Digital BW, The Print

I think there's 2 issues here.  One is about human perception and the other about existing 
technology.

Issue 1 is, if no human eye is capable of seeing more than 256 shades of gray, then why 
store at 16 bit?

The other issue, 2, the existing technology issue, can be studied by considering the 1955 
TV newsroom.  Why shoot color 16mm news footage in 1955, after all, there are no color 
TV sets?  Now in 2006, the value of shooting color news footage in 1955 seems clear.  In 
other words, today's printers are for the most part converting all files to 8 bit for printing.  
But what if a future generation of printers can make better use of the 16 bits than current 
printers?

To go back to issue #1, human perception.  The human hearing range is, let's say, 20 Hz 
to 20 kHz.  Why then do certain hi-fi buffs assemble systems that can reproduce sound 
beyond those limits, and why do high-end recording studios try to record sound beyond 
those limits?  They do it, they say, because for those who are sensitive to subtle 
differences, it makes a difference.

My notion is that I'd prefer to archive the best available file.

Ed
    
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...> 
wrote:
>
>  snip
>   As I said,  I could not tell a 16 bit from an 8 bit print. Not one
> of my discerning photographer friends could tell a 16 bit from an 8
> bit print. If neither myself nor any of my 3 critical photographer
> friends can tell an 8 bit from a 16 bit print, I'm not going to store
> finished images at 16 bits.