Digital BW, The Print

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:33 PM
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


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Ginny,
> You are quoting things again that are not true; print drivers are
not _only_
> 8-bit.  There are print drivers with a complete 16-bit pipeline;
this has
> been discussed numerous times.
>
> I have owned an LS-8000 for years, and I'm also a member of that
list.  Your
> impression that "The vast majority of people agree" 8 bits is enough, is
> generally opposite of my impression, but that's OK, I just hope that
people
> consider the few pennies saved on storage before they toss away so many
> tones.
>
> 16-bit storage is required if you want to preserve the quality of
the scan
> you just made, period.
>
> Best regards,
> John Moody
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> ginnylady33
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archiving images on DVD?
>
> Th topic of 8 vs 16 bit storage has been discussed extensively on the
> LS-9000 forum. The vast majority of people agree that there is no
> point storing images that have already been corrected at 16 bits. 8
> bits is just fine.
> A quote follows from the conclusion of the thread.
>
> As with everything, there will be other opinions.
>
> In truth, I tried hard looking at prints made from 8 bit and 16 bit
> files and there was no difference visible. I then asked 3 photographer
> friends if they could pick out the 16 bit prints and they could not.
> End of story for me.
> (The guys I asked are really good and have critical/discerning eyes.)
>
> "Storing and printing 8 bit vs. 16 bit will never show any difference
> because the printer driver only works in 8 bit. However, if you open
> an image and do any extensive editing of the colors, retouching faces,
> or any transformation of the RGB values into other values you can then
> run into posterization problems. Think of it this way. Adjusting 256
> shades (8 bit) into 128 shades has lost half of the visible(?)
> information. Converting both results to 8 bit for printing will only
> result in an error of 1 or 2 out of 128 and you can't probably see it.
> Transforming 65,535 shades (16 bit)  into half the space gives 32,765
> remaining shades. To visualize the issue, set your monitor card to
> High Color (16 bit) and view some of your pictures that have nice
> blends (blue sky or skin tones) and then look at the same in True
> Color (32 bit). You can see the difference. If it didn't matter, our
> monitor cards would still be only 4 bits per RGB color.
>
> The bottom line is that 16 bit storage is only appropriate if you will
> want to do significant editing to the image before printing it. When
> printed or viewed you cannot see the difference because the devices
> are only 8 bits, 256 shades of each color."
>
> Best Regards
> Ginny
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

This is my understanding as well, Eddie.
 
 My approach is much the same as Ginny's. I archive at least 90% of my
finished images as 8 bit files having done all modifications in PS
while in 16 bits. 
Those images I feel are worthy, 5-10% or so, I store in 16 bit format.
It saves me a lot of space AND, more importantly, I'm not so
interested in those 'run-of-the-mill' images...so 8 bits is fine with
me, even long-term.

Howard 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Wiseman"
<pahts@...> 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
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m>
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:33 PM
> 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
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
> <moodymz3@> wrote:
> >
> > Ginny,
> > You are quoting things again that are not true; print drivers are
> not _only_
> > 8-bit.  There are print drivers with a complete 16-bit pipeline;
> this has
> > been discussed numerous times.
> >
> > I have owned an LS-8000 for years, and I'm also a member of that
> list.  Your
> > impression that "The vast majority of people agree" 8 bits is
enough, is
> > generally opposite of my impression, but that's OK, I just hope that
> people
> > consider the few pennies saved on storage before they toss away so
many
> > tones.
> >
> > 16-bit storage is required if you want to preserve the quality of
> the scan
> > you just made, period.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > John Moody
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> > ginnylady33
> > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:32 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archiving images on DVD?
> >
> > Th topic of 8 vs 16 bit storage has been discussed extensively on the
> > LS-9000 forum. The vast majority of people agree that there is no
> > point storing images that have already been corrected at 16 bits. 8
> > bits is just fine.
> > A quote follows from the conclusion of the thread.
> >
> > As with everything, there will be other opinions.
> >
> > In truth, I tried hard looking at prints made from 8 bit and 16 bit
> > files and there was no difference visible. I then asked 3 photographer
> > friends if they could pick out the 16 bit prints and they could not.
> > End of story for me.
> > (The guys I asked are really good and have critical/discerning eyes.)
> >
> > "Storing and printing 8 bit vs. 16 bit will never show any difference
> > because the printer driver only works in 8 bit. However, if you open
> > an image and do any extensive editing of the colors, retouching faces,
> > or any transformation of the RGB values into other values you can then
> > run into posterization problems. Think of it this way. Adjusting 256
> > shades (8 bit) into 128 shades has lost half of the visible(?)
> > information. Converting both results to 8 bit for printing will only
> > result in an error of 1 or 2 out of 128 and you can't probably see it.
> > Transforming 65,535 shades (16 bit)  into half the space gives 32,765
> > remaining shades. To visualize the issue, set your monitor card to
> > High Color (16 bit) and view some of your pictures that have nice
> > blends (blue sky or skin tones) and then look at the same in True
> > Color (32 bit). You can see the difference. If it didn't matter, our
> > monitor cards would still be only 4 bits per RGB color.
> >
> > The bottom line is that 16 bit storage is only appropriate if you will
> > want to do significant editing to the image before printing it. When
> > printed or viewed you cannot see the difference because the devices
> > are only 8 bits, 256 shades of each color."
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Ginny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY

> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Edward,

Only worth one cent, I'm afraid!   ;)

Aren't you're making the same assumption as Ginny - that ALL printers and 
drivers only handle 8bit files, downsampling 16bit files to 8bit before 
processing them?

AFAIK some newer printers and printer drivers can handle 16bit files, so one 
of those printers might 'care' whether the image is in 16bit or 8bit, and 
might produce better prints with a 16bit file.

Here's a quote from Canon about their their Photoshop plugin for their new 
iPF5000 pigment ink printer:-

"This application was designed to enable direct printing of 16 -bit RGB 
images directly from Adobe\ufffd Photoshop 6, 7, CS and CS2. This plug-in is a 
true export module that bypasses the print driver on Windows and Macintosh 
computers. The module was designed to be an integral part of a 
photographer's 16-bit workflow without compromising image quality. The 
Plug-in facilitates the printing of 16-bit images by processing the data 
outside the conventional driver and sending the data directly from Photoshop 
to the printer, dramatically increasing gradations and as a result, overall 
image quality. "

Some other 3rd-party drivers for Epsons also process in 16bit, I believe. So 
you would need to compare 16bit and 8bit prints from 16bit-capable printers, 
not just from 8bit printers.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Wiseman" <pahts@...>

.As for printing out this "final" image file, the printer
itself cares not whether the image is 16 or 8 bits,

Just my 2cents..

This also depends on your source of your data. As I recall, Ginny shoots  
on film and scans everything. In that case she has a record of the  
original data in the negative. Then keep an archive of the 8-bit "as  
printed" file is adequate. She can rescan at any time. If you shoot  
digital, then your original capture file in tiff, or even better, raw, is  
what you should be keeping. If you ever decide to "go back" and make any  
changes to the way a print turned out, then you will need the original.  
Trying to re-edit an 8-bit file is just asking for trouble. I generally  
keep the source files, in raw, and the "as-printed" files, at 8-bit, for  
any image I think is worth keeping at all. I may also keep some  
intermediary files.

Steve Taylor


  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:50:22 -0800, Edward Wiseman <pahts@...>  
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
>
-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

There's been a lot of good advice in this discussion. No one way is 
cost/risk free.  At the moment, I store my scans on a mirrored RAID 
array, and I burn DVDs of edited files.  Thus, I have film, hard drive 
and DVD image storage.  Of course if my house burns down, nothing will 
help, and I'm not willing to go to the hassle of storing stuff off-site.

For those storing only on hard drives, here's sobering story. Last week 
lightning hit the house of one of my customers.  It started five fires 
at various points in her house. Her her new plasma TV lit on fire, as 
did the expensive Monster power conditioner it was plugged into, and 
lost her whole computer system. Luckily she was home to put out the 
fires, or she'd have lost her whole house.

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

Exactly. That is what I do too. The original scan or 16 bit raw
capture is color and tonal corrected (how ever you choose to do that)
and archived. The "final" file, retouched and tweaked, with or without
layers, is someting that I save also. 

 As for clients, when I do the scanning its easy, they get a cd of the
"high bit scan" and if I do additional printing I give them a file for
the "final" print and I save one unless they don't want me to. Now
when people bring me their raw camera file, I look at it as their job
to keep track of their raw data, just as they would their negative. 

john




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Gledhill
<stephengledhill@...> wrote:

>
> 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) -

I agree.  I save everything in 16-bit.  Since that's the current best, why
not?  The cost of storage is minimal compared to everything else we have
tied up.  I do save the "final" version unsharpened.  That is because
sharpening is the last step, and new sharpening tools appear from time to
time.  I note the file as "NS" (no sharpening at all).  One exception is
where there is a complicated sharpening scheme, such as selective sharpening
with the brushes in PK Sharpener.  Then I'll save the image as "NFS" (not
final sharpened, in the case of PK Sharpener).  An easier case is the
soft-proofed image ready to go the printer.  There I just save the curve,
hue/saturation or whatever adjustments in a separate directory with the
print file name.

But, I wonder how many of us (who don't do high volume printing) really have
"final" images?  I recall the painter (memory fails right now, I think it
was Claude Monet) who had to be watched in galleries, since he would carry a
small palette under his coat and touch up his paintings hanging on the
walls.  If I have the name right, he would have liked 16-bit.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Steve Gledhill
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:55 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 16 Bit vs 8 bit archiiving
> 
> 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!