Digital BW, The Print

Well, you've certainly done a nice job of plucking all the negative words
out of what I said to make it look like I'm up to no good. All I was asking
was if you saw a difference in print, then explained why I was asking. No
problem, I'll stop asking.

Todd

> 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