Digital BW, The Print

But the comparison is interesting, though I'm not sure how much it 
reflects differences in the two people's perception of what the image 
should be rather than the difference between working in 8 and 16 bits. 
The 16 bit version does clearly seem more subtle to me, but others might 
prefer the greater local contrast in the 8 bit version.

I think I've seen enough of my own files edited as 8 bit not to take 
Margulis too seriously. All to easy to mess things up, and 16 bit 
certainly seems to give me less problems.

Looking forward to using my 16 bit printing system with K7 inks shortly 
too, works pretty well with quads.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Bob Frost wrote:
> But that is about editing in 16bit or 8bit, not printing which is what this 
> thread is about (the thread seems to have a strange title!). If you want to 
> read more on 16bit versus 8bit editing, just read some of Dan Margulis' 
> list - ColorTheory. The editing in 16 or 8bit argument has been going on 
> there for years; no-one has yet satisfied Dan's challenge - that is to his 
> satisfaction!
>
> Bob Frost.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "X_Ray_Wa" <x_ray_wa@...>
>   
>> interesting read
>>
>> http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/bit_depth_comparison.htm
>>     
>
>