Digital BW, The Print

--- "Glenn Mitchell" <gmitchel850@y...> wrote:
> 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.


So I finally see what the real issue here is. You are talking about 
essentially lo-res DSL RGB captures, converted to B&W. No wonder you 
keep pounding on the need for 16-bits -- by God, you need them with 
today's "model T" digital cameras! (in ten years you will 
reluctantly agree with me that the current state-of-the-art 6.3m 
Canon and Nikons are indeed Model Ts)

I, on the other hand, have been consistently talking about scanning 
4x5 negatives with high-end scanning equipment to generate the 
highest possible quality B&W (and yes, color) images. For example, 
my 8-bit scans are 90mb for a 4x5 B&W neg scanned at 2400spi. (Given 
the resolution characteristics of my Scheider lenses, you could even 
go up to 3200spi for most large format images, thereby generating an 
even bigger file size. However, 4000spi for large format is mostly a 
waste). Were you to scan the same above image at 16-bit you would be 
at 180mb. Add four layers and your 16-bit 4x5 image is now a 
whopping 720mb (as compared to a 4-layer 8-bit image that 
would "only" be 360mb). With such numbers you would quickly fill up 
your 60GB hard drive in a matter of months (or weeks or even days if 
you were a professional). Hence my (and others) need for a terabyte. 
Funny thing, backing up a terabyte ain't no easy task. Think about 
it. And here I can't disagree with you more: Harddisk space is NOT 
free -- there is a REAL cost associated with it, in spite of your 
admonitions to the contrary. And anyone who is prolific with 
photography will encounter this problem sooner rather than later. 16-
bit can indeed be wasteful.

As such, I stand by my assertion that scanning most images at 16-
bits is indeed wasteful, even if you have an unlimited budget for 
harddisk space (and backup). Further, recall that opening and saving 
every 16-bit image takes twice as long as its poor 8-bit cousin, 
thereby making you "pay" for this decision over and over. Time is 
money.

For those of you who do not have good scanning software, I can see 
the reason you might be tempted to scan in 12+ bits (please don't 
call it 16-bits as few of you have such equipment). So for y'all 
there are two choices: get better scanning software that directly 
drives the scanner at its rated hardware level, or scan at "12+ 
bits" then create an optimal curve in Photoshop and "save as" in 8-
bits (thereby allowing you to archive your 16-bit raw scan for the 
future.) Once you have an optimal image, you have eliminated the 
need for any "drastic" changes that would cause any banding or noise.

I will also remind you that the need for 16-bit scanned archives is 
waaaay over-rated. Todays scanners will be out-classed by tomorrow's 
scanners (just as yesterdays scanners pale in comparison to todays). 
You can count on that tomorrow's hard disks will be bigger and 
cheaper; Note that your negative is already in an archival form; As 
such, you can always go back and scan it at a later date with 
better/faster/cheaper equipment in the future. Now THIS is good 
advice.

MJS