Digital BW, The Print

David: on a practical basis, I usually save scans as 8 bit files and
do all work from there. BO printing requires usually involves such
minor adjustments that I see no difference in the final print starting
and working with an 8 bit or 16 bit file. All the theoretical
responses are 100% correct, I just can't see an difference in the
final print. 

However I find that using UT inks requires large adjustments and make
saving as 16 bit files, and adjusting as 16 bit makes it worthwhile. 

But for me, 8 bit works fine with close to normal negs and BO
printing. At least if the final print is the criteria. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Sinai"
<dsinai@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently scanned a 35 mm Tri X negative at 3200 DPI in 16 bit 
> mode. The image was of my daughter sitting on swing in the park in 
> daylight.
> 
> I was curious to see if the histogram of this file would be 
> different if the file was converted to 8 bit. After converting the 
> file to 8 bit, I reviewed the histogram and so no changes.
> 
> Shouldn't there be a different histogram once the file is converted 
> to 8 bit? Going from 16 bit to 8 bit means that the tonal range has 
> been reduced, correct?
> 
> More importantly, I could not detect any visible differences on the 
> screen when the image was in 8 bit vs. 16 bit. I decided to work 
> with the 8 bit file as there are more PS features available this way.
> 
> Should there be any discernable tonality differences on a print 
> created with a 16 bit file vs. 8 bit when printing with an Epson 
> 2200 using the BO method?
> 
> I printed the 8 bit and the 16 bit file and saw no differences. Is 
> this what you would expect?
> 
> Everything I've read, says to stick with 16 bit.
> 
> Does the rule "Stay in 16 bit" apply when printing BO on Epson 2200?
> 
> Thanks,
> David