Digital BW, The Print

Dear John,

 Apology accepted and appreciated. 

Your explanation is most sensible. Thanks for taking the time to give
me all the details.
 What I'd really like to see is how one of the new printers that can
handle 16 bits does in the 8 bit vs. 16 bit 'shootout' :>.
Will the prints actually look different? You would think so but I'm
won't be convinced until I see it.

 Putting that factoid aside, even if the prints do NOT appear any
different, your words still stand apart on their own merit.

 Thanks again for the explanation.

 Best Regards
 Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> I apologize for taking a shot at you; that is not my nature, and I'm
sorry I
> wrote it that way.
> Specifically, there are 16-bit print drivers today, and more coming
soon.
> 
> Here are my thoughts on why LS-8000/9000 scans should be stored at
16 bit.
> What fits on a CD is a red herring; that storage capacity is "old",
and we
> are addressing image quality, which has noting to do with storage.
> 
> To preserve the quality of the scan, more than 8-bits are required;
there is
> no other option.
> 
> Print quality is dependent on print size.  Just as there is relationship
> between negative size and acceptable maximum print size, the same
> relationship occurs between the number of grayscale steps and
gradient size;
> notice I did not say print size.  It is this spatial aspect that is
> witnessed as visible improvements; K7 over quads, quads over Kk,
etc.  Fewer
> gray levels limit the spatial size a gradient can be before
perceptual steps
> appear, and are dependent on the inkset and dither pattern.  An 8x10
print
> of a woodland scene compared to a very fair skin portrait with shadow
> details at 16x20 would be examples of where the number of gray
levels would
> make a difference.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> ginnylady33
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:34 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archiving images on DVD?
> 
> "You are quoting things again that are not true"
> 
> 'Again'?
> 
> What are you referring to John? Be specific. If you are going to take
> a shot at me, be specific.
> 
>   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. I value most what my eyes tell me
> regarding image quality. The prints made from 8-bit files look just
great!
> I welcome you to store your images in 16 bit format. But, I would
> seriously doubt that one can tell the difference between a 16 bit and
> 8 bit print.
> Let's really investigate the matter...setup a double blind study.
> Let's do it. It must truly be double-blinded. Prints made from 16 bit
> files vs. prints made from 8 bit files from the same image. Let's see
> if anyone can consistently tell the difference.
> 
>   Best Regards
>   Ginny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>