Austin, I think your off-list message was right on the head - Dan's position is one taken in dealing with color photographs. When working in the B&W world tonality becomes much, much more important - in fact it is primary. In the color world, color differences and shades would easily overcome or mask any banding problems excepting in broad expanses of the same color. Maris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...tcom.com> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:30 AM Subject: RE: [Digital BW] 16-bit Scanning: Why? | Todd, | | > >> As to the argument that you lose tonal values, his response is | > >> that theoretically you do but in the real world the result is | > >> identical. I am not an expert so I will not take sides one way | > >> or the other. | > > | > > The fact that you lose tonal values isn't theoretical, it's | > just a plain old | > > fact...kind of like 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. It's a | > simple experiment | > > you can try your self ;-) | > | > Dan's was speaking about photographs, which contain a lot of noise from | > grain and the like, as opposed to "perfect" computer generated gradients. | > (Remember, adding noise is the conventional cure for banding). His point | > isn't that tones don't get dropped, it's that in all his years | > experience he | > hasn't seen an instance where that shows up as detrimental in | > print, and if | > someone would show him an instance where it did he'd eat his words and | > publish it in one of his books or magazine articles. | | But I DO see it all the time...most any time I try to do moves to 8 bit | files, and then print them using Piezo, I end up with posterization. If I | need to do moves, I re-scan. | | > He knows histograms, and he knows the math, he knows tones get dropped. He | > feels between output screening methods, the limited ability of humans to | > differentiate anywhere near 256 tones, the amount of colors that can be | > combined from as few as say 50 tones in each channel, etc, add up to | > deteriorated 8-bit images that might look *slightly* different than their | > 16-bit counterparts, but not necessarily worse, and sometimes better. | > | > No one has stepped up to the plate as yet. | | Well, I know that I see exactly what he claims doesn't with my B&W images | printed with Piezo... | | Regards, | | Austin | | | Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: | | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint | | Please follow these basic guidelines: | - Include your full name with your message. | - Include the address of your website, if you have one. | - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. | - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. | - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." | - Complete your Yahoo profile. | - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. | | | | | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | | |
Message
Re: [Digital BW] 16-bit Scanning: Why?
2001-12-05 by Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.