Digital BW, The Print

Sorry if I come so late to this thread, and take back the discussion to
histograms, but I've been away from the list for a while, and I'm very
interested in this topic. Having just bought a Canon FS4000, I started
working on the ultimate workflow from scan to print, and deciding whether to
work on 8 or 16 bits was obviously one of the issues involved. What I did,
on a few images, was to save the 16bit file, duplicate and convert to 8bit,
made ALL changes to the duplicate using layers and masks, and then apply
exactly the same transformations to the same areas on the 16 bit image,
starting from the bottom layer upwards (as I think Photosop works when
applying layers), and finally convert this image to 8 bits, too.
What did I get? A BIG difference in histograms (smooth here, combed there),
given that often the layers were 5 or more (although most of them masked to
a small part of the image), NO visual difference, even zooming in heavily.
Can someone with enough Photoshop knowledge explain this? I think this may
help to understand the relationship between an image and its histogram, and
why an histogram isn't the holy grail.
 
Alessandro Pardi

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Flashner [mailto:tflash@...]
Sent: giovedì 27 settembre 2001 08.39
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 16-bit histogram /Dan Margulis' take on some of
this


on 9/27/01 1:10 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote:

> A 'good' histogram is not the holy grail - a good image is, even if the
> histogram looks lousy.  Ask Dan Margulis about histograms - you'll get an
> earful.


Maris,
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]