I've been shooting digital images in raw mode. When I process them thru the Minolta camera software I save them as 42 bit tiff files. When I bring them into PS they are opened in 16 bit mode. Now, in order to do anything but the most basic of operations on them I have to change them to 8 bit mode, I know that I'm losing color information when I do this, but does it make any sense to reconvert them back to 16 bit after I'm finished processing them. It's not something I've been doing but the thought passed thru my mind if I should be, especially if I'm going to print? So what do my techno babes think? Donald? Misha?

hmm... I also have been somewhat dissapointed about what pshop lets me do in 16 bit mode. I'd at least think it would allow some selections and masks... Techno Babes? I guess this is what I'd do: First, in the camera, (or in my case the scanner), use the histogram function to adjust the exposure so nothing, (well, almost nothing), piles up at either end. This isn't always practical, but for those tripod mounted re-takes it may be worth the time. If anything is ever bunched up at the ends it is lost forever. Transfer the raw files to photoshop. Then do any contrast, levels, curves, color adjustments in 16 bit mode. [Each operation adds in a little "noise", and by staying in 16 bit mode less is added.] Then change to 8 bit mode for your other stuff, like sharpening. You likely archive this as a lossless tiff. If at some later time you need to adjust contrast, levels, curves, color, you may get slightly better results by first copying your archive and converting to 16 bit. Practically, I'd be surprised it would make noticable difference. But I guess I should run some experiments to check.

Oooo...I'm a Techno-Babe now. Sweet ... does a membership card come with this? Do we have a secret headquarters? Do I get to wear a cool uniform? Hmmm ... I agree with Misha on the editing. Do all the cropping, levels, curves and color correction in 16bit per channel mode for minimum data loss. Then convert to 8bit for the rest. I usually save a 16bit/channel version as archive before doing the conversion to 8bit. Once you are in 8bit, I can't see going back to 16bit as doing any good. The data that was there in 16bit mode is gone, can't put it back. -=>Donald

Thanks guys....that helps me understand more...

"Do all the cropping" No time to check now; but I seem to remember that cropping is one of the things pshop wouldn't let me do in 16 bit mode. [I think I was using the selection rectangle, not the crop tool...] Don is correct; one would like to crop. Then only the important areas are included in the histograms. Good tip about archiving the 16 bit version before filtering, etc. I ALWAYS forget to do this. 'Chelle, not sure I'd really worry too much about all of this. Particularly if you keep an archive of the original. We're viewing the results through an 8 bit monitor afterall. Lots of electrons are flying around the web describing different photoshop workflows. Almost a religeous topic. Some organizations mandate particular workflows in an effort to maintain consistancy; important not to turn large production runs a strange color. [But I do understand you wanting to preserve the best possible quality.] A more interesting problem is that of doing a dozen or so photoshop operations, (perspective, layer sharpening, channel mixer to B&W, duotoning...), and then wanting to do exactly the same operations, maybe a year later. This problem has come up for me fairly often, as when later wanting to do a larger version or slightly different crop of the original. Have you figured out how to use "History"? I have not.

I did forget one thing. After getting my film scanner, I started seriously looking at color spaces. What I've realized is that even more than 16-bit/channel mode, the gamut you use effects printer output more than the bits/channel you start with. I now scan in 16-bit/channel with AdobeRGB color space. This gives a much better color representation when outputting to devices other than your monitor (which has one of the smallest gamuts). So, if at all possible use AdobeRGB or one of the other wider-gamut color spaces instead of sRGB (which is the color-space of monitors). Misha - That's one of the areas that fries my brain. I have yet to find a good explaination of using history that I can rap my brain around for some reason. The one that really gets to me is using the non-linear history setting. I think I'm going to have to just jump into it and play with it until I understand it. -=>Donald

Good tid bit about the colorspace....but I wonder what difference it makes when I go to print..? On an image I am going to print I usually assign it my printers color profile. I can see the image get lighter. If I don't change the color profile the print looks like shit.... and even when I do change it, if I don't make adjustments to curves etc., it really does not look like what I see on the monitor.

do you print int rgb or cymk?

Michelle - Ok, just to fill in some background on this for those not familiar. The colorspace defines what colors are available for your image. Assume that your printer has a larger colorspace(gamut) than the sRGB colorspace (which any decent printer will). If the image you are working is in sRGB and when you are done you assign it to your printers colorspace, it's the whole converting 8-bit to 16-bit thing again. You can't add color that isn't there. So, effectively, even though you are outputting using your printer's colorspace, it is really the sRGB colorspace (that make sense?). If you are starting your image out in your printer's colorspace, you are using a wider gamut than sRGB. The problem is that your monitor has a tonal range that is limited to the smaller sRGB colorspace so even though you are using a wider gamut, you still only see your image on the monitor in sRGB. That means what you see is an approximation (sometimes I poor approximation) of what your image really looks like. Where the wider gamut pays off is when you output the image to a device that has a wider gamut. My printer's gamut is smaller than AdobeRGB, but I use AdobeRGB because that means my archive copies will be in the wider colorspace for future output to devices that might have wider gamuts than my current printer. -=>Donald

I see the light! Thank you, that was a really good explanation..... @GoatBoy.... rgb

solve your problems. http://www.colorvision.com/store/home.shtml its the only true way to go.(without the headaches.)

I've seen this before.... and I know it is something I will need, but first I need that $700 printer and that $600+ macro lens, and that $500 studio lighting set up, and so on and so on.... When I start actually making money then I can go out and spend $600 on it.....

Your very welcome, David. It is a bit expensive but if you do work digital form and make a profit this is a good investment. they have a couple of different models for your poket. the vids show the spider in action in action.

ahahahaha! Yeah I know what you mean. But if you want to go the cheaper way you could always find it on ebay for around $200.... I bought my epson 2200 printer from ebay for $400 actually we bought 3. I hope this is not the printer your looking for. I was disapointed with it. I rather we had spent the $1,200 on a plotter and make larger prints. but I guess thats for another posting.

Actually yes it is the printer....I've seen samples from it and I was impressed, what about it don't you like? I know others here have that printer and although he hasn't said anything directly I'm pretty sure he likes his..... so tell me. Is it just the size issue? Not sure I would ever buy used equipment off of ebay, but that's just me. If I buy used I need to be able to touch, see and examine before I buy. Software, well that's different I could do that.

No its not the "SIZE" Issue! (freak..) nor the weight which is a hefty 27 pounds! it is a excellent printer let me tell you (and we bought them new)but the quality was not that much different than most other & CHEAPER photo printers. when using it for text it does not perform so great at small fonts lets say a bold font size 6. It gives small jagged edges. $699 for a picture printer only is kind of steep. The only good thing I like about it is the roll paper feeder that lets you do larger prints and panoramics. but you will run out of ink at around 8 prints in the largest highest quality mode. and thats a hefty $85.00 to fill it's 7 ink slots. I bought my Wife a Epson Stylus C82 and believe it or not the quality is the SAME if not better it has a higher DPI than the 2200. and guess the price? just $129. Dell has it for $99. the inks a pigment base with a lifespan of 120 years archive life on Matte paper. 4 ink slots instead of 7. set back $35.00 it prints only upto 8x10 but its super fast and also prints text in the finest mode upto size 4 with out any jagged edges. an 8 x 10 takes 4 minutes on the 2200 and on the C82 just 2 minutes 33 seconds. I would hope you test it at the store agian and again before you buy it for after a few prints the magic goes away and you don't see the big deal about it any longer. We have bought a couple of things off ebay such as 12 flat screen 19 inch monitors, but look at a persons feedback if you feel they are honest and offer a good return or a guarantee then go for it using paypal verified program is a 100% safe transaction or even escrow which hold the money untill your satisfied with the purchase. But of course like you said make sure you have "TOUCHED & TESTED" it at a store before you buy it. The monitors would have set us back at $925.00 each and the ebay deal brand new with 3 year warranty set us back $375.00 per monitor. Now you could always save an extra grand and get yourself that plotter that printes from 8x10 upto 9 feet museum quality but again imagine the ink that S*it takes... :O)