raw files for when I can work in 16 bit all the way.
If you get a moment test it
herschel
Terry <terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Terry <terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's not exactly correct.If you have a lot of work to do on an image and the output is going to be 8 bit you are still better off to work on it in a higher bit depth, when you take it back down to 8 bits you will not loose nearly as much information on the image as if you had worked on it in 8 bit to begin with.Still not convinced about DNG!Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
www.mairsphotography.com----- Original Message -----From: Herschel MairSent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:42 AMSubject: 8 bit and 16 bit and 32 bitThere's no question that the more bit depth you have the better.However, if you're going to take it all back down to 8-bit in the end then you might as well just work in 8-bit all the way.The consumer and prosumer level output equipment has not caught up with more than 8 bit yet. It's pretty dangerous to be looking at a 32 bit image and thinking everything is marvelous and then outputting to an 8 bit printer. There are bound to be a few surprises.I tell my students to stick to a level slightly higher than the weakest link in the processing chain.CS2 has some fantastic 32 bit features now. WHAT a dynamic range!!!And I agree that the sooner we get with DNG, the better for all concerned.herschel
Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Hmm, 'JPGs are fine', that sort reminds me of what some on this list
> believe. Pity you weren't shooting RAW...
> Overall I found JPGs a poor substitue for a RAW file. No comparison
if
> it needed any tweaking, and definitely one stop short on the capture
> tonal range, even when the exposure was spot on.
Jim
I've changed the subject line because it ain't gonna help the original
question.
It's one of the ironies of the "digital revolution" that many of those
who have made the jump (leaving us film dinosaurs behind) now refuse
to accept, (in some cases almost religiously oppose) the quality /
flexibility benefits of greater bit depths. It's as if 8-bits good
... is the new mantra. It's as if it was so [8-bits per channel] for
some logical reason when in fact it was largely a historical
accident/processing convenience. On line and off (last months EOS
magazine) you find statement after statement about how "there is no
difference". 8-bit shooters are pretty much in the same position
slide shooters were cf users of negative film in that sense.
The simple fact, read FACT, is that a real HDR workflow could do away
with almost all exposure worries at the time of capture. If you want
shadow detail: it's there. Ditto for highlight detail.
In terms of progress ... maybe it really is time for all manufacturers
to adopt Adobe's open source "Digital Negative" rather than their own
self-interest-generated "proprietary" raw formats.
Digital Negative (DNG) main page:
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
Bob
Herschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of OmanAdobe Certified instructor+ (986) 99899 673
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
Herschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,
Head of the Department of Photography,
Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Adobe Certified instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
