Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Forums · Digital Imaging

16 bit images

Discussion

5 replies
Posted by Mark Pelton on May 2, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I guess I have read the arguments for and against, but am still curious what others are doing. These 16 bit images get large in a hurry with a few layers added. I know hard drives are cheap. On most shots that are reasonable good exposures that are not going to need a lot of manipulation what real advantages are we getting from 16 bit as opposed to 8 bit. Are we going to have 16 bit capable printers any time soon?
Posted by Guy Tal on May 2, 2007 at 10:53 PM
There already is a 16-bit printer driver for the Canon iPF5000. Either way, high bit count lets you keep all the color information your sensor detects (generally 12-bit worth). In images with smooth tonal gradation this can be critical for enlargement where losing color information may result in banding.

Guy
Posted by Ed Cordes on May 3, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Always keep all the information your camera captures. Why spend many $$ on the highest quality equipment then through away data? As was said, 16 bit images will give you smoother color transitions. As output equipment improves this will become more important. For now, however, you are ensuring the best possible results by shooting RAW and using 16 bit images.. :wavey:
Posted by Alain Briot on May 3, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Preparing your master file in 16 bit is a guarantee that you have the highest quality data, ready to be used when 16 bit printers become the norm. If you save your Master Files in 8 bit, you'll have to redo them in 16 bit down the road...
Posted by Steve Bunn on May 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Is PS CS3 better at handling large files than PS Elements 3.0? I know Elements won't handle 16 bit files, but my scanned MF images are 280MB at 8 bit! I still have a relatively fast computer at 3.4 Ghz, 3 Gigs of RAM, and a 256MB video card. I couldn't imagine the post processing with a 560MB file in 16 bit (okay, I can, but only from stiches I've done with MF images). Can I expect CS3 to majically process a 560MB, 16 bit file faster than Elements can with a 280MB, 8 bit file? :confused:
Posted by Richard Bernabe on May 4, 2007 at 8:19 AM
All great points, not to mention 16-bit files give you more editing headroom than 8-bit files. Open a RAW file and extract two identical files from it - one 16 bit and one 8 bit. Open both in Photoshop and apply some basic editing maneuvers; curves, saturation, etc. before checking the histograms (levels) of both. The 8-bit file will have more gaps or spikes while the 16-bit file will be smoother, with better tonal gradation.