v750 scans??

[rdenney]

I don't agree about the 16 bit assertions that have been made. Doubling the file size needs to show advantages and I haven't seen them(yet!). My suggestion would be to not let the suggestions of others override the process of YOU experimenting with your equipment and learning what works.

The second sentence will find general agreement but it does not prove the first.

I have seen it for myself. But it depends on how much you are manipulating the tone curve on the image.

Since my scanner images are always a bit flat (I do that on purpose to make sure I don't clip any highlights are shadows), and since I want more of the look of an s-shaped response, I often end up steepening the tone curve for middle values pretty steeply. I have frequently had to give up on 8-bit files because I could not get the tonalities I wanted without posterizing the image.

If you can get your tonalities close to what you want in the scanning software, though, you can then let that software save the result as an 8-bit file after those moves have been made. But since Photoshop gives me much more control and a much better view into the image file than does the scanning software, I prefer to take as much information as possible into Photoshop and then throw it away if I don't need it.

It's easier to throw away what you don't need than to need it and not have it.

Rick "who maintains a 16-bit workflow even with an 8-year-old computer and very large scan files" Denney

[Paul H]

The more I use PSe7 the more I do not like it. PSe5 worked will and I liked it a lot more. I would hate to spend money on PSP then find that I do not like it. It would be great if there were some place one can take all the different models for a test drive.

Take a look at the web site - there's a free trial (just like adobe's products)

[Brian Ellis]

I didn’t know you can edit 16bit with CS4. Yet, the cost of CS is over my head, for now I have to settle for second best. That begs the question, how does 16bit improve my prints over 8bit? Will my Epson r2400 give me that 16bit grayscale.
Nice thing about film enlargers, you do not need to upgrade.

I don't remember exactly when Photoshop greatly expanded the ability to edit in 16 bit, it may have been with the first version of CS or it may even have been earlier than that. Whenever exactly it was, I've been editing everything in 16 bit for a long time. Since you can't afford CS4, possibly you find a legal version of CS3, it has essentially the same 16 bit editing capability as CS4.

I've seen several lengthy discussions about the benefits, if any, of sending a 16 bit image to the printer vs sending an 8 bit image. I think the consensus has been that there is no advantage but that's just my interpretation of the things I've seen. I've done a little testing (with my former Epson 2200 printer, none with my current 3800) and saw no difference so when I'm ready to make a final print I switch to 8 bit and save the file as an 8 bit file (once I've printed I never go back and re-edit). If you want to know whether 16 bit improves your prints it's a simple matter to find out - make some prints both ways and see what you think.

With respect to editing in 8 vs 16 bit. I always edit in 16 bit but I don't think it's fatal to edit in 8 bit especially color. Even if you see gaps in the histogram the important thing is what the print looks like, not what the histogram looks like. Depending on the image Photoshop can often interpolate and fill in those gaps just fine.

[Milton Tierney]

I agree, I was certified as an AutoCad tech and I’m not intimidated by complex programs.
Now retired, no money, no school.

[mandoman7]

The second sentence will find general agreement but it does not prove the first.

I have seen it for myself. But it depends on how much you are manipulating the tone curve on the image.

Since my scanner images are always a bit flat (I do that on purpose to make sure I don't clip any highlights are shadows), and since I want more of the look of an s-shaped response, I often end up steepening the tone curve for middle values pretty steeply. I have frequently had to give up on 8-bit files because I could not get the tonalities I wanted without posterizing the image.

If you can get your tonalities close to what you want in the scanning software, though, you can then let that software save the result as an 8-bit file after those moves have been made. But since Photoshop gives me much more control and a much better view into the image file than does the scanning software, I prefer to take as much information as possible into Photoshop and then throw it away if I don't need it.

It's easier to throw away what you don't need than to need it and not have it.

Rick "who maintains a 16-bit workflow even with an 8-year-old computer and very large scan files" Denney

As usual, I find myself having to back up a blanket statement that I might have been better off keeping to myself. If the original poster is working with photoshop elements, though, it seems likely that there's a ram limit also. If you're not going to be doing a lot of editing and its going to be saved as a jpg then we agree an 8 bit is probably satifactory.

When I used to teach music my goal was to get them playing as soon as possible to experience the joy before loading them down with scales and theory, figuring that they will find the level of technique that suits them on their own. Most people seemed to be struggling with the belief that they can actually do it and would be easily daunted. That's still where I'm coming from, I guess.

[rdenney]

When I used to teach music my goal was to get them playing as soon as possible to experience the joy before loading them down with scales and theory, figuring that they will find the level of technique that suits them on their own. Most people seemed to be struggling with the belief that they can actually do it and would be easily daunted. That's still where I'm coming from, I guess.

But when you teach those young musicians, you teach them the principles of good sound right from the start, and partly because making a good sound increases the joy. As I said, my computer is probably no better than the OP's, having 2GB of RAM and an ancient AMD processor (ancient = about 8 years old). I've been doing 16-bit editing for half that time, and my scan files are in the range of half a gigabyte. Admittedly, there are some scales I cannot play (to carry your analogy a bit further), but at least I'm getting a decent tone.

Even though I argued with you, however, I left room for us to both be right. If one gets the tonal adjustments close to right in the scanning software, then those moves will be made before the conversion to 8-bit JPG files, and the subsequent adjustments in the editor will be less likely to leave visible holes in the tonal scale.

Rick "a musician who enjoyed your analogy" Denney

[mandoman7]

But when you teach those young musicians, you teach them the principles of good sound right from the start, and partly because making a good sound increases the joy.

Well, not exactly Rick. I would say that at the outset, the biggest concern is to establish a minimal level of muscle memory such that a rhythm can be established. Like riding a bike, the first step is getting your feet off the ground. The question of style comes afterwards, although its always in the neighborhood.

Even though I argued with you, however, I left room for us to both be right. If one gets the tonal adjustments close to right in the scanning software, then those moves will be made before the conversion to 8-bit JPG files, and the subsequent adjustments in the editor will be less likely to leave visible holes in the tonal scale.

Rick "a musician who enjoyed your analogy" Denney

I certainly agree that the loss of smooth gradations is something to watch out for. But as you've suggested, sometimes that's more a matter of how dramatic the later adjustments are, more than the bit depth of the scan.
I hope I don't seem too argumentative while you're trying to be diplomatic. I'm like the dog who wants you to tug at the other end of his stick to excercise his teeth, basically. No ill will intended.

[rdenney]

Well, not exactly Rick. I would say that at the outset, the biggest concern is to establish a minimal level of muscle memory such that a rhythm can be established. Like riding a bike, the first step is getting your feet off the ground. The question of style comes afterwards, although its always in the neighborhood.

I play the tuba. For a tuba player, there are three first-tier priorities: Sound, rhythm, and pitch. On the second tier, there are articulation, dynamics, and phrasing.

Muscle memory is bound up in all these. But bad habits learned in sound production often stay with that musician for life, while steady practice usually results in steady improvement in the other areas. Every good teacher I know at all levels emphasizes good sound production fundamentals right from the very beginning. Good sound requires two things: 1.) a sound in one's head that is guiding the result (that sound is usually provided by the teacher), and 2.) a dependence on air flow rather than pressure. I hear many adult amateurs using pressure, and I (sadly) hear it most acutely in recordings of my own playing. Making a good-sounding whole note is salve for the soul compared to making a bad-sounding 16th-note run where all the right buttons were pressed, don't you think? Too many kids are taught the opposite, and end up with lots of technique but without the tools to make music.

I suspect this translates to this discussion in the following way:

Focus on the tonality of the image right from the start, and build your technique around that tonality. Even the first prints should have clean whites, rich blacks, and smooth gradations in between. Any simplifications that constrain one's ability to achieve the desired tonality are going too far. Better to simplify in other ways, such as by scanning at lower resolution and living with smaller prints, if the machine's processing capability is a limitation. Or, not using some of those filtration techniques that eat up too much processing power.

Rick "recognizing that some get the tonality they want with an 8-bit workflow" Denney

[mandoman7]

The tuba? What a wonderful choice. That does seem like an instrument that benefits from attention to tone. You must have a great time when you're playing in an ensemble. I always focus on the tuba player in bands and how they set up the rest of the sound. Good for photos, too, I would think.

We're not disagreeing about much really, just about which thoughts a beginner should focus on when starting. The flood of sellers of LF cameras with comments about never really having used the camera is my basis, more than a dismissal of aesthetics. The initial hurdle of just Doing It

[rdenney]

The tuba? What a wonderful choice.

I confess it was no choice of mine. The instrument absolutely chose me, with a little assistance from a 7th-grade band director who needed a tuba player and noted that I was the largest male to walk through the door on join-the-school-band day. Once the sound gets in your head, though, nothing else provides the same satisfaction. That is very much like the thrilling experience of viewing a 4x5 transparency or negative on a light table for the first time.

The initial hurdle of just Doing It

The hardest part about practicing the tuba is getting it out of the case.

One key advantage to having film is that you can set up a cheap and quick scan capability to start with, and then have the option of going back and rescanning the film with a better capability at a later date. All of this is just stuff to think about. But I absolutely agree with your principle. I'd rather shoot Polaroids of my living room than let the camera sit unused.

Rick "even at $4 a pop" Denney