RE: OT: 16 bit editing myth or reality?

[Eric Neilsen <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>]

I'll add this little bit of analogy.  Many of us here coat a substance on to
paper. We use a certain volume to accomplish that task. How did we arrive at
that needed volume? Some by trial and error and some by reading and applying
that info to our workflow. 

A thin coating can be used but requires a more skilled application to not
show flaws. Do we set ourselves up for failure? I try not to, so upping the
coating volume to avoid thin spots is a better way to work. Digitally, an 8
bit can work but why not give yourself a better chance for a successful file
by starting out and editing in 16 bit to avoid "thin spots". IS it possible
to use too much? Sure. In the coating side we see pooling, puddles,
mottling, etc and in digital aspects of editing we get hang ups, crashes,
and long write times. In either case, we get feed back that allows us to
trim the amount of information carrying capacity (coating or 1s and 0s) to
allows us to arrive at a best answer for our needs. 

16 bit will usually give you a higher rate of return on quality images but
isn't always required. 

Eric 

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
Skype ejprinter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erich Camerling [mailto:e.camerling@tiscali.nl]
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 7:16 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: OT: 16 bit editing myth or reality?
> 
> When you use 8-bit instead of 16-bit you will get posterization (or
> posterisation).Look at Internet (e.g.:
> www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/posterization.htm) or via Google and
> you will find a lot of answers about this phenomenon.Conclusion :work
> with 16-bit.
> 
> Erich