Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2006-12-20 by Stephen Kobrin
Up to this point my inputs to B&W processing have been limited to scanned film and raw files. However, I have a new camera that does not have a raw option. Am I correct that the first steps in a JPEG workflow should be to save the file as tiff and then change the mode to 16 bit? Steve
2006-12-20 by Patrick Carr
Stephen Kobrin wrote: > Up to this point my inputs to B&W processing have been limited to > scanned film and raw files. However, I have a new camera that does > not have a raw option. Am I correct that the first steps in a JPEG > workflow should be to save the file as tiff and then change the mode > to 16 bit? > > Steve > Yes, lacking a raw or .tif option you'll want to start with the highest quality jpeg, convert to 16-bit (if you plan on extensive editing, otherwise this move is of questionable value)and save as .psd file (if using Photoshop), or as a .tif. Patrick Carr -- Carr Imaging patcarr@...
2006-12-20 by Alan Kearney
Patrick is right, although a TIFF file will usually be quite a lot larger than a Photoshop native PSD file. 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
On Dec 20, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Stephen Kobrin wrote: > Up to this point my inputs to B&W processing have been limited to > scanned film and raw files. However, I have a new camera that does > not have a raw option. Am I correct that the first steps in a JPEG > workflow should be to save the file as tiff and then change the mode > to 16 bit? > > Steve
2006-12-20 by Patrick Carr
Alan Kearney wrote: > Patrick is right, although a TIFF file will usually be quite a lot > larger than a Photoshop native PSD file. > > 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 > True and I wonder the same thing, however, there are those who claim a change to 16 bit is better than leaving at 8 bit for large image adjustments. I haven't done any A-B testing since I process at native 16 bit but it's not going to hurt anything--except for doubling the size of the file and slowing everything down. My intuition says it won't make a lot of difference, but my intuition is wrong all the time! Patrick Carr -- Carr Imaging patcarr@...
2006-12-20 by Stephen Kobrin
Thanks Guys, Looks like converting to 16 bit won't hurt and may even help. I have the disk space. Steve --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Carr <patcarr@...> wrote: > > Alan Kearney wrote: > > Patrick is right, although a TIFF file will usually be quite a lot > > larger than a Photoshop native PSD file. > > > > 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 > > > > True and I wonder the same thing, however, there are those who claim a > change to 16 bit is better than leaving at 8 bit for large image > adjustments. I haven't done any A-B testing since I process at native 16 > bit but it's not going to hurt anything--except for doubling the size of > the file and slowing everything down. > > My intuition says it won't make a lot of difference, but my intuition is
> wrong all the time! > > Patrick Carr > > -- > Carr Imaging > patcarr@... >
2006-12-20 by Eric Neilsen Photo
With the ability that Lightroom offers to develop images, I'd advise you to take your JPEG into Lightroom and process it in there. After you make sure the file is good, detail in highlights/shadows, I'd then export to PS or ? during which time you can export as PSD, TIF, to the size that you want as well as 16 or 8 bit. I recently received some rather poorly processed JPEGS to make prints from and was able to recover the detail much easier in Lightroom than a few hours of mucking around in PS would have brought me. We all know that in camera JPEG compression can be a problem, so there is my 2 cents. Eric 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 Patrick Carr Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:40 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] JPEG workflow question Alan Kearney wrote: > Patrick is right, although a TIFF file will usually be quite a lot > larger than a Photoshop native PSD file. > > 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 > True and I wonder the same thing, however, there are those who claim a change to 16 bit is better than leaving at 8 bit for large image adjustments. I haven't done any A-B testing since I process at native 16 bit but it's not going to hurt anything--except for doubling the size of the file and slowing everything down. My intuition says it won't make a lot of difference, but my intuition is wrong all the time! Patrick Carr -- Carr Imaging patcarr@swcp. <mailto:patcarr%40swcp.com> com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2006-12-20 by Alan Kearney
I agree that working in 16 bit does less damage overall, you can see it in the Histogram. And I guess with my workflow I'm up sampling anyway, my D2x shoots in 12 bit and up samples to 16 in PS or other software. Alan _____
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Carr Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:40 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] JPEG workflow question Alan Kearney wrote: > Patrick is right, although a TIFF file will usually be quite a lot > larger than a Photoshop native PSD file. > > 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 > True and I wonder the same thing, however, there are those who claim a change to 16 bit is better than leaving at 8 bit for large image adjustments. I haven't done any A-B testing since I process at native 16 bit but it's not going to hurt anything--except for doubling the size of the file and slowing everything down. My intuition says it won't make a lot of difference, but my intuition is wrong all the time! Patrick Carr -- Carr Imaging patcarr@swcp. <mailto:patcarr%40swcp.com> com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2006-12-20 by Clayton Jones
>Looks like converting to 16 bit won't hurt and may even help. It definitely helps. First thing I do to a jpeg is convert to 16 bit and save as PSD (smaller than TIF). Try making some adjustments to a copy of a jpeg (levels, adj curve, etc). Then make a 2nd 16 bit/psd copy of the original jpeg and apply the same adjustments to it, and then compare the two histograms. You will be convinced. Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2006-12-21 by Mike
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
2006-12-21 by Eric Neilsen Photo
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]
2006-12-21 by Nick H. Nugent
Hello Steve, The most important advantage to a RAW capture is you have the ability "develop" the frame during editing and change things like ISO, white balance, etc., within limits. Once you're happy with the file, you can transfer it to Photoshop in 8-bit mode and edit without fear. If you're going to print the image without any further editing, stay in 8-bit. If you're going to use the edited file for further manipulation in another edit, you can still edit in 8-bit, save a flattened copy of it in 16-bit, or "apply image" it to the subsequent 16-bit edit session. In other words, only use 16-bit edits when you absolutely have to. Within the confine of an 8-bit layered PS file, Photoshop always use highest precision math operations (unless their engineers perform some funny data conversion to their programming buffers). It's when it saves it to jpeg, tiff, or flattened PSD that it saves the final computed value and you lose the 8 LSB (least significant bits) that would otherwise still be there if you save in 16-bit. This precision loss will also happen if the file is "copy merged" or "apply image" or "duplicate flattened" to be used in another document. So in your case, 1. edit in 8 bit and save as 8-bit layered PSD, or 16-bit flattened PSD or TIFF for future edits. 2. edit in 8 bit and save as 8-bit as a final version for printing or web slideshow, etc. (but keep the original jpeg around). Even for folks that start out with RAW, edit in 8-bit any way, and when problem is detected, convert to 16-bit then apply image from the 16-bit redevelopment from RAW (unless you have accidentally deleted it). All adjustment layers still apply. --nick --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@...> wrote:
> > Up to this point my inputs to B&W processing have been limited to > scanned film and raw files. However, I have a new camera that does > not have a raw option. Am I correct that the first steps in a JPEG > workflow should be to save the file as tiff and then change the mode > to 16 bit? > > Steve >
2006-12-26 by daniel@petraflux.com
I usually do extreme adjustments to my images, with multiple sets of masked curve adjustment layers. Starting with an 8bit file and adding all the adjustment layers I've seen very bad posterization. Converting the 8bit image to 16bit and adding the same adjustments solved the posterization. Huge difference. I reccommend doing all adjustments in layers. Then it's very easy to convert without redoing the whole file. -- Daniel Staver http://daniel.staver.no