A few comments which may bear mentioning and enquiring about: >My digital prints look better than most of the rest of the >photographers where I sell.
Are you sure this is because of their scanning in 8-bit versus 16-bit and not because of some other factor in their workflows or the consequence of differences in equipment? >When I learned to do 16 bit dodging and burning using the history erase or >feathered selections, instead of the 8 bit dodge and burn using simple >tools, i noticed an enormous improvement in my prints. Interesting! Where did you learn of this technique and where can one read up on it? > Now, I can do all >kinds of image manipulation in 16 bit, and then when it is time to print it >and minor changes in contrast or lightness are necessary, they can all be >done in hi-bit Maybe; but what are you printing or outputing to? Most of the output devices including printers will not accept 16-bit or hi-bit input files, which means that you would have to convert the files to 8-bit in the end before sending them to the printer; how does this impact on the quality of the file so as to make it different from what you would have gotten using an 8-bit scan or even a hi-bit scan that was converted to 8-bit when working on it in Photoshop using the Photoshop tools that will only work 8-bit along with those that do work with 16-bit as well as 8-bit? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of HPA Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 2 Sep, 2003 I am glad to see we have such a wide diversity of opinion, or differences in technique or application, considering 8 bit / hi bit scanning. IMHO, full 16 bit processing at maximum resolution gives me enough quality edge to make it worth it. My primary market is photographic prints sold in galleries. My digital prints look better than most of the rest of the photographers where I sell. I make digital as well as darkroom prints. My digitals have to look as good as they can, just so the fiber prints don't slay them by direct comparison. When I learned to do 16 bit dodging and burning using the history erase or feathered selections, instead of the 8 bit dodge and burn using simple tools, i noticed an enormous improvement in my prints. Now, I can do all kinds of image manipulation in 16 bit, and then when it is time to print it and minor changes in contrast or lightness are necessary, they can all be done in hi-bit. I usually put at least several hours into spotting and image enhancement. Once I get a good scan and print, it just keeps selling over and over. Quality makes money for me. I can understand many reasons why a scanner operator would choose 8 bit processing. However, experience shows me there is a visible difference in 8 bit vs hi bit. I know many people cannot tell the difference, but i consider myself fortunate to be able to see it. Put me in category #1. Tom Robinson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
