View Full Version : Is it better to print 8 or 16 bit files?
col4bin
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 18:30
what effect will it have on the output?
PacAce
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 18:46
I don't think there's going to make a difference which you use for printing. The difference comes in when you are editing an image, especially when doing intensive editing.
Desertraptor
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 18:56
I send the edited tiff (45 odd Mb) to print. If you have it might as well send the printer the highest amount of info possible. That's my opinion.
UncleDoug
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:01
You can not print a 16bit file.
Only 8.
If someone says they can print a 16bit file, they are backing it off to 8bit.
col4bin
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:06
You can not print a 16bit file.
Only 8.
If someone says they can print a 16bit file, they are backing it off to 8bit.
So, when I process a RAW to a 16 bit TIFF and open it in PSE4 to print, are you saying I am really printing an 8 bit TIFF?
UncleDoug
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:08
So, when I process a RAW to a 16 bit TIFF and open it in PSE4 to print, are you saying I am really printing an 8 bit TIFF?
You got it.
Atomic79
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:14
I believe most printers are 8 bit devices. Having said that I have also read (and I haven't found any consistant data) that printers/drivers will down sample the 16 bit data to their 8 bit color space which would give the printer more data to down sample with. However, if you have profiled both your monitor and printer converting to 8 bit and color balancing for printing will most likely give you more consistant results.
UncleDoug
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:15
I need to make a disclaimer here.
The Canon iPF5000 claims to be able to bypas system print drivers and allw 16bit printing.
But from what I've read there is some suspicion on this....
col4bin
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 19:17
I believe most printers are 8 bit devices. Having said that I have also read (and I haven't found any consistant data) that printers/drivers will down sample the 16 bit data to their 8 bit color space which would give the printer more data to down sample with. However, if you have profiled both your monitor and printer converting to 8 bit and color balancing for printing will most likely give you more consistant results.
I think I understand. Since I am trying to print a 16 bit file, could this be a cause of the printed pictures coming out different than what I see on the screen (assuming my monitor is calibrated)?
jj1987
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 21:51
yes. If you're profiled, do the conversion yourself so you can see the changes.
maderito
12th of April 2006 (Wed), 23:21
Color spaces (e.g. sRGB) are not directly connected to image file bit depth (8 or 16 bit):
Color space, as typically used, refers to the 2- or 3-dimensional boundary that encloses the colors which can be displayed/printed among all possible colors.
Bit depth refers to the precision with which the colors within a color space can be defined. An 8 bit file can only define each R/G/B color component by 256 levels; 12 bits = 4096 levels, etc. Photoshop 16-bit mode actually displays 2^15 levels. The 16th bit is random.
In principle, higher bit depth image data permits display/printing of smoother color gradations (less banding) within the color space - perhaps something desirable with large color spaces. However, most output devices (monitors/printers) are limited to 8 bits.
It is argued that editing images in 16-bit instead of 8-bit mode leads to a better final image, especially if large color corrections are made. It is hard to actually prove. See this link (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html) if color geek discussions on this topic interest you.
Lester Wareham
13th of April 2006 (Thu), 08:51
I think printers are all 8bit devices. I guess the advantage of printing a 16 bit file is if the programe (photoshop) is doing all the colour space conversion, then presumably the conversion caculations will be in 16 bit before being truncated to 8 bit and sent to the printer.
I assume PS works this way - would be poor programming if not IMHO.
However, my expectation is even if this is right it makes little observable difference in most cases.
Hellashot
13th of April 2006 (Thu), 20:05
If you can print 16bit TIFF, do so.
jj1987
13th of April 2006 (Thu), 22:21
If you can print 16bit TIFF, do so.
why, the printer drivers convert it and you cant see the results or tweak them?
tim
13th of April 2006 (Thu), 22:54
Have a few pics printed 8 and 16 bit, see if you can tell the difference in a blind test. My money's on nope.
rfreschner
14th of April 2006 (Fri), 20:22
My money's on nope.
nope?? who's nope??!! :lol:
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.