Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 2 Sep, 2003



A few comments which may bear mentioning and enquiring about:

>My digital prints look better than most of the rest of the
>photographers where I sell.

Are you sure this is because of their scanning in 8-bit versus 16-bit and
not because of some other factor in their workflows or the consequence of
differences in equipment?

>When I learned to do 16 bit dodging and burning using the history erase or
>feathered selections, instead of the 8 bit dodge and burn using simple
>tools, i noticed an enormous improvement in my prints.

Interesting!  Where did you learn of this technique and where can one read
up on it?

> Now, I can do all
>kinds of image manipulation in 16 bit, and then when it is time to print it
>and minor changes in contrast or lightness are necessary, they can all be
>done in hi-bit

Maybe; but what are you printing or outputing to?  Most of the output
devices including printers will not accept 16-bit or hi-bit input files,
which means that you would have to convert the files to 8-bit in the end
before sending them to the printer; how does this impact on the quality of
the file so as to make it different from what you would have gotten using an
8-bit scan or even a hi-bit scan that was converted to 8-bit when working on
it in Photoshop using the Photoshop tools that will only work 8-bit along
with those that do work with 16-bit as well as 8-bit?

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of HPA
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:28 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest
for Tue 2 Sep, 2003


I am glad to see we have such a wide diversity of opinion, or differences in
technique or application, considering 8 bit / hi bit scanning.

IMHO, full 16 bit processing at maximum resolution gives me enough quality
edge to make it worth it.  My primary market is photographic prints sold in
galleries. My digital prints look better than most of the rest of the
photographers where I sell. I make digital as well as darkroom prints.  My
digitals have to look as good as they can, just so the fiber prints don't
slay them by direct comparison.

When I learned to do 16 bit dodging and burning using the history erase or
feathered selections, instead of the 8 bit dodge and burn using simple
tools, i noticed an enormous improvement in my prints.  Now, I can do all
kinds of image manipulation in 16 bit, and then when it is time to print it
and minor changes in contrast or lightness are necessary, they can all be
done in hi-bit. I usually put at least several hours into spotting and image
enhancement.  Once I get a good scan and print, it just keeps selling over
and over.  Quality makes money for me.

I can understand many reasons why a scanner operator would choose 8 bit
processing.  However, experience shows me there is a visible difference in 8
bit vs hi bit. I know many people cannot tell the difference, but i consider
myself fortunate to be able to see it.  Put me in category #1.

Tom Robinson



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.