# 16 bit vrs. 8 bit



## avil (Oct 24, 2010)

I have been  doing photography for a "long time" but I just started working with digital  camera's. I have several questions concerning 16 bit. I have been converting my  Raw files to 8 bit tiffs because the version of Photoshop I have at work does  not support 16 bit. I have been using a local professional lab to print my stuff  and I am very happy with the results so far. Questions:

I have no problem  buying new software to work in 16 bit. Is it worth the investment? The local lab  told me the file ultimately downloads to the printer at 8 bit so I am not sure  how the 16 bit printing process works. What I do know is the lab has some very  large and very expensive printers but they are all at least 2 years old. He told me most of the local guys do not  bring him 16 bit files.

Anyone using  the Nikon Nx2 software? I just need basic color correction and most importantly  I would like some sort of  lens correction. Going to download the demo and check  it out. 

I have been  shooting with a Nikon D60 that our production company owns and a D90 that my  friend loans me. Looking to make an upgrade into a new camera of my own but I  want all my software / tech issues solved before I get a new  camera.

Thanks in  advance


----------



## myPOV (Oct 24, 2010)

16 bit images have a great deal more useful dynamc range.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 25, 2010)

The problem is not the printing, it's the processing steps leading up to the printing. When you have a 16bit file you have much more useful information (more than the eye can see) to work with. However if you start tweaking brightnesses, contrast, saturation, and playing with the image a bit processing in 16bit does give you a noticeable improvement even if the final file will end up as an 8bit file. 

I've used Nikon's software a few times. Some people here love it, but personally I find it's clunkly, not very intuitive for working on a shooting session (fine for editing single pictures), and it has to be the slowest resource hog that has ever opened a RAW file on my computer. However it does render the colours and tone identically to your camera shooting JPEG (not something that overly impresses me either), and it also obeys the options you set in the camera with regards to noise reduction, saturation, contrast etc.  

I suggest while you're looking at various problems grab a trail version of Lightroom 3 from Adobe's website. It would have to probably be the most popular program out there for editing images. Though just be aware that it's default look will be different to Nikon JPEGs, however that is something you can change and tweak and then set as default in the software. Also it's based on the CameraRAW engine from modern versions of Photoshop so the results are excellent.


----------



## Proteus617 (Oct 25, 2010)

Garbz said:


> The problem is not the printing, it's the processing steps leading up to the printing. When you have a 16bit file you have much more useful information (more than the eye can see) to work with. However if you start tweaking brightnesses, contrast, saturation, and playing with the image a bit processing in 16bit does give you a noticeable improvement even if the final file will end up as an 8bit file.



I only deal with scans of BW negatives and moved to 16 bit for the reason above.  8 bit greyscale images fall apart pretty quickly in post.  8bit gives you 250 greys, 16 bit gives you 65000.  Take an image and open it up twice in PShop (or whatever) as 8 bit and 16 bit.  Make a few levels and curves adjustments and then check the histogram.  It will make the difference between the two very clear.


----------



## avil (Oct 25, 2010)

I downloaded the demo's and I have come to the conclusion that I really do not want to learn a new program. Their are older versions of Photoshop for sale (CS2, CS3) on Ebay for the cost of a new program. The 2 things I really want above standard color correction is the Lens filter and some type of noise reduction filter. Am I safe with CS2?


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2010)

Unfortunately, there is no standard color correction.
Lens correction and noise reduction functions are found in the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) plig-in that is included with versions of CS. Today's CS5 (and Lightroom 3) uses ACR 6, CS4 (and Lightroom 20 uses ACR 5, CS3 (and Lightroom 1) use ACR 4, and CS2 uses ACR 3, which by now is ancient by comparison of functionality for lens corrections and noise reduction.

Have you looked at standalone noise reduction applications like Imagenomics, Noiseware Pro? They generally outperform even the noise reduction that's available with CS5.

To open Nikon .NEF files made with the D60 you need at least Camera RAW 4.4 and for the D90 you need at least Camera RAW 4.6.

CS3 would be they oldest CS that supports Camera RAW 4.x and those cameras.

Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras

You could use CS2 by converting all of your Nikon .NEF files to Adobe's .DNG format. DNG, digital negative | Adobe


----------



## avil (Oct 25, 2010)

KmH said:


> To open Nikon .NEF files made with the D60 you need at least Camera RAW 4.4 and for the D90 you need at least Camera RAW 4.6.
> 
> CS3 would be they oldest CS that supports Camera RAW 4.x and those cameras.
> 
> ...




Basically I have been down converting my Raw files to 8 bit Tiff files. Would I be gaining anything by using the .dng format? I am trying to work within a budget keeping in mind my real goal is to get my own digital camera and upgrade the D60. I may have to work with 16 bit tiff's or .dng for a while. Thanks.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 26, 2010)

You would gain the ability to open the RAW files from the D60 and D90 in Photoshop CS2.

One thing I question.. You mentioned that you don't wish to learn a new program, and then are talking about opening RAWs in Photoshop. ... Well Lightroom = Adobe CameraRAW which is the Photoshop RAW interface. What I mean by equals I mean that all the sliders are the same, the options are the same, depending on the version they look the same in develop mode, the results are the same. 

The differences are that with Lightroom you have a system for sorting, categorising and filing images, the ability to quickly print or make slideshows, additional touchup tools, and a very powerful batch editing system suitable based around probably one of the most intuitive and easiest to use interfaces in the industry. 

I hate to sound like an advert, but you get all this in the latest version (Photoshop CS5 CameraRAW 6 / Lightroom 3 will produce far better results than CS3 CameraRAW 4 / Lightroom 1) in an interface identical to photoshop for a fraction of the price. Look:

http://www.photoshopuser.com/images/cs3learning/captures/camera_raw.jpg
http://www.thinkcamera.com/news/images/Lightroom-Develop590px.jpg


----------



## avil (Oct 26, 2010)

Garbz said:


> One thing I question.. You mentioned that you don't wish to learn a new program, and then are talking about opening RAWs in Photoshop. ... Well Lightroom = Adobe CameraRAW which is the Photoshop RAW interface. What I mean by equals I mean that all the sliders are the same, the options are the same, depending on the version they look the same in develop mode, the results are the same.



Great info and very enlightening. I have not worked with Camera Raw so I never saw it open on a computer. I did not realize it was virtually the same thing.


----------

