Digital BW, The Print

Can anyone explain why it would even be any different?  It should be the
exact same data...and as I said, the histogram is an 8 bit histogram, no
matter whether the file is, 8 bits or 16 bits.  When displaying a 16 bit
file, the low 8 bits are simply ignored...and when converting a 16 bit file
to 8 bits, simply the lower 8 bits are dropped...so they should be the same?

On the bottom of the histogram you are looking at the 16 bit file on, isn't
the scale 0-255?

Austin


> Andrew,
> I duplicated the 16 bit file and converted to 8bit - then compared
> the histograms - you are right there is less combing viewed in 88
> bit - but it's still there albeit not quite as bad as in 16
>
> ?
> Frank
> > > after minor contrast adj in 16 bit scans (moving the end sliders
> to
> > > the edges of the histogram & the middle to fix the mid tones), I
> > > still have 'drop out' or combed histograms - any ideas, tips ?
> >
> > Convert the file to 8 bits THEN look at the Histogram. You should
> see NO
> > combs.