Digital BW, The Print

Whatever Austin.

You keep saying how easily your images can posterize and if Dan want's to
see it, or for lunch at Le Cirque, no problemo, you have images ready to
show. However, whenever I ask to see them you waffle.

You also keep talking to me like I don't understand the topic, or know how
to avoid posterization in my own images; as if I'm having a problem I'm
asking you to solve. I think you know I scan and manipulate in 16-bit
routinely and have a decent knowledge of the subject and how to utilize my
scanner, Photoshop, and my printer. I hope that doesn't sound arrogant, I'm
not saying I'm good, just that you know I'm more competent than the person
your comments seem to be addressing.

All I was asking you to do was to demonstrate your results - the same
results you say you can obtain and recognize in a heartbeat. I was trying to
advance he discussion for the benefit of others, but I see that ain't going
to happen here.

Catch ya next time.

Todd

> 
>>>> But how 'bout showing us some of your posterized images for our
>>>> edification?
>>> 
>>> Well, that is a problem.  You need to see prints, not web
>> images...  Images
>>> can look fine on the screen, but when you print them, they are
>> posterized.
>> 
>> So scan the prints.
> 
> Well, that really doesn't work either...  Seeing the prints does, so why
> waste your time futzing around with anything else?  I guess I don't
> understand what the problem is.  Are you saying you have NEVER had visible
> posterization by making tonal corrections to your 8 bit files?
> 
>> We both know it's all image dependent, but if nobody shows what types of
>> images handle abuse well and what types don't, we don't know what
>> to make of
>> that knowledge...
> 
> I don't know that it can be characterized...and if it can, that may take a
> bit of work.  I KNOW that I used to get posterization doing tonal
> corrections to 8 bit files, so now I just make sure I get my tonal
> corrections done in the scanner driver, and voila!  No posterization at all
> in any of my prints.  Why can't Dan (or you) just do this your self?
> 
>> The current conventional wisdom is
>> that we all
>> need to walk on eggshells while doing any 8-bit manipulations, when in
>> reality some 99% of images do get 8-bit manipulations and do quite well by
>> them.
> 
> Not at all.  It depends on WHAT you are doing, and what your images look
> like, and how your scanner is set-up etc., what scanner you are using...bla
> bla bla.  There are so many variables that to try to quantify this with some
> exact number is a fool's errand.  I KNOW that it's far more than %1 from my
> personal experience, and if I had to guess, it would be more like %75...and
> I am talking about INITIAL tonal correction to a raw 8 bit file, file
> derived as I've specified previously.  Now, if you are talking about just
> small moves on a file that has all tones present...then it will be much much
> less, of course.
> 
>> The other point is, if it's so damn difficult to demonstrate how
>> the images
>> fail, the failure can't be as common or critical as we are led to believe.
> 
> Well, I know I can see it in a heartbeat with my images!
> 
>>>> Remember, we only need to retain a max of about 100
>>>> tones for a BW print; which means we can lose 156 out of 256.
>>> 
>>> Actually, no.  It depends on WHAT tones you "lose" and where they are.
>> 
>> Indeed. But think about it, some people get squirrelly if they
>> see ANY gaps
>> in their histogram,
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with that.  Assuring you have a full tonal range
> will assure you of no posterization in most every image.  Easy, why fuss
> with it?
> 
>> I'm only trying to give people some freedom here. I bet at least
>> 80% of the
>> people on this list do almost all their PS manipulations on 8-bit
>> files,
> 
> See, that's where I think this whole subject is misleading.  Most people
> don't do their initial tonal corrections on 8 bit files intentionally.
> Again, the initial tonal correction is done in the scanner driver...so if
> you're doing some minor correction on an 8 bit file in PS, it stands a much
> higher chance of being insignificant.
> 
>> The problem with most peoples experience in this matter is that
>> one day they
>> work an image in 8-bits and they get a bad print. Another day they work a
>> different image in 16-bits and get a good print. They conclude working all
>> images in 16-bits is the fix.
> 
> How do you know that is what they did?  I doubt that.
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>