That's not exactly correct.
Is anything, ever? :o)
<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.>
For many images the differences may well be small. I'm more interested in
the other benefits such as - increasing exposure latitude.
Beyond 16-bits is more the domain of computer graphics. Most real lenses
have far too much flare to do justice to the dynamic range encodable
within HDR !
Still not convinced about DNG!
Well, it might not be perfect but it must be better than the 500+
different "raw" formats around at the moment - most of which are
undocumented!
Just because ADOBE does not have access to some one or others RAW file
formatting what makes it less satisfactory then DNG or any other system out
there?
I have been using Canon raw file converter and find it in most cases to be
much better then either adobe camera raw converter, or phase 1, and I do
find adobes to be better then phase 1 regardless of how much phase 1 might
think it is worth.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Qkano" <snapper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: 8 bit and 16 bit and 32 bit
This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at:
http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
