Digital BW, The Print

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

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

Assuming you mean Nikon 9000, you should go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000.
Short answer; you should never store BW scans at 8 bit.  Don’t take offense;
in few words, it sounds like both you and your friend do not know what to
look for when evaluating a scan.  Assuming you are scanning your own film as
a hobby like I am, don’t worry, keep investigating, and as you learn you can
rescan.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
ginnylady33
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:38 AM
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.<snip>


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

Dear John

  Thanks for the info. Actually I do mean the Nikon 9000 and I am a
member of that group! :)
 I'm still learning so will store all future B&W images at 16 bit. Is
the same true for color or is that another issue?
 Best
 Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Assuming you mean Nikon 9000, you should go to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000.
> Short answer; you should never store BW scans at 8 bit.  Don't take
offense;
> in few words, it sounds like both you and your friend do not know
what to
> look for when evaluating a scan.  Assuming you are scanning your own
film as
> a hobby like I am, don't worry, keep investigating, and as you learn
you can

> rescan.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> ginnylady33
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:38 AM
> 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.<snip>
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ginny  -
   
  Your'e scanning at 1x/16bit or 16x/16bit will produce the same file size and resolution.  The 1x vs. 16x is just the number of passes the scanner makes during the scan.  The multiple scan capability is to help reduce/eliminate noise in the dark areas in the final scan, the higher the number of passes the less noise.  Multiple passes are only useful on very dense areas of the film.
   
  You will see a difference between 8 bit and 16 bit scans in gradation.  The amount of detail you capture is a result of the ppi setting on the scanner, the higher the setting, the more detail you capture.
   
  As far as storage, if quality is of great importance, ALWAYS store you original scans as 16 bit.  Once you reduce it to 8 bit the data that is lost on the conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit is forever lost.
   
  Tom Baker

ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...> wrote:
    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





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  SPONSORED LINKS 
        Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography   Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital photography web site   Digital photography course 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

Thank you Tom.  That clarifies the matter a lot for me. It also
explains why we see no difference on this particular negative in the
1x vs 16x scan with superfine turned on. (I think that means only one
CCD is doing the scan)
 I am doing all scans at 4000, btw.
 Appreciate the help and explanation.
  Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
<tbaker1328@...> wrote:
>
> Ginny  -
>    
>   Your'e scanning at 1x/16bit or 16x/16bit will produce the same
file size and resolution.  The 1x vs. 16x is just the number of passes
the scanner makes during the scan.  The multiple scan capability is to
help reduce/eliminate noise in the dark areas in the final scan, the
higher the number of passes the less noise.  Multiple passes are only
useful on very dense areas of the film.
>    
>   You will see a difference between 8 bit and 16 bit scans in
gradation.  The amount of detail you capture is a result of the ppi
setting on the scanner, the higher the setting, the more detail you
capture.
>    
>   As far as storage, if quality is of great importance, ALWAYS store
you original scans as 16 bit.  Once you reduce it to 8 bit the data
that is lost on the conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit is forever lost.
>    
>   Tom Baker
> 
> ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...> wrote:
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER"
AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   SPONSORED LINKS 
>         Digital wedding photography   Learn digital photography  
Digital photography college     Digital photography   Digital
photography web site   Digital photography course 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     
>     Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>     
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service. 

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

> From: ginnylady33
>
>   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)

You should never store a raw unedited image from any source in 8-bit mode.
Once you've carefully compensated for the exposure, and worked on the
picture until you're sure you've brought out all the important detail, and
are ready to print, then and only then can you safely cut back to 8-bit.

Be aware, though, that the degradation that occurs with the lower bit depth
won't appear in all images, and may only cause a problem occasionally.
Rather than try to judge each image, it's simpler just to keep everything in
16-bit for archiving purposes.

Another thing that may be confusing things for you is that noise in the
image actually compensates to some extent for the shallower bit depth. If
you create an artificial noiseless image (or even use a noise filter on a
real image) you can create a situation in which, after editing, you see
posterization in an image. However, the presence of significant noise in an
image prevents this from happening. In effect, the noise allows the
representation of finer gradations than the simple number of bits would
suggest, through the mathematical process known as dithering. (This is how
inkjet printers work, where smooth gradations are represented with only one
bit of resolution: on or off.)

In other words, you may be able to mask the problem by using 1x scanning,
since that produces more noise. If you do 16x multi-scanning, to average out
some of the noise, you'll generally get better images, but you'll be more
susceptible to posterization if you cut back to 8 bits.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Photoshop CS2 includes 8, 16 and 32 bit modes.  If you import a file at 8 
bit, can it be increased to 16 bit within Photoshop?  I noticed that when 
you do so the file size is doubled; but do you really have 16 bits/channel 
now? or was this controlled by the capture device, e.g. a digital camera?
Donald

>ginnylady33 <ginnylady33@...> wrote:
>    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 would definitely agree that B&W work should be done in 16bit/channel, and would recommend that you use TIFF as your file format; if space is an issue, ZIP compression within TIFF is generally well supported these days and is fairly effective with 16bit/channel files (LZW is not).

-R

> From: dschiemann
>
> Photoshop CS2 includes 8, 16 and 32 bit modes.  If you import a file at 8
> bit, can it be increased to 16 bit within Photoshop?  I noticed that when
> you do so the file size is doubled; but do you really have 16
> bits/channel
> now? or was this controlled by the capture device, e.g. a digital camera?

You don't add information when you convert to 16 bits, so there's no purpose
to doing so when archiving. However, for editing, converting to 16 bits
forces all subsequent calculations to be done in that mode, which
occasionally can provide a very slight benefit in image quality.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Ginny, I find that Superfine mode isn't necessary on the Nikon 9000 scanner.  It was useful 
on the 8000 because of banding issues.

Ed  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33" <ginnylady33@...> 
wrote:

>
>   It also
> explains why we see no difference on this particular negative in the
> 1x vs 16x scan with superfine turned on. (I think that means only one
> CCD is doing the scan)

Why do you say LZW is not?
Mark

On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Roger Howard wrote:

> ZIP compression within TIFF is generally well supported these days  
> and is fairly effective with 16bit/channel files (LZW is not).

On Tuesday, February 07, 2006, at 09:37AM, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:

>Why do you say LZW is not?
>Mark
>
>On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
>
>> ZIP compression within TIFF is generally well supported these days  
>> and is fairly effective with 16bit/channel files (LZW is not).

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

LZW works fine; it's lossless. So is ZIP. But in my experience LZW on 16bit/channel TIFFs rarely does anything but actually increase the filesize! Quick example using a 16bit RGB image of a manuscript page:

Uncompressed TIFF - 82.4MB
ZIP compressed TIFF - 78.6MB
LZW compressed TIFF - 105MB

This is consistent with my experience; depending on the nature of the image ZIP might save you 10-40% on filesize compared with uncompressed; LZW on the other hand seems to almost always INCREASE the filesize.

This may just be a bug in Photoshop's TIFF/LZW implementation for 16bit, or may be fundamental to LZW, but since Photoshop is pretty much ubiquitous I use its results as my guide. For lossless compression of 16bit grayscale or RGB from Photoshop, TIFF/ZIP is the best option weighing compatibility, etc. Of course you might decide the performance hit (opens/saves) from ZIP outweigh any minor storage capacity savings (I agree for flat TIFFs - but I do use ZIP compression on layered TIFFs).

-R

Strange.
Mark

On Feb 7, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Roger Howard wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, February 07, 2006, at 09:37AM, Mark Savoia  
> <mark@...> wrote:
>
> >Why do you say LZW is not?
> >Mark
> >
> >On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Roger Howard wrote:
> >
> >> ZIP compression within TIFF is generally well supported these days
> >> and is fairly effective with 16bit/channel files (LZW is not).
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
>
> LZW works fine; it's lossless. So is ZIP. But in my experience LZW  
> on 16bit/channel TIFFs rarely does anything but actually increase  
> the filesize! Quick example using a 16bit RGB image of a manuscript  
> page:
>
> Uncompressed TIFF - 82.4MB
> ZIP compressed TIFF - 78.6MB
> LZW compressed TIFF - 105MB
>
> This is consistent with my experience; depending on the nature of  
> the image ZIP might save you 10-40% on filesize compared with  
> uncompressed; LZW on the other hand seems to almost always INCREASE  
> the filesize.
>
> This may just be a bug in Photoshop's TIFF/LZW implementation for  
> 16bit, or may be fundamental to LZW, but since Photoshop is pretty  
> much ubiquitous I use its results as my guide. For lossless  
> compression of 16bit grayscale or RGB from Photoshop, TIFF/ZIP is  
> the best option weighing compatibility, etc. Of course you might  
> decide the performance hit (opens/saves) from ZIP outweigh any  
> minor storage capacity savings (I agree for flat TIFFs - but I do  
> use ZIP compression on layered TIFFs).
>
> -R
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines�  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Thanks Paul.
One thing I was not clear about is that I only cut back to 8 bits
AFTER working on the image in PS and finalizing it. Putting that
aside, what you say makes good sense to me.
I'll store at 16.
Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. DeRocco"
<pderocco@...> wrote:
>
> > From: ginnylady33
> >
> >   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)
> 
> You should never store a raw unedited image from any source in 8-bit
mode.
> Once you've carefully compensated for the exposure, and worked on the
> picture until you're sure you've brought out all the important
detail, and
> are ready to print, then and only then can you safely cut back to 8-bit.
> 
> Be aware, though, that the degradation that occurs with the lower
bit depth
> won't appear in all images, and may only cause a problem occasionally.
> Rather than try to judge each image, it's simpler just to keep
everything in
> 16-bit for archiving purposes.
> 
> Another thing that may be confusing things for you is that noise in the
> image actually compensates to some extent for the shallower bit
depth. If
> you create an artificial noiseless image (or even use a noise filter
on a
> real image) you can create a situation in which, after editing, you see
> posterization in an image. However, the presence of significant
noise in an
> image prevents this from happening. In effect, the noise allows the
> representation of finer gradations than the simple number of bits would
> suggest, through the mathematical process known as dithering. (This
is how
> inkjet printers work, where smooth gradations are represented with
only one
> bit of resolution: on or off.)
> 
> In other words, you may be able to mask the problem by using 1x
scanning,
> since that produces more noise. If you do 16x multi-scanning, to
average out
> some of the noise, you'll generally get better images, but you'll be
more

> susceptible to posterization if you cut back to 8 bits.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>

Right, Ed.
I only used it on the one test image. I've never used it before or since.
:)
Ginny

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho"
<erudolph@...> wrote:
>
> Ginny, I find that Superfine mode isn't necessary on the Nikon 9000
scanner.  It was useful 
> on the 8000 because of banding issues.
> 
> Ed  
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ginnylady33"
<ginnylady33@> 

> wrote:
> >
> >   It also
> > explains why we see no difference on this particular negative in the
> > 1x vs 16x scan with superfine turned on. (I think that means only one
> > CCD is doing the scan)
>

> From: ginnylady33
>
> One thing I was not clear about is that I only cut back to 8 bits
> AFTER working on the image in PS and finalizing it. Putting that
> aside, what you say makes good sense to me.
> I'll store at 16.

If you're talking about storing finished images, ready for printing, then in
my opinion 8-bit is fine, because display and printer drivers generally
don't look at any more than 8 bits anyway.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Thanks Paul.
That is what I was refering to.
Best
Ginny


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. DeRocco"
<pderocco@...> wrote:
>
> > From: ginnylady33
> >
> > One thing I was not clear about is that I only cut back to 8 bits
> > AFTER working on the image in PS and finalizing it. Putting that
> > aside, what you say makes good sense to me.
> > I'll store at 16.
> 
> If you're talking about storing finished images, ready for printing,
then in

> my opinion 8-bit is fine, because display and printer drivers generally
> don't look at any more than 8 bits anyway.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>