Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <
darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > > Simple answer; because you are scanning into a 16bit space and the
> > > > scanner is not 16bits. That 3.7 worth of information is
> > linearly placed
> > > > along the 16bit histogram.
> 
> > This does raise the question of, if the scanner is only capable of
> > capturing 3.7 worth of information, why doesn't it automatically expand
> > the range to fill the 16bit space, even in a raw scan.
> 
> I don't see that as significant, at least to me.  One reason is so you have
> room to make tonal/endpoint adjustments.  You need headroom on top of the
> data, below the data and between the data.  Just because you capture
> something doesn't mean it's exactly what you want...you may want to re-set
> the setpoints.  To what advantage does having the scanner/firmware/driver do
> that operation for you, vs, you doing it in PS?  PS can do autoranging I
> believe, which basically does what you are saying you want.  Why is this an
> issue for you?


This isn't an issue for me, but it has to do with the original 
question.  Which is why, if you are scanning something with a range of 
3.7 on a scanner only capable of 3.7, do you get a partial histogram.
We all know the answer.

But if that is all it can capture, then why not spread that out? If you 
want half your histogram empty you can always compress it with levels 
later and you'll end up with the same thing. Why is the whitest a 
scanner can capture NEVER white in raw scan mode? same with black?

Also, there is technology out there that will artificially smooth the 
histogram, which I could see as useful if combined with something like 
that. In 16bits, the difference is probably not noticeable, but still 
the option would be nice. (I don't need a speech on whether or not you 
would ever use something like that)

-mikeH