[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

What scanner are you using, Tom? Maybe you mentioned by I don't
recall... are you printing black and white or color?

Art

HPA wrote:

> 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