Surely the answer to any dilemma here over what to save is to archive two versions of any image. One being the 'final' version which represents your current best digital interpretation of your captured image (digital or film) - or indeed several different 'final' versions; and the second being the 16 bit unadjusted image as captured digitally or scanned. Then you can go back to square one as many times as you want in future and start all over again! That's what I do - and for me it represents my 'best practice'. It's simply like have the original negative on file to reprint (after PhotoShopping). Any other approach is the equivalent of binning the negative after you've made one print! Now who'd ever do that I wonder? If my files were smaller so I could save all of my layers then I'd save it as a 16 bit file which I could always start again from scratch as often as I wanted - as my initial layer is always there; so I wouldn't need a separate unadjusted file. But as a 16bit flattened file for me is 190MB and I often work through many many layers, file sizes become totally unmanageable with current hardware and software limitations - hence my two file archive strategy; the 'before' file and the 'after' file. Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/ Edward Wiseman wrote: > I'd like to "jump-in" if I may.. > If one chooses that sometime in the future when he/she has MORE > knowledge of > editing an image via PHOTOSHOP or whatever, they stand MORE of a chance of > getting a better PRINT IMHO, if their "new-found" knowledge is applied > to a > 16 bit image..As for printing out this "final" image file, the printer > itself cares not whether the image is 16 or 8 bits, but will express the > information much BETTER in the form of a print that has been EDITED in 16 > bit.. > > > Just my 2cents.. > > Eddie Wiseman ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Re: 16 Bit vs 8 bit archiiving
2006-03-21 by Steve Gledhill
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.