G
ggull
This is a bit off-topic, but the relative merits of 8 vs 16 bit/channel
images used to be a subject of heated debate around here, with knowledgeable
folks on both sides.
The other day I ran across a discussion of editing (as with Photoshop) in
16-bit mode, which seemed to go with the general flow of discussions here --
it may make some difference in some cases, especially with smooth gradations
and adjusting levels.
But the following, put in as an aside, seemed far different from what I
recall --
"When you print a 16-bit image, the results are stunning."
Comments? Any idea what the author is talking about?
I thought that the available colors for printing (at least for common
consumer printers) were a tiny fraction of even a 3x8 bit image's range.
Hence, the printer can't "see" the difference between an 8 and 16 bit
version of the same image.
Could using a 16 bit image ever make a "stunning" difference? Perhaps with
poorly calibrated color management? or on very high end printers?
images used to be a subject of heated debate around here, with knowledgeable
folks on both sides.
The other day I ran across a discussion of editing (as with Photoshop) in
16-bit mode, which seemed to go with the general flow of discussions here --
it may make some difference in some cases, especially with smooth gradations
and adjusting levels.
But the following, put in as an aside, seemed far different from what I
recall --
"When you print a 16-bit image, the results are stunning."
Comments? Any idea what the author is talking about?
I thought that the available colors for printing (at least for common
consumer printers) were a tiny fraction of even a 3x8 bit image's range.
Hence, the printer can't "see" the difference between an 8 and 16 bit
version of the same image.
Could using a 16 bit image ever make a "stunning" difference? Perhaps with
poorly calibrated color management? or on very high end printers?