Digital BW, The Print

Been reading this and also need to say something -
I think Eddie is right on when talking about archiving in 16 bit - our 
editing or esthetic skills may change over time, and we'd
all agree that 16 bit is better for making changes. In addition, we all 
know that software will change.  The future will more than
likely bring superior ways to interpret files - we want those to be in 
16 bit (until 24 bit shows up:-)

But more to Ginny's point about music - Comparing speakers and 
equipment aside - our ears can hear higher bit sound reproduction, and 
the
electronics can reproduce it.
This is not true of printers. John may say that printers can output at 
16 bits, and although that may be true,  256 is still mostly the magic 
number in reproducible gray scale tones, and an 8 bit  image converted 
from a well edited 16 bit file looks and prints identically, in my 
opinion, even
though some of us feel that Piezo inks do a little better than 256.  
Printers that I'm familiar with (mostly Epson) will convert a 16 bit 
file "on the fly" to
8 bit during the printing process.  There's no choice. Personally, 
since that's the way it is, I'd rather convert my files to 8 bit in PS 
and examine them for
defects before printing.
That makes 4 cents!

Clay Price

>
>    From: "Edward Wiseman" <pahts@...>
> Subject: Re: Re:
>
> 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