Digital BW, The Print

Maris,

I wasn't looking to get a perfect histogram; I just want a better way 
to see what the data is doing. I have run the exercise of 
manipulating an 8-bit version of a 16-bit file to the point the 
histogram is terrible, then applied the same changes to the original 
16-bit files and then printed both. They were identical.

However, the histogram tool in Photoshop is not as useful as it could 
be. There is a transition area where the histogram looks terrible and 
the print is fine, but if you push the image past that point it may 
still look okay on screen but posterize when you print it. So if the 
histogram is good you will not get a posterized print but if the 
histogram is bad you MAY get a posterized print. The 8-bit histogram 
in Photoshop is not an absolute guide to print quality but it is an 
indication that you may be pushing the limits. I am just hoping for 
some better tools to see what is actually happening to the data on 
screen.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." 
<mlidaka@a...> wrote:
> A 'good' histogram is not the holy grail - a good image is, even if 
the
> histogram looks lousy.  Ask Dan Margulis about histograms - you'll 
get an
> earful.
> 
> Just search for the word "histogram" at
> http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ACT-8-bit-16-bit.html
> 
> Maris
> 
(snip)