Digital BW, The Print

>>> Convert your 8 bit to RGB, run the sep curves and look how bad it
> is
>>> then!
>>> Now do the same with the 16 bit staying in 16 bit all the way and
>>> you'll see quite an improvement. Does it print better?
>> 
>> Does it?
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> Todd,
> dude,
> I happen to know you could answer that as well as anyone using RGB
> workflow.
> ....Well?
> ....Does it?
> Tyler
> 

Well, I haven't done enough side-by-side comparisons to say with certainty.
And of course I don't think there is a certainty. There is a percentage of
occurrence. On the few occasions where I thought I saw a difference, on the
monitor, I've gone back at other times and not seen it. It's possible I was
looking at them at a poor monitor magnification, IE, 67%.

I have been able to make 8bit images fall apart, but only by starting with
REALLY lousy files, and torturing them. I don't think it's happened in
*normal* use yet. I'm rather certain that two opposing sides of the debate
could make compelling arguments to "prove" their case, but it still would
not finalize anything because to fulfill on the 16-bit advantage requires a
higher equipment cost, and a more labored workflow, but it may never fail
you, while an 8-bit workflow may be more economical, and more efficient, and
only fail you once in your lifetime - so who's right?

So, I like collecting anecdotal evidence from others. It's very easy to see
the degradation in histograms, but whether dropped tones translates to a
difference in print, where the eye can only distinguish 80-100 tones at once
(or so I've heard), is really the million dollar question.

I'm sure in some circumstances it happens, but I suspect it's rather rare.
When PS *fully* supports 16-bit files, the whole debate will be a no
brainer, but until then I wonder if we need to drive a tank for safety, when
a nice little convertible will get us there so much more swiftly, and
usually safely.

So, while we've discussed this before, and I know you've said there have
been occasions where you've seen a difference, I don't recall if you were
judging a monitor representation, or print, and if you found it repeatable.
It's not a big deal, we know each others work flow, and we both proceed
cautiously, but in slightly different ways. And you know I do think it's
possible we feel things in an image we can't measure or define, but I don't
know if you've seen the difference in print, and if the circumstances were
normal to your workflow, or something rare or a contrived. In the same way I
believe we can feel things we can't define, I also wonder if the logic of a
16-bit workflow, and the measurability of improved performance, as evidenced
by the histogram, don't convince us we see a difference because we suspect
we should.

Again, not a big deal, it's just a subject I haven't tired of bantering
about yet.

Todd