Digital BW, The Print

On Nov 13, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Roy Harrington wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
> <deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for that informed dose of reality Roy.
>>
>> As for noise in the extremes of scans, I see far less of it in drum
>> scans than any digital capture I've worked with.
>>
>> But really, I think the reason that this discussion has reared its
>> ugly head again is that Cannon is suggesting that with their new
>> machines that 16 bit is desireable and perceiveable. Othewise why  
>> send
>> it over there. ( I wouldn't anymore than I would output 2880 with
>> matte paper). We were wondering if there WAS any advantage or whether
>> it is just marketing talk. I belive you've answered the question.
>>
>> John
>
> I'd sure like to see someone try it out.   -- print a 16 bit image  
> and then
> take the same image convert to 8 bit and print it again.
>
> Roy

Dan Margulis devoted the last eleven pages (309 - 320) of Chapter 15  
of the 4th [Photoshop 7] edition of his "Professional Photoshop: The  
Classic Guide to Color Correction" (Wiley, 2002) to an earlier  
controversy about 8 bits per channel vs. 16. He didn't find 16 bits  
better in his attempts. But he did, on page 318, "... recommend that  
if your scanner or digicam _can_ give you a 16 BPC file, take it.  
Thereafter, I see no point in maintaining it in 16 BPC, but it  
doesn't hurt either." I can't tell to what extent he was thinking in  
the context of color prints or B&W.

Earlier in this section ("The Emperor's New Clothes"), Dan Margulis  
wrote that he had "... no intentions of lavishing this much space on  
the topic in subsequent editions." But I can't confirm that he  
hasn't; the now five-year-old 4th Edition is the most recent one I  
have, and a newer one might be a better reference for background on  
trying out 16 BPC.
--
Sam