Ken,
That's true. I often convert my color images to black & white though, and I
am still using Photoshop CS2, which doesn't have BW conversion built into
Camera Raw, so I use Alienskin Exposure and that does give better results on
16 bit images. Color could be output as 8 bit with no problem once it's
gotten right in the RAW converter but I hope someday that printers capable
of 16bit output will be made, and I'll be ready.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Fort Wayne, Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 10/9/08 12:03 PM, "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Chris Crawford wrote:
>> The advantage of 16 bit comes from when you do a lot of photoshop work on
>> it. Your screen can only show an 8 bit image, that's why you don't see a
>> difference on your freshly converted RAW files...
>
> Which brings up a point. If, during the RAW conversion process, you are
> able to achieve the tonal and color rendition close to final output, then
> there is little reason to convert to 16bit. 16bit is helpful for heavy
> editing, but if there is no editing to be done, why bother?
>
> During the RAW conversion process, the RAW converter is working in higher
> bit-depth than 8-bit and the decision to save as 16-bit or 8-bit has no
> affect on how the RAW converter actually performs.
>
> AG
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|