Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Friday Tulip - Jim N.

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Friday Tulip - Jim N.
From: "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:02:20 -0500
Thanks, Bob.  I'll be 81 in about a week, so I try to take the shorter path 
to get an image that I can accept.  I do shoot RAW, adjust and sharpen the 
RAW image, then edit as much as possible in PS Elements 6.0 using 16-bit 
images, until I find that I need to go to 8-bit for some last minute touch 
ups of the images.  I think I can live with that.  ;~)

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Whitmire" <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Friday Tulip - Jim N.


> In a perfect world, I edit in ProPhoto space, at 16 bits, on a 64 bit CS5 
> platform. Every adjustment gets its own layer, each clearly labeled and 
> grouped according to whether it's a global, regional or local adjustment. 
> Even sharpening gets its own layer. Then I soft proof and print to see if 
> I actually like the way the image looks on paper. (Yep, soft proofing gets 
> it's own group of layers, usually a combination of curves and 
> hue/saturation.) Sometimes I make adjustments to the file after printing 
> to compensate for stuff that soft proofing doesn't show.
>
> When it's like I like it, I duplicate the file, flatten it, and use that 
> file for printing. Sometimes if I'm not sure about the final result, I'll 
> leave the soft proofing adjustments as a separate group. Still a smaller 
> file, just not as small. <g>
>
> I think for those who aren't so technically inclined to know how those 
> histogram spikes and jaggies translate to print, what Chuck is saying is 
> that if you're making a lot of adjustments, editing in 16-bit mode is much 
> less likely to produce effects such as posterization in the final image.
>
> Do I not recall that most printers convert their images to 8-bit on the 
> fly?
>
> --Bob
>
> PS: That's in a perfect world. In the real world, my files can be real 
> messes.
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:04 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> However multiple
>> brightness, contrast, saturation, etc, etc, adjustments gradually
>> introduce more and more rounding errors into the 8 bit calculations.
>> Using 16 bit values reduces the cumulative effects of those rounding
>> errors which has a tendency to introduce spikes and the jaggies into
>> histograms.
>>
>> So, forget 16 bits on the final, processed output.  No one can see it...
>>  even if you think you can.  :-)
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz