Digital BW, The Print

You raise a very valid point Ed. It is a good point.

This is where we all must make a choice. And, having made that choice,
 one could possibly change later on. I've done this on a variety of
issues.
 You also touched on a bit of a sore point for me...namely, high-end
sound sytems. 
 About 8 or 9 years ago, I was in the market to upgrade my Home
Theater speakers. I went all over listening to speakers. I finally
fell in love with a pair of B&W speakers. The dealers were all pushing
the B&W 'Studio Reference' pair of speakers that were much larger,
much more expensive and much more impressive looking, but to my ear,
sounded inferior to the cheaper and smaller pair of speakers I loved.
 As I was getting the sales pitch, several people came and were
cajoled if not shamed into buying the really expensive "Reference"
speakers.
 I don't know. Mine sounded way better to me regardless of price or
size. I've got a great ear for music, play piano and clarinet and have
a huge collection of records and CDs. Music IS my forte. I do know sound.
 I relate this little tale, because today, my pair of speakers is
listed on several websites as one of the top 10 speakers made in the
'90s(!) The 'Studio Reference Model' that looked so impressive, are on
no list anywhere.
 Now, I admit, my analogy is a stretch.
 I also will admit, that I don't like the notion of making 2 CDs per
roll instead of one.  
:) 
After all, it is double my work! 

 So, until I can clearly see a difference, I'm cutting corners a bit
and storing files at 8 bits. I must sheepishly admit, however, that
those VERY special images, the ones I REALLY like, do get stored at 16
bit.....
 But, that might be only 3 or 4 per roll.
 Frankly yours,
  Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho"
<erudolph@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>