Monochrom 16 bit

[sm23221]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there any advantage to processing MM dng files in 16 bit instead of 8 bit? Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Is there any reason not to?

[Jeff S]

As with other aspects of photography, every little bit helps.

 

Jeff

[sm23221]

Is there any reason not to?

 

Not sure, that's why I'm asking.

[kdriceman]

I cannot think of any advantage to process the file in 8 bit mode, unless you are using antiquated computing equipment. You are tossing out an incredible amount of information by not processing in 16 bit.

[sm23221]

Well, then why not 32 bit?

[kdriceman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, then why not 32 bit?

 

There is no 32 bit option in LR. At any rate, the M Monochrom file is written at 14 bits so you can fully utilize all the information available when processing at 16 bit. Having said that, I do know plenty of photographers that use 32 bit when processing 14bit color files in PS, especially when they use HDR.

[doolittle]

Is there any advantage to processing MM dng files in 16 bit instead of 8 bit? Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, as you are using the full range of values the sensor is capable of producing (14 bit file, around 16,000 levels of tonal value). If you use 8 bit you are restricting the file to 255 value levels of tone, which would be a shame. The optimum work flow would be to do all the processing you can in 16 bit. If 8 bit files are required (e.g. jpegs for web images etc.), do the conversion from 16 to 8 bit at the end. Any image degradation caused by processing will be much more apparent if you just edited in 8 bit, as the 16 bit files will have a lot more leeway.

[jaapv]

There is no 32 bit option in LR. At any rate, the M Monochrom file is written at 14 bits so you can fully utilize all the information available when processing at 16 bit. Having said that, I do know plenty of photographers that use 32 bit when processing 14bit color files in PS, especially when they use HDR.

I too will process 14 bits colour files in 32. Anyway, I have often witnessed posterizing (in the far past ) when processing in 8 bits.

Not to be recommended.

Any processing done in 8 bits is irreversible i.e. lost data cannot be recovered by switching to a higher bit depth. So yes, only drop down if you have to.

The same (in colour processing) with colour spaces. You can dumb down to a smaller coulour space (i.e. Prophoto --> Adobe RGB --> sRGB), but expanding to a wider one again will not recover lost data.

[Guest WPalank]

If you take your images straight into PS and then turn them into jpeg and export, without doing any PP, then no advantage. However, I suspect this is not the case, layer after layer of adjustments and then export will lead to posterization in the final iteration.

As an experiment, take a 16 bit image, add several layers where you do nonsense adjustments, curves, followed by levels, followed by sharpening, then take a look at your Histogram. Not so bad in 16 bit.

Take the same image, pre-adjustment, immediately convert to 8 bit, now do the same erroneous modifications. Now look at the Histogram. You will see combing, in other words, it should look like a hair comb with several of the teeth removed. That represents holes in the image data and therefore your image will have areas that are not smooth in the transitions, instead they will be abrupt (posterized).

[sm23221]

Thanks, that was terrific. It seems best to get it right the first time in the camera and minimize the post-processing to take advantage of the MM's high quality files and resulting tonal values. Too much PS'ing seems counterproductive when trying to obtain the best quality prints. Interestingly, seemingly large changes that appear on the computer screen translates into much smaller changes (and far less noticeable) changes when printed. I find that most MM files need only corrected black and white points along with a slight amount of sharpening (and maybe a bit of structure at times).

[250swb]

Interestingly, seemingly large changes that appear on the computer screen translates into much smaller changes (and far less noticeable) changes when printed.

 

Assuming the basic's of already having a properly calibrated monitor you should question whether your Photoshop is talking to your printer correctly, and that your printer is capable of translating the full tonal subtleties of B&W. It should be 'what you see is what you get'.

 

Steve

[doolittle]

For anybody looking for a good primer on ink jet printing, monitor calibration etc Martin Bailey's 'Making the Print' ebook is well worth the US$5 asked for it.

 

Making the Print - Craft & Vision

[sm23221]

It should be 'what you see is what you get'.

 

Steve

 

It should be but it often isn't.

[Bill W]

This is another great free site with tutorials. I have even emailed the site owner. Ian Lyons with questions and he answered fairly quickly.

 

Computer Darkroom

[vdb]

Compare prints made with 8 bit and 16 bit....massive difference.