Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was in a debate, on a side, had a case to prove, or was bantering. It's simply an idea that may or 
may not be useful, and if anyone is trying it perhaps their results will tell us something. Since I knew you had been trying it 
with a workflow different than mine, and certainly more commonly used here than mine, your observations would be 
helpful, and they are.
Thanks,
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