Digital BW, The Print

Two things, That sounds just like what Lightroom allows you to do and it is
free in beta form to anyone, CS, CS2 or nothing. And two,  I'd say that
simply converting to 16 is not the question. It is what you do with the file
after you convert it. Simple tone corrections will not really benefit, but I
think you'll find that the more adjusting the file needs the better off you
are working in 16 bit. I believe that is also true with the finer you are
cutting and pasting but some of that is pixel size as much or more than
depth. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 11:18 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: JPEG workflow question

 

I wonder if upscaling from 8 bits to 16 bits will improve your images 
or not. Your asking PS to "make up" pixel data, I think??
Alan

In a class I took at santa fe I was told there was no point in going 
from 8 to 16 bit in Photoshop because the end result had no more pixel 
info than the original. You simply double the same info and get a 
bigger file. 
Another option is CS3 with Bridge CS3, now available free as a Beta 
version for PS users who have CS2. It lets you run a JPEG file through 
the RAW converter. Scot Kelby did a demo video and I think it's on this 
week's Photoshop TV. I don't know how the end result will compare with 
the other suggestions with respect to "damage" to the file caused by 
large amounts of manipulation. 
Mike 

 



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