Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Tyler,

That explained it more clearly. Even if there is a difference that is measurable, it isn't 
necessarily visible to the eye. So, someone could claim there is a measurable difference 
but it might not help you in the real world. If that is the  case it has to be extremely subtle.

So, no one has convinced me yet that the work flow of working with a file size that is twice 
what is needed to output ( and store on a cd or dvd ) is worth this trouble. My contention 
is if you guys are not raving about the clear VISIBLE advantages of sending 16 bit files to a 
printer, even with specially created software, then it is clearly not worth the trouble. To me 
is seems that if it IS a significant advantage then we should all be calling Epson everyday 
and insisting that they upgrade their printer drivers to process it. They would probably 
tell us that you can't see it anyway, whether that is true or not. Of course it is alway best to
refine your captured file with as much data present as possible, whatever that turns out to 
be.

 It is certainly true that most files tagged as 16 bit are not even close to that much bit 
depth anyway, and so the advantages would be even less. That is a significant point. Also I 
thought that extra bit depth only had an effect on tonal subtlety and color content gamut, 
not resolution? Right? A higher bit size isn't going to make your files any sharper, right?

I'll let this drop for this month. Thanks for the insights.

John
 
> John, The files are 16 bit, but often the data is less. Digital cameras
> typically capture in 12 bit, and desktop film scanners like the Nikon 8000
> in 14 bit.  Still, 12 bits is much more resolution than 8, which I believe
> was your point.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]