What does Jeff Ascough mean here?

I was reading this about Jeff Ascough's workflow and came across this bit below which I don't understand:

'Once all the RAW files have been edited, he batch processes the whole wedding and
outputs the images as 16 bit TIFF files, “because I need the extra headroom with some
of the curves adjustments that I sometimes make to the images in Photoshop.” '

can any shed someone light on this???

8 bit = less info
16 bit = more info

More info = more headroom to make curves adjustments without clipping highlight/shadow detail and smoother gradient transitions.

8 bits = 256 discrete values.
16 bits = 65,536 discrete values (though in practice, since cameras don't use the full 16 bits, it's going to be less: 14 bits is still 16,384 though).

When you have only 256 values to work with, if you do a lot of curves adjustments/other PP, you could end up with unpleasant artifacts like posterization.

breathless wrote in post #6660639
8 bit = less info
16 bit = more info

More info = more headroom to make curves adjustments without clipping highlight/shadow detail and smoother gradient transitions.

more than psd files? i.e.e I already understand the need to process in 16 bit , but why TIFFs? Surely they are slower to process than .psd files yet do they offer any advantage over .psd?

TIFF and PSD are practically the same thing, don't worry about the difference. It could be he's using DPP, or not processing in Photoshop.

i save all my wedding files as 16bit TIFF, i edit and save layered TIFFs, i also use PSDs the saving isnt all that great so either is fine

to answer the OP the reason why 16bit over 8bit, is if you use levels or curves on an 8bit image and pull it around alot, once you've ok'd the change, take a look at the histogram, its no longer smooth curves, but more of a broken jagged curve.. but if you use 16bit, it stays a nice smooth curve because there is more information held within the photo

doctorgonzo wrote in post #6660888
8 bits = 256 discrete values.
16 bits = 65,536 discrete values (though in practice, since cameras don't use the full 16 bits, it's going to be less: 14 bits is still 16,384 though).

perhaps your camera's don't, but medium format are true 16bit cameras..

tim wrote in post #6660977
TIFF and PSD are practically the same thing, don't worry about the difference. It could be he's using DPP, or not processing in Photoshop.

He's using Capture One Pro

Bobster wrote in post #6661719
i save all my wedding files as 16bit TIFF, i edit and save layered TIFFs, i also use PSDs the saving isnt all that great so either is fine

Every single photo? How much storage do you have?!

tim wrote in post #6661828
Every single photo? How much storage do you have?!

every photo that is used in the album or goes to print

proofs are 8bit JPG

storage = 3+ TB

250 shots converted to TIFF some with some without layers = 51GB

My album photos are Q12 Adobe RGB JPGs, fully processed and color corrected, imported into PhotoJunction. Using scripts it generates PSD files, which I then edit, sharpen, tweak a little, convert to JPG, and send off. I doubt using TIFFs would give make the prints look any better.

tim wrote in post #6660977
TIFF and PSD are practically the same thing, don't worry about the difference. It could be he's using DPP, or not processing in Photoshop.

The last word in the quote I posted is 'Photoshop'

Maybe I wasn't clear in my question, the bit I don't understand is not to do with 8 bit v 16 bit, it's the idea of using TIFF files instead of psd. man that requires sooo much more storage and they are slower to work with.

All I wnat to know is whether there is some advantage to working with TIFFs over psd that I didnt know about?

I Simonius wrote in post #6664046
All I wnat to know is whether there is some advantage to working with TIFFs over psd that I didnt know about?

tim wrote in post #6660977
TIFF and PSD are practically the same thing, don't worry about the difference. It could be he's using DPP, or not processing in Photoshop.

Already answered. Same thing. PSD has a bit of lossless compression, but TIFF can be compressed too.

tim wrote in post #6664059
Already answered. Same thing. PSD has a bit of lossless compression, but TIFF can be compressed too.

so why would anyone choose TIFF over psd to work with in photoshop?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim
TIFF and PSD are practically the same thing, don't worry about the difference. It could be he's using DPP,....
Originally Posted by dekalbSTEEL
He's using Capture One Pro

The original quote doesn't say where he's converting, only where he does subsequent RGB editing.