Digital BW, The Print

16bit.  Storage is cheap and who knows whether you might wan to re-edit an
image in the future.


> From: ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:37:54 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] 16 bit vs. 8 bit storage
> 
>   I've been scanning via my 9000 at 16 bits but ultimately burning
> files onto Gold CDs for storage at 8 bit. It saves much space. I'm
> wondering if this is an error in judgment.
>  I know from experience that, at times, something that you'd expect to
> be a 'better methodology' may not be. For example, I've done detailed
> testing with my 9000 scanning B&W negs at 1x/16 bit vs 16x/16 bit
> superfine mode. (Which takes forever to scan)
>   Truthfully, there was no discernible difference in the scans at any
> magnification. I was stunned by this and called over a friend who is a
> computer graphics whiz to evaluate the scans without telling him which
> was which. In a nutshell, he could not tell the difference though he
> felt the 1x scan showed a tad more contrast and (!) a tiny bit more
> detail.
>   Makes no sense, huh? Perhaps there'd be more of a difference with
> color scans. (shrug)
>   So, back to my question regarding file storage on CDs at 16 vs. 8 bit.
>   Also, do most of you store in PSD or TIFF format?
>    Thanks
>    Ginny