Digital BW, The Print

Hi all-

I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 thread, 
but it died <g>.

Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit 
image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any 
adjustments in PS?.

I've been do it just to make the Silver Oxide filter easier to use, 
but I feel like it might just be giving me smoother prints. Doesn't 
make sense, but it seems that way.

Any idea what would the proper test be? Other than "how it looks?"

Tom O'Connell

> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit
> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any
> adjustments in PS?.
> 

I personally don't think so because I don't think our output methods can
even display the subtle differences that already exist between all 255
shades in an 8-bit file, let alone tens of shades between each of the 255
integers.

Lets say you have a digital clock that clicks off the time one second at a
time: 12:01..12:02..12:03..12:04..

Does it matter if in order to make a certain calculation of time you add in
tenths of seconds, 
12:0100..12:0101..12:0102..12:0103..12:0104....12:0199..12:0200, if
ultimately your result will be displayed as either 12:01 or 12:02?

Furthermore, from what I've seen, quadtone prints are really only able to
display some every other integer or less. (Some 100 tones out of 255). It
would be like a clock whose sequence was 12:01..12:03..12:05...

Todd

I think it comes down to what you are doing.  If you are just making one
subtle move...then I don't think it matters...but if you are making several
moves...and they tend to be large...the chance of screwing up your image may
be less with a 16bit file.  Calculation errors tend to compound on each
other.

As a matter of practice...you should always be shooting in RAW or Tiff mode
with a digital camera if you intend to do anything serious with the image.
Jpg artifacts reek havoc with almost anything you do in photoshop (e.g.,
tonal corrections, sharpening, etc.)...in my experience with D1, D1x and 990
images.

Robert

On 5/26/02 4:20 PM, "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...> wrote:

> 
>> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit
>> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any
>> adjustments in PS?.
>> 
> 
> I personally don't think so because I don't think our output methods can
> even display the subtle differences that already exist between all 255
> shades in an 8-bit file, let alone tens of shades between each of the 255
> integers.
> 
> Lets say you have a digital clock that clicks off the time one second at a
> time: 12:01..12:02..12:03..12:04..
> 
> Does it matter if in order to make a certain calculation of time you add in
> tenths of seconds,
> 12:0100..12:0101..12:0102..12:0103..12:0104....12:0199..12:0200, if
> ultimately your result will be displayed as either 12:01 or 12:02?
> 
> Furthermore, from what I've seen, quadtone prints are really only able to
> display some every other integer or less. (Some 100 tones out of 255). It
> would be like a clock whose sequence was 12:01..12:03..12:05...
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <TomOC@s...> 
wrote:
> Hi all-
> 
> I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 
thread, 
> but it died <g>.
> 
> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 
8 bit 
> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing 
any 
> adjustments in PS?.
> 
> I've been do it just to make the Silver Oxide filter easier to use, 
> but I feel like it might just be giving me smoother prints. 
Doesn't 
> make sense, but it seems that way.
> 
> Any idea what would the proper test be? Other than "how it 
looks?"
> 
> Tom O'Connell

Hi Tom,

Well if you convert the 8 bit data to 16 bits, your 256 possible
levels from the input will still be just 256 levels.  All simple
tonal changes such as levels or curves will still have only 256
levels i.e. no single level can split up into 2 levels so how can
you possibly get more levels.   That said, staying in 8 bit its
more likely that you will lose levels (i.e. 2 different levels
merge into 1) but then you probably didn't care about 
distinguishing them anyway.     Considering how difficult it
has been to "prove" that keeping 16 bits is worth it when you 
already have many more that 256 levels, I wouldn't bother
converting 8 to 16.

You mention using jpgs from the Nikon 5000.  Using the tiff
output would benefit the final output a whole lot more than
worring about 16 bit mode.  The other major thing to do is
check how good the data is right when you take the picture.
Doesn't the 5000 allow you to view the histogram immediately?

Roy

Oops, whatever happened to clocks with hours, minutes, and seconds...Oh
well, same difference. ;-)

Todd

>> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit
>> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any
>> adjustments in PS?.
>> 
> 
> I personally don't think so because I don't think our output methods can
> even display the subtle differences that already exist between all 255
> shades in an 8-bit file, let alone tens of shades between each of the 255
> integers.
> 
> Lets say you have a digital clock that clicks off the time one second at a
> time: 12:01..12:02..12:03..12:04..
> 
> Does it matter if in order to make a certain calculation of time you add in
> tenths of seconds,
> 12:0100..12:0101..12:0102..12:0103..12:0104....12:0199..12:0200, if
> ultimately your result will be displayed as either 12:01 or 12:02?
> 
> Furthermore, from what I've seen, quadtone prints are really only able to
> display some every other integer or less. (Some 100 tones out of 255). It
> would be like a clock whose sequence was 12:01..12:03..12:05...
> 
> Todd

> Hi all-
>
> I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 thread,
> but it died <g>.

Hi Tom,

Sorry, I didn't know something was still pending...

> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit
> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any
> adjustments in PS?.

Probably not...but try it and find out for your self ;-)  As others have
suggested, using a lossless file type (like TIFF) would give you better
results.

> I've been do it just to make the Silver Oxide filter easier to use,
> but I feel like it might just be giving me smoother prints. Doesn't
> make sense, but it seems that way.

Print a few using each method, pencil mark on the back which is which,
shuffle them up and put them up on a board and look at them for a few
days...and see if you get it right.  I have a 4' x 8' magnetic white board,
and strip magnets that I put up A<->B prints for comparisons just like this.
I stare at them for weeks (literally ;-) and see if I'm imaging what I
believe is true, or not...

Regards,

Austin

In my micro experience...

I have taken to scanning in 16 bit, it gives a better historgram.
Then saving that file (tossed once a finished print achieved) and 
immediately converting to 8 bit - get the same histogram.  Then work 
the file willy nilly till I get the image I want.

If the image is hard to print, only then do I go back and look at the 
histogram...if it looks really gapped with spikes to I make a copy 
and try to do my edits more efficiently.  Been relatively pleased 
lately.

FWIW,

Cleavis

> I have taken to scanning in 16 bit, it gives a better historgram.
> Then saving that file (tossed once a finished print achieved) and
> immediately converting to 8 bit - get the same histogram.

As a note, the histogram is only an 8 bit histogram, so they should be the
same...

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <TomOC@s...> wrote:
> Hi all-
> 
> I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 thread, 
> but it died <g>.
> 
> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit 
> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any 
> adjustments in PS?.
> 

I'm only going to comment on the digital camera part. Without starting 
a Nikon/Canon war, if you have a Canon G2 instead of the Nikon 5000, 
it passes 10 bits to photoshop in "16 bit mode", allowing you to edit 
images easily. The G2 is in the same price range and feature set as 
the Nikon 5000, with the Nikon at 5 megapixels vs 4 for the Canon, 
which I don't feel makes a lot of difference, but the Canon has a 
faster lens at f2 vs f2.8, which I feel does make a quality 
difference.

In this light, there is no need to worry about not having headroom to 
work the curves.

Also when storing a full RAW image, Canon only uses about 3.5 mb on 
the CF card- it stores the color info encoded in some way, so that 
software is used to process the full color image once back home on 
your computer.


Jim H.

Yeah...its a tough call between these two...more resolution (5 vs. 4), wider
angle lens (28mm vs. 34mm) and higher max shutter speed (1/4000 vs. 1/1000)
on the Nikon side, and 10bit Raw format, faster lens (f2 vs. f2.8) and
cheaper on the Canon side.  Honestly, I can't image that 10bit RAW is that
big an advantage over 8bit TIFF in image quality...but the smaller file size
probably helps for those not running 1gB microdrives.

I recently started looking for a prosumer smaller camera that was more
portable than my D1x and decided there wasn't anything out there to
buy...everybody seemed to have some fatal flaw.  I really liked the specs of
the new Leica Digilux 1...but then the SD card issue killed it. I wonder
what Coolpix 3 is?  It is due to be announced on Wednesday.

Its ironic...I've switched to digital for much of my "serious" work...but
when it comes to having a camera always with me...I'm still thinking about
shooting film.

Robert


(28On 5/27/02 8:26 AM, "jimhayes361" <jimhayes@...> wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <TomOC@s...> wrote:
>> Hi all-
>> 
>> I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 thread,
>> but it died <g>.
>> 
>> Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 8 bit
>> image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing any
>> adjustments in PS?.
>> 
> 
> I'm only going to comment on the digital camera part. Without starting
> a Nikon/Canon war, if you have a Canon G2 instead of the Nikon 5000,
> it passes 10 bits to photoshop in "16 bit mode", allowing you to edit
> images easily. The G2 is in the same price range and feature set as
> the Nikon 5000, with the Nikon at 5 megapixels vs 4 for the Canon,
> which I don't feel makes a lot of difference, but the Canon has a
> faster lens at f2 vs f2.8, which I feel does make a quality
> difference.
> 
> In this light, there is no need to worry about not having headroom to
> work the curves.
> 
> Also when storing a full RAW image, Canon only uses about 3.5 mb on
> the CF card- it stores the color info encoded in some way, so that
> software is used to process the full color image once back home on
> your computer.
> 
> 
> Jim H.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Robert Morrison 
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> Yeah...its a tough call between these two...more resolution (5 vs. 
4), wider
> angle lens (28mm vs. 34mm) and higher max shutter speed (1/4000 vs. 
1/1000)
> on the Nikon side, and 10bit Raw format, faster lens (f2 vs. f2.8) 
and
> cheaper on the Canon side.  Honestly, I can't image that 10bit RAW 
is that
> big an advantage over 8bit TIFF in image quality

It does give you some headroom to work with, and you can push the 
historams around, say the contrast was too narrow- you can pull the 
endpoints and get a good non-combed output. But yes, it does have 
limitations- if the histogram was only half, even 3/5 the full tonal 
scale don't expect to correct it like you could with 12 bits+

I think it would be fair to say it gives you a modest amount of 16 bit 
correction.

Although Robert, I can add an item to the con list for the Canon G2- 
manual focusing is hard to do with this thing, and there are reports 
of the auto-focus being inacurate. It is one of the things I really 
hate about using it.



...but the smaller 
file size
> probably helps for those not running 1gB microdrives.


Yeah, one of the things I learned about the microdrives is that they 
are rated for a maximum altitude of about 9000 ft. It uses air as a 
bearing, and just gets too thin to be a bearing. I didn't want to 
trust it at even 5000 ft, the lowest I can get around here. All I have 
to do is drive west for 15 minutes and I'd violate the drive 
warranty.<g>

> 
> I recently started looking for a prosumer smaller camera that was 
more
> portable than my D1x and decided there wasn't anything out there to
> buy...everybody seemed to have some fatal flaw.  I really liked the 
specs of
> the new Leica Digilux 1...but then the SD card issue killed it. I 
wonder
> what Coolpix 3 is?  It is due to be announced on Wednesday.
> 
> Its ironic...I've switched to digital for much of my "serious" 
work...but
> when it comes to having a camera always with me...I'm still thinking 
about
> shooting film.


I am just now coming to the same conclusion. There are few 
restrictions on my film cameras. I can get really wide angle like I 
want it, the controls work faster, I have a NICE mechanical focus 
ring. I'm feeling like I can shoot faster and more accurately and less 
hassle with a good manual film camera (small or large) than with a 
compact digital wonder. Even my nice little Rollei 35's. Maybe I'd 
feel different with your D1x or Canon's new D60...
Jim H.

> 
> Robert
> 
>

Truman:

As the heading in online help says in parentheses, gamma is available in
ImageReady under Image > Adjustment. Now that the help system is common
to PS and IR, it's easy to overlook the distinction. And who knows what
logic led them to make it available only from IR.

Bernie

Speaking of Canon, I converted some raw files in 16 bit linear (gamma=1)

the other day. I then went to change the gamma in Photoshop 7. I
couldn't for the life of me find where theyh put the gamma adjustment.
Used to be in image>adjustment>gamma. That's where the online help says
it is. It's not even covered in the paper manual. I'm sure it used to be

there in version 6. Am I going nuts or did they hind it someplace just
to keep me confused - not hard to do these days.

Thanks
Truman

On 5/27/02 5:47 PM, "jimhayes361" <jimhayes@...> wrote:

> Although Robert, I can add an item to the con list for the Canon G2-
> manual focusing is hard to do with this thing, and there are reports
> of the auto-focus being inacurate. It is one of the things I really
> hate about using it.

Yep...that's what took the G2 off my list...its also the thing that made the
Leica promising...but the idiots at Panasonic locked it into SD cards which
are uselessly small at this point.

Robert

I'm having an exhibit of 12 landscapes printed with
Piezography on an Epson 7000 at Soho Photo Gallery, 15
White Street in New York City (3 blocks south of Canal
Street between 6th Avenue and West Broadway ). Opening
reception is Tuesday June 4th from 6-8pm. The show
will run through July 6th. The gallery is open Thurs
6-8pm and Fri-Sun 1-6pm. Also, check my website at www.JohnCustodio.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Roy-

Yes, you can view the histograms with the 5000...and I often do, but 
the 5000 is INCREDIBLY SLOW transferring the tiff files to the memory 
card. For the odd shot that you have all day on, that makes sense.

I agree with your analysis that the 256 shades of 8bit cannot be 
improved on...I'm wondering if by converting to 16 you, in fact, 
preserve them in some ways. It looks like even the converted 
histograms are less "toothy" than the 8 bit ones.

You seem to agree that there might be some advantage when you make 
(as Robert defines it) "several or large" changes???

tom

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "royvharrington" <roy@h...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <TomOC@s...> 
> wrote:
> > Hi all-
> > 
> > I thought Austin was going to address this in the last 16/8 
> thread, 
> > but it died <g>.
> > 
> > Do you think there is any advantage gained from converting an 
> 8 bit 
> > image (usually a .jpg from a Nikon 5000) to 16 bit before doing 
> any 
> > adjustments in PS?.
> > 
> > I've been do it just to make the Silver Oxide filter easier to 
use, 

> > but I feel like it might just be giving me smoother prints. 
> Doesn't 
> > make sense, but it seems that way.
> > 
> > Any idea what would the proper test be? Other than "how it 
> looks?"
> > 
> > Tom O'Connell
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Well if you convert the 8 bit data to 16 bits, your 256 possible
> levels from the input will still be just 256 levels.  All simple
> tonal changes such as levels or curves will still have only 256
> levels i.e. no single level can split up into 2 levels so how can
> you possibly get more levels.   That said, staying in 8 bit its
> more likely that you will lose levels (i.e. 2 different levels
> merge into 1) but then you probably didn't care about 
> distinguishing them anyway.     Considering how difficult it
> has been to "prove" that keeping 16 bits is worth it when you 
> already have many more that 256 levels, I wouldn't bother
> converting 8 to 16.
> 
> You mention using jpgs from the Nikon 5000.  Using the tiff
> output would benefit the final output a whole lot more than
> worring about 16 bit mode.  The other major thing to do is
> check how good the data is right when you take the picture.
> Doesn't the 5000 allow you to view the histogram immediately?
> 
> Roy

>>I stare at them for weeks (literally ;-) and see if I'm imaging 
what I
believe is true, or not...<<<


I'm settling in for that test...sometimes you can get a 
little "buggy" looking at these prints...glad to hear I'm not alone 
in that respect, at least <g>

Thanks,

tom

> I'm only going to comment on the digital camera part. Without 
starting 
> a Nikon/Canon war, if you have a Canon G2 instead of the Nikon 
5000, 
> it passes 10 bits to photoshop in "16 bit mode", allowing you to 
edit 
> images easily. The G2 is in the same price range and feature set as 
> the Nikon 5000, with the Nikon at 5 megapixels vs 4 for the Canon, 
> which I don't feel makes a lot of difference, but the Canon has a 
> faster lens at f2 vs f2.8, which I feel does make a quality 
> difference.
> 

Jim-

The G2 is a more logical choice on paper. But a few of the Nikon 
features (focusing is faster, macro is much closer...and I already 
understand the dials) moved me to the 5000. I've had a digital elph 
and still think it is the most elegant pocket camera made. I tried a 
S40 and immediately sold it because it was so hard to focus.

I've come to believe that maybe the 5000 and the G2 miss the point 
for most of us in this forum...we already have a "serious" camera and 
what we are looking for is something that can literally fit in our 
pockets when we are just out and about.

I think the 3 that fit that description best are the Nikon 885, Canon 
S330 and, grudgingly, S40. Try putting a G2 or 5000 in your pants (or 
even jacket) pocket...

tom

> >>I stare at them for weeks (literally ;-) and see if I'm imaging 
> what I
> believe is true, or not...<<<
> 
> 
> I'm settling in for that test...sometimes you can get a 
> little "buggy" looking at these prints...glad to hear I'm not alone 
> in that respect, at least <g>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> tom

Hi Tom,

I have my wife swap them randomly...just to keep me on my toes ;-)

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <TomOC@s...> wrote:

> 
> Jim-
> 
> The G2 is a more logical choice on paper. But a few of the Nikon 
> features (focusing is faster, macro is much closer

Yes the G2 has a focusing problem. In manual focus mode the button 
keeps overshooting/undershooting- you can't get many increments on the 
visible linear scale on the LCD. And the autofocus sometimes 
overjudges the distance. I've taken to doing a manual focus with zone 
focusing (guessing), like for the old Rollei 35's. The thing can jump 
from say 6 feet to 15 in just a couple of presses of the button 
though, so it's annoying. To compensate, I try to close down my 
aperture. Canon will have to adress this issue in the G3.  

...and I already 
> understand the dials)

One of the good points of the G2 I feel is that the buttons are very 
well thought out- only the manual focus button (why that again?) is a 
bit hard to access.

 moved me to the 5000. I've had a digital elph 
> and still think it is the most elegant pocket camera made. I tried a 
> S40 and immediately sold it because it was so hard to focus.
> 
> I've come to believe that maybe the 5000 and the G2 miss the point 
> for most of us in this forum...we already have a "serious" camera 
and 
> what we are looking for is something that can literally fit in our 
> pockets when we are just out and about.
> 
> I think the 3 that fit that description best are the Nikon 885, 
Canon 
> S330 and, grudgingly, S40. Try putting a G2 or 5000 in your pants 
(or 
> even jacket) pocket...

Yes, true. There's that new camera out now that's about 3 x3 x 0.5 
inch, I think it's a Minolta...

My favorite pocket camera remains the Rollei 35 series. Yes it's a 
film camera, and there's no focusing aid, but at least you can focus 
with a real mechanical ring marked with distance scale (zone, or guess 
focusing again). I'd swear those little licensed by Carl Zeiss lenses 
are sharper than all of my Canon FD lenses<g>.
Jim H.
 
> 
> tom

How useful is a spyder and color cal software for BW? I don't have access to
a photodensitometer  and sure as hell can't afford to buy one. I can get
custom dot gain settings _pretty_ close with a GS ramp, but not close enough
on this high contrast monitor. Would a package like Colorvision be effective
for profiling an LCD StudioDisplay/1280? If so, any other packages
recommended?
TIA,
Dennis Craven

Congratulations to John Custodio--nice show John! I just left the gallery
and was very impressed by some of his 1Ds images. It was enlightening to see
6x7 film shots next to the Canon images. I tried to find some telltale
differences, but couldn't.

Good job,

Jon

> 
> I'm having an exhibit of 12 prints (16x20 to 12x24)
> printed with PiezoTone ink. They are landscapes and
> architecture shot in California, Alaska, and New
> Mexico, some shot on film, but most shot with a Canon
> 1Ds digital SLR. The exhibit will be at Soho Photo
> Gallery at 15 White Street in Manhattan (3 blocks
> south of Canal Street between 6th Avenue and West
> Broadway). Opening reception is on Tuesday, May 4th
> from 6 to 8pm. Gallery hours during the week are
> Thursdays 6-8pm and Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays
> from 1 to 6pm. The Gallery will also be open on
> Thursday May 6th from 1 to 8pm. The last day of the
> exhibit is Saturday May 29th.

>-John Custodio

Jon-
  Thanks for coming to the exhibit!
-John

--- Jon <vze249jf@...> wrote:
> Congratulations to John Custodio--nice show John! I
> just left the gallery
> and was very impressed by some of his 1Ds images. It
> was enlightening to see
> 6x7 film shots next to the Canon images. I tried to
> find some telltale
> differences, but couldn't.
> 
> Good job,
> 
> Jon
> 
> > 
> > I'm having an exhibit of 12 prints (16x20 to
> 12x24)
> > printed with PiezoTone ink. They are landscapes
> and
> > architecture shot in California, Alaska, and New
> > Mexico, some shot on film, but most shot with a
> Canon
> > 1Ds digital SLR. The exhibit will be at Soho Photo
> > Gallery at 15 White Street in Manhattan (3 blocks
> > south of Canal Street between 6th Avenue and West
> > Broadway). Opening reception is on Tuesday, May
> 4th
> > from 6 to 8pm. Gallery hours during the week are
> > Thursdays 6-8pm and Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays
> > from 1 to 6pm. The Gallery will also be open on
> > Thursday May 6th from 1 to 8pm. The last day of
> the
> > exhibit is Saturday May 29th.
> 
> >-John Custodio
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover