[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 2 Sep, 2003

["HPA" <tom@historicphotoarchive.com>]

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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body