Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "J Michael 
Sullivan" <michael@h...> wrote:
> What you are advocating is a wasteful workflow for those who may 
have limited 
> resources. It certainly is an EXPENSIVE workflow -- hence my 
assertion of bragging 
> rights (which you quickly fell into) for those who, by right of 
better equipment and 
> the latest software, are somehow "greater than thou". Yuch.
> 

I don't understand any of this at all.

Why all of this ad hominem? I offered nothing of the kind in my 
replies.

99% of my images come from a DSLR, not a scanner. So, I do not have 
the luxury of rescanning, and I'll admit not every image I take is 
dead on for exposure. So, I do expect to edit my images in PS using 
nonlinear transformations like levels, curves, etc. So, I shoot 
everything in RAW, which is a 16-bit image, and I keep them that way.

What you seem to suggest would make my workflow more complicated. I 
should convert them to 8-bits, see if I have problems when editing, 
and if so, then go back and work in 16-bits.

I want the best image possible, and I prefer to keep my options 
open. Working in 16-bits gives me more flexibility.

Where is the added cost to working in 16-bits? More storage space? 
More RAM. I archive on DVDs. So, storage costs are not really an 
issue. I have sufficient RAM to work with very large files and run 
multiple apps simultaneously. I did not go out and purchase 
additional stoarage space or RAM to work with 16-bit images.


> There are many on this list who seek to achieve "best practices" 
without the  
> wastefulness of your 16-bit dogma (i.e. 16-bit is always better -- 
and by implication: 
> 8-bit users are less than real photographers).

I never said any of this. Your charactgerization is completely 
unfair.


> 
> My recommended workfow for most users remains: generate an 
*optimal* scan, save 
> in 8-bit and you have achieved the equivalent of the zone system. 
You seem to not 
> understand the concept of putting the effort into the scan before 
it gets into 
> Photoshop.

My guess is that most of us are using DSLRs and digicams for most of 
our images and scanners infrequently (if at all).

The discussion about Ansel Adams' "Zone System" is a non sequitur 
here. A good scan of a shot with exposure problems is little help. 
And if you think Ansel Adams himself had perfect exposure on every 
shot, you should visit his gallery sometime. For every keeper, he 
had lots of shots with problems. He was quite famous for doing 
considerable work in the darkroom to correct images with exposure 
and contrast problems.

I do not assume all of my shots will come out with perfect exposure. 
I expect most will be close. Some will have problems. Some will also 
need global or localized changes to enhance contrast, remove color 
casts, etc. So, I expect my images will undergo editing in PS. It is 
a rare image when I do not make some nonlinear adjustment.

If I expect my images will have problems, and 8-bit images are more 
likely to posterize than 16-bit images when editing, it seems a very 
reasonable strategy to stay in 16-bits until I generate my output 
files for something like the Epson 2200.


> 
> Your workflow: scan anyway you want as long as it is in 16-bits. 
Doesn't matter how 
> good or bad it is. Even raw if fine. Then when you have the 
inclination, fix it up. 
> Great. Good for you. But your result (for the vast majority of all 
B&W images) will be 
> as good as an optimal 8-bit workflow. And it still remains 
wasteful and suggestive of 
> "anything less is not worthy of consideration". Talk about 
demogogery. Not everyone 
> has Photoshop CS. Not everyone has 2gb ram. Not everyone has 1 
Terabyte of hd. 
> 
> (however I do).

Good for you! [Mitch applauds Michael for all that RAM and harddrive 
space.]

You do not need lots of harddive space and RAW to work in 16-bits. I 
get by with 60GB of harddrive storage and 512MB of RAW and can work 
in 16-bits consistently and not feel constrained. Those are specs 
that even a vanilla PC meets these days.

Cheers,

Mitch