Digital BW, The Print

> The whole slant that Dan brings to
> the conversation is to drop the TALK of why bit depth matters and SHOW
> IMAGES that support the logic.

Hi Todd,

Well, most ALL have done B&W images that posterize...and that disproves his
claim.

> So far, many people have DISCUSSED the logic of utilizing higher
> bit depths,
> some of them highly regarded PS gurus who consult, write, teach, and do
> major ad campaigns with PS. But none have presented IMAGES (as in
> photos) to
> support their case.

But, they are specifically talking about color, and for color, what Dan says
(as well as others, including my self) is correct, but that is only for
color.  With 8 bit color you have 24 bits, not 8.  With grayscale you have 8
bits, and that's it.  It's an entirely different matter.

> ...heretofore nobody has
> stepped up to the
> plate to visually, with images, demonstrate him to be so - which IS his
> challenge.

Read what he was just quoted as saying here...he ONLY mentions color in his
claim...

> he feels the people who advocate the higher workload owe it to their
> listeners to demonstrate it's worth the added effort.

Where do you believe posterizing comes from, if you have a good original
scan?  The posterizing issue has been discussed many times...and most always
the solution is...to do tonal correction in 16 bits, and that solves the
posterizing.  I don't get any posterizing any more, since I learned TO do my
tonal corrections in the scanner, and not in PS, which as I've said, the
scanner does do tonal correction in high bit, and gives PS an 8 bit
file...and when I try to correct the 8 bit file in PS, I sometimes get
posterizing.  That's entirely demonstrable.  Be aware that you may not see
posterizing on the screen, but you will in the histogram and then in the
actual print.

> ...and so the
> "challenge" waits.

Well, no it doesn't...not for B&W.  As Dan if his "challenge" is for B&W, if
it is, I will gladly put my money where my mouth is.

> Now, on the other side of the equation, the criticism against Dan's
> challenge is that the parameters of it have been less than excruciatingly
> well defined, and some feel they may be a moving target - I don't
> know if he
> includes grayscale images in it or not, for instance.

I assure you he does not include grayscale...NOW...but when he first made
these claims, he was only thinking in terms of color, not B&W...and now he
qualifies everything with "color".

> But if you think
> you're ready to step to the plate and put some images with your
> words - and
> I don't mean diagrams, histograms, and equations - I mean
> posterized prints,

Any time.

> I'll gladly forward his contact info to you so you can
> discuss the details with him.

Well, I don't want to discuss anything with him, I'd like to see his claim
in writing, in public.

> ...and on a
> personal level
> he is a really nice guy - warm, witty, personable, respectful,
> kind, etc. -
> so don't be fooled by the nature of the "challenge". I don't believe he's
> out to embarrass anybody, he simply wants to bust the hype (or
> make a little
> of his own, I'm sure).

But this is what's got my questioning his "honesty".  Showing posterization
in B&W is very common, and very easy to do.  If he had a clue, then why not
just do it for himself.  If I remember right, didn't YOU do some images to
see for your self?  Did you scan as I suggested, in RAW mode, and set the
setpoints then convert to 8 bits and do the tonal adjustments?  If not, do
it and see for your self, as you live near him, and can bring him the
prints!

> So, go for it. Show him that your results back up the logic. It's
> unbelievable nobody has yet.

It is, IF he is also talking about grayscale, which I am most positive he
will back away from.  Please, ask him.

Austin