Ken's right. (And I already missed my chance at an "I agree with AG" t-shirts.)
Chuck and Bob are wrong on the simple facts of the matter, but not the essence.
Jim is wrong.
On 12/19/2011 4:24 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> I will butt in here if you allow it. I think he is referring to the fact
> that some of the more desirable final steps in PhotoShop require that the
> image be converted to an 8-bit image before the actions can be accomplished.
> As an example, cloning out spots in an image.
This is quite incorrect. Cloning, and its more sophisticated cousins that are
in PS, but not PSE, are all 16 bit operations.
In fact, as Bob's comment suggests and as I will attest, there are no
operations used or desirable in PS for straight
processing of photographic images that are 8 bit. Bob and I both push PS pretty
far, and there is nothing limited to 8
bit in our workflow.
Yet, as AG says, although making it sound terrible, there are a number of
filters in PS that are still 8 bit only in
CS5.1. (True of some third party filters, as well.)
The thing is, they are all artistic filters that alter images in ways that make
issues about resolution or accurate
color moot. I have used them so seldom that it took me a moment to realize why
they were grayed out when I recently
tried something different on an image. It would be more seamless if I didn't
have to work with that, but it is a
reminder that there is no benefit to 16 bit once I go through that door. :-)
On the other hand, I just don't see where it makes any actual image difference
in the results. All of the operations in
PS that I am aware of that benefit from 16 bit are 16 bit.
Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|