Is 16 bit really useful for printing?

[lroy]

I just communicated with the 2 most expensive (snobish) photo lab in Montreal.

 

They both agree that they convert 16 bit to 8 bit before they print it (inkjet

or chemicals).

 

What is the printing process that will render my 16 bit files? should I even

bother using 16 bit?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Canon's IPF 5100, 6100, 8000, and 9000 imagePROGRAF printers print at 12 bit per RGB channel. It is quite likely that newer Epsons and HP printers wil las well.

 

"should I even bother using 16 bit?"

 

The way I use 16 BPC data right now os to keep my masters intact in 16 BPC (and Pro Photo color space) form until I know how they will be reproduced and then, if necessary, I target the versions those reproduction methods will use to those processes. This may include reducing to 8 BPC form as well as utililizing a smaller color space or device specific profile, and also targeted output sharpening.

[patricklavoie]

Salut olivier, je suis curieux de savoir avec quel lab tu as parle, je suis de Mtl aussi : )

 

So for your question,

 

1_If you want to work in 16bits it is OK, since in the near future you would certainly be able to print on many printer with it.

 

2_But im agree that you dont need it now, and many printer wont support it, at least on many of them you wont see any difference. Even if it is possible with a RIP, i never saw a print that where more stunning in 16bit, but probably more smooth in a difficult gradient area.

 

Should you bother working in 16bit then?..for now i dont feel the need, but for future use of my file yes. Do you gonna need in the future to reprint those same images...only you can tell.

 

For the more technical part, Ellis handle it pretty well : )

[lroy]

What i understand is... that i should archive in untouched RAW... and convert it immediatly in 8 bit for the editing and printing.

 

### french part, Patrick... je crois avoir suivi un cour chez LLLozeau avec toi. Pour les 2 lab... je pr馨re ne pas les nommer en ligne.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"convert it immediatly in 8 bit for the editing and printing."

 

For printing , maybe, but I'd do any iamge manipualting (rotation, tonal edits, colro changes, color to B&W conversions, etc.) in 16 bit mode and create a master. The nwhen you go to print, duplicate the master convert the duplicate to 8BPC and the profile for the printer. Keep the full set of data intact for as long as possible through the processing pipeline.

[patricklavoie]

No not at all Louis Olivier.

 

Yes archive a unretouched RAW

 

But if you develop your file in 16 bits Prophoto RGB, work on it like that and keep this also as a original retouched PSD. When you save as a flatten copy to print or for the web, do convert from ProPhoto to Adobe RGB, then from 16 to 8 bit, then in need in sRGB.

 

Basically in the end you should have

 

1_a RAW

 

2_a PSD 16bit, Profoto RGB (in need, i maynly use Adobe RGB myself) with layer

 

3_a TIF 8bit, adobe rgb, flatten

 

4_a JPEG 8bit sRGB quality 12, 10 or 8 depending of what you need

 

hope that help.

 

french part for LO; surement : ) regarde tes mails, jai ecris quelques chose.

[colinsouthern]

I'm a big 16 bit fan - however, having said that most current research is showing that if you're working in either of the two smaller colourspaces (sRGB / aRGB), and not making large corrections to images, then you won't see any difference between 8 & 16 bit during editing.

 

In terms of printing, current printers just don't have enough dynamic range to benefit from anything over 8 bit.

 

Having said all that, if you do your own printing, and have the PC grunt to handle it then there's certainly no penalty in maintaining 16 all the way (which is what I do).

[william_john_smith1]

The new Epson wide format printers are 16 bit and Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' (due in October)

will feature a 16 bit printing subsystem.<P>On the present printers there no is no reason to

convert from 16 to 8 bit, the printer will do it for you, until this year there were no 16 bit

printers, they all converted to 8 bit behind the scene so to speak.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"the printer will do it for you, until this year there were no 16 bit printers"

 

Canon was doing 12 bit per channel printing with the iPF5000, 8000, & 9000 printers when you went through their driver as of mid 2006.

[william_john_smith1]

<I>12 bit per channel printing</I> Is not 16 bit

[david choo]

Let me tell you... most people will never be able to tell the difference... and the few that can

won't care provided what you print is OOOOOH pretty. ;)

 

And the one's that nitpick you because one tonal shade of green didn't show up that would

have shown up had you processed in 16bit... well you're better off without them. ;)

 

And unless you're using a monitor with an extreme color range... YOU won't be able to see

what's happening anyhow. ;) As your monitor outputs 8bit. :D

[david choo]

Oh and don't use the "ProPhoto" colorspace unless you are extremely adept in color

management... and know how to play the numbers... otherwise you could really make your

images.... ummm.... INTERESTING... hehe

 

Stick with AdobeRGB. ;)

[ellis_vener_photography]

Most people with healthy eyes can see the equivalent of 9 bits of color difference. 9 bits is 512 "steps" per red, green and blue channel vs. 256 "steps' per RGB.

 

 

The advantage of doing high bit processing, including printing is that it makes for smoother tonal gradations. Additionally while I have tested the nevery newest Epsons the Canon iPF printer with Canon's Lucida inks have a larger color gamut particularly in the blues than the current Epson's do.