Comments on: Basics - Opening the RAW file in Photoshop - Why 16 Bits?

By: DANIEL FUENTEALBA blog » Blog Archive » Sincronización con Flash a Alta Velocidad

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:49:15 +0000

[…] que el sensor me entrega. Este formato permite de realizar un mejor post-procesamiento (why?) que es normalmente necesario en estos casos, sobre todo al usar agua que al ser transparente […]

By: engineer in depression

engineer in depression — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:14:12 +0000

“If all common Nvidia / Ati cards are truncating bit depth to 8Bits then 10/12 Bit monitors are just useless?”
if yes, than yes - it’s like building 3-line highway and than using only 2, or for example buying a Ferrari and driving it only to the nearest grocery - never using its real possibilities.
but i do not know what is the “bit-rate” of the most common video cards. i think that every time someone is building his workstation, it is to be considered if all of the components are up to each other. otherwise money will be simply waisted…

Julien :
Thanks again, you are confirming what I was thinking. Anyway I bought a 10 bits laCie screen and I can see much more shades than with my previous one but its probably simply a question of quality more than a question of bit depth .

By: engineer in depression

engineer in depression — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:31:59 +0000

about the bits
as i see it, is that
1. Photoshop doesn’t “see” pictures as a human does. for us picture is … picture, but for computer picture is an aggregation of numbers.
2. how Photoshop works you can divide into modules. like [read], [process], [write], [display]
1 + 2 . modules can be completly independent from one another. while the [display] module sends picture to the screen in (for example) 8-bits - maybe display drivers allow to resample only 8-bit depth(?), you can still work with 16-bits, because the [process] module works in 16-bits.
like i said - picture is only a set of numbers, while working on it, for the computer, it is like erasing digits from an array and replacing them with another digits. for us to see the results computer has to interpret the numbers, convert them from 16 to 8-bit and finally show as a picture.
if you are using a video card and a monitor that can display 10-bits or 12, Photoshop just don’t cut 8 from 16, but 6 (4) bits.
hopefully made myself clear enough

Julien :
Thanks for this explanation, I was just wondering if 10 or 12 bits video cards was something common or just some kind of inaccessible / elitist stuff. If all common Nvidia / Ati cards are truncating bit depth to 8Bits then 10/12 Bit monitors are just useless? Am I right or do I misunderstand something?

By: RAW vs jpg - OPC Presentation - naturephotoinfocus Blog

RAW vs jpg - OPC Presentation - naturephotoinfocus Blog — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:20:37 +0000

[…] - Raw vs jpeg link - J.R. Photoblog - Basics - Opening the RAW file in Photoshop - Why 16 Bits? link - Adobe Camera RAW 5.0 (Photoshop CS4) videos of new features by Scott Kelby at […]

By: marco

marco — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:08:34 +0000

I’m really impressed with your pictures Julien and as I have the same camera I feel a bit…how to say…unable compared to you..my question is,what your digital process flow?I mean,you open the picts directly in Camera Raw and than Photoshop or you convert them with Nikon SW.I red many times that Nikon SW is the best to convert RAW files.And if you do use Nikon SW,what kind of setting(sharpening,white balance etc..) you change from there and what do you leave to PS?Thanks for sharing with us all this beauty and all this knowledge.Keep the good work going!Marco

Julien :
Thanks Marco, I don’t know Nikon SW, perhaps are you talking of Nikon Capture NX ? Personally I use Adobe LightRoom because I like it as a Raw browser, I just adjust the white balance and then I open the picture under Photoshop. The engine of LigthRoom is the same than Camera Raw. It is known that Capture NX is better than Camera Raw for the Nikon Raw format but NX is not enough user friendly for me and I find the quality of LightRoom sufficient for my needs. About my settings there is no magic formula, all settings depends on the picture and all pictures are different so this is a question of context and taste.

By: Stany Buyle

Stany Buyle — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:51:27 +0000

Whether others might agree or disagree with the advantage of 14-bits against RAW 12bitRAW shooting and 8-bit against 16-bit postprocessing, I prefer shooting 14-bits all the time while “it doesn’t hurt” and while I’m sure it contains more information especially for highlight and shadow detail. Related to your sharpening tutorial: Thanks for posting your thoughts. Interesting.
Kindest regards,
Stany Buyle

Julien :
I would do the same thing because “it doesn’t hurt” however I think all this is an illusion… In my opinion, a 12bits container was already very large to hold the sensor data. I don’t think there would be a significant difference in the richness of the picture between a 12-bit and a 14-bits container…

By: Jesper Garde

Jesper Garde — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:46:28 +0000

Thanks for an informative article. I have one question I hope you’ll be able to help me with.

When I know I need to do a lot of processing of a RAW file I open it at 16 bit in Photoshop. Now when I’m done and need to save as jpg to put on my photoblog I first convert to 8 bit and ’save for web’ as a jpg.

This often causes the photo to go very ‘flat’. A lot of the colour and lumination is lost. I understand 8 bit is a lot smaller colour space than 16 bit, but it still should not be that different. For example I can open the jpg and increase saturation and contrast and get a lot closer to what it looked like before I converted the 16 bit file.

Do you have a work flow to avoid this?

Thanks,
Jesper Garde

Julien :
Yes, your problem is a very common one and has nothing to do with 8bits or 16bits .
You probably edit you picture in another profil than sRGB which is the default format for web export. There are good chances that you edit it in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto RGB which is a good thing, but you need to convert it to the standard web profile (sRGB) before saving it.
1. Save your source PSD file
2. Flatten picture (Layer > Flatten image)
3. Resize picture to the desired web format (Image > image size)
4. Convert image color profile (Edit > Convert to Profil …> Destination Space : sRGB IEC61966-2.1) (note that you can see in “source space” the profile you were using)
5. Convert image to 8 Bits (Image > Mode > 8Bits / Channel)
6. Use “File > Save As” instead of save for web (save for web is more a web designer tool), you will preserve your EXIF metadata
Voilà!

By: Fotografía con flash en alta velocidad « DanCL’s Weblog

Fotografía con flash en alta velocidad « DanCL’s Weblog — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:13:28 +0000

[…] que el sensor me entrega. Este formato permite de realizar un mejor post-procesamiento (why?) más que es normalmente necesario en estos casos, sobre todo al usar agua que es transparente y […]

By: Juan Carlos Herrera

Juan Carlos Herrera — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:32:53 +0000

Many thanks, I work in 8 bit and I have many problems with artifacting. do you have recomentations?

Julien : Yes, edit in 16 bits :). If you are talking of JPG artifacts then shoot in RAW.

By: serkant

serkant — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:25:15 +0000

my biggest problem is b&W,i dont like my D70s’s b&w results in photoshop,but i love your b&W tones,i d like know your illusion on your b&w photos..thanks

Julien : I take all picture in RAW (color), results are due to the conversion and post-processing under photoshop, I will post a black and white tutorial in the near future, but right now I don’t have enough time