|
Actually for the most part I just keep my converted
files in 8 bit, considering that I don't do that much post production work on
them, I shoot in RAW format all the time, I check exposure each and every time
the light changes, make a quick check on the information screen on the camera,
and I do a custom white balance according to the manf, recommendations for doing
so, and I do this white balance each and every time the light changes as
well.
On rare occasions I do have a photo, mostly scenic
if it happens that needs more work then I convert that to 16 bit work on it save
it as a tiff in 16 bit just incase, then convert the files for printing to 8 bit
and send it off, saving the RAW and the 16 bit files separately. Now this is
just me but rather safe than sorry I will err on the side of caution and
continue to do it this way.
One more point on this subject, my printers have
done several tests and once you have the file as you want it working from a tiff
you can convert it to JPG and send it for printing with out any loss of
quality.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:26
AM
Subject: Re: 8 bit and 16 bit and 32
bit
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:
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!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:42
AM
Subject: 8 bit and 16 bit and 32
bit
There'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 Oman
Adobe Certified
instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
Do you Yahoo!?
Make
Yahoo! your home page
Herschel Mair
Head
of the Department of Photography,
Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Adobe Certified
instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle
the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
|
