Then the lesson is all worthwhile. I assumed the nice smooth histogram
was from the original image. The fact that converting from 8 to 16 does
hold onto subtle gradations is a point I wouldn't have expected and am
glad to learn. I'll try it out in the future. I normally shoot raw but
not always. I tried it about 2 weeks ago taking some grab shots of two
of my grandkids and I'm sorry now I didn't shoot in raw. Most of the
images are fine but a few could have been much nicer with a little more
exposure headroom.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>>Finally, your comment about converting 8 to 16 bit before processing
>>causes me so say, huh? I'm not sure I could do the math correctly even
>>if I was more awake but I'm skeptical that this would lead to any
>>different result after the 16 bits were finally converted back to 8 bits
>>for printing. But I'm not sure. Certainly having 16 bits to start with
>>is the desirable case but it's not clear to me at all that converting an
>>8 bit image to 16 bits will change anything.
>>
>
> Well, it certainly does in the histograms - that is the ONLY difference
> between those two so very different histograms. Processing was carefully
> absolutely identical except for converting one to 16-bit before
> processing, then back to 8 bit for the final histogram capture and
> sizing for the web. Lots of loss of tonal graduation there in the 8-bit
> one. In this particular example, and many others, it may be
> indistinguishable to the eye, as you had said, but it can make a very
> obvious difference in more extreme work like recovering faded shots,
> missed exposures, and the like.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|