I don't use it or any other home printer, but can assure you that there's no advantage to printing 16 bit vs. 8 bit. The only advantage 16 bit files have is in the increased amount of 'headroom' when editing.
Hey6 amigo, thanks for the feedback. That was my impression as well, but I was listening to someone who opined differently and swore he could see a better color gamut. I realize there can be a few possible explanations for that might be true in his case, so I thought I'd solicit the views of those whose opinions I respect the most.
Posted by Bill Brennan on July 6, 2011 at 12:12 AM
Howard, according to Tim Grey, even though the value is marginal, he would print the 16 bit file instead of converting it to 8 bit as he recommends editing using the 16 bit file.
PRINTING: For all practical purposes, the real world difference between 8-bit per channel and 16-bit per channel printing is non-existent. You simply can’t see a difference between the two prints. **The option to print 16-bit data is only available with a handful of printers***, using either Photoshop CS4 or Lightroom 2, and only on the Macintosh platform (for now). The benefit is incredibly minimal, and in most cases you would not be able to see any difference.
The benefit would really only be in very smooth gradations, which can be maintained better with 16-bit printing (you’ll likely see slightly more banding in those gradations with 8-bit printing).
If you’re working with a 16-bit per channel workflow (which I do highly recommend) and you happen to have a printer and the necessary software configuration to enable 16-bit per channel printing, I would certainly enable it just to provide every possible advantage in terms of print quality.
But I certainly wouldn’t buy a new printer, switch platforms, or buy new software for the sole purpose of enabling 16-bit printing, because there simply isn’t a significant benefit. Most people would never know the difference with most images.
The bottom line is that 16-bit per channel can offer a benefit in terms of quality for your images, and I highly encourage its use. Just keep in mind that just because 16-bit per channel is certainly helpful when optimizing your images doesn’t mean it will be helpful at later stages of your workflow.
Discussion
5 repliesBill Brennan
Here is the full text from Tim Grey:
PRINTING: For all practical purposes, the real world difference between 8-bit per channel and 16-bit per channel printing is non-existent. You simply can’t see a difference between the two prints. **The option to print 16-bit data is only available with a handful of printers***, using either Photoshop CS4 or Lightroom 2, and only on the Macintosh platform (for now). The benefit is incredibly minimal, and in most cases you would not be able to see any difference.
The benefit would really only be in very smooth gradations, which can be maintained better with 16-bit printing (you’ll likely see slightly more banding in those gradations with 8-bit printing).
If you’re working with a 16-bit per channel workflow (which I do highly recommend) and you happen to have a printer and the necessary software configuration to enable 16-bit per channel printing, I would certainly enable it just to provide every possible advantage in terms of print quality.
But I certainly wouldn’t buy a new printer, switch platforms, or buy new software for the sole purpose of enabling 16-bit printing, because there simply isn’t a significant benefit. Most people would never know the difference with most images.
The bottom line is that 16-bit per channel can offer a benefit in terms of quality for your images, and I highly encourage its use. Just keep in mind that just because 16-bit per channel is certainly helpful when optimizing your images doesn’t mean it will be helpful at later stages of your workflow.