 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRSS
|
Hello everybody If I open a 16 bit Tiff image saved from View NX2 in Photoshop Elements 8, does it open as a 16 bit image or an 8 bit image? In the mode, it shows as 8 bit. Will further editing in Photoshop Elements degrade the image if it happens to be 8 bit? I have read in these forums that 16 bit editing only is recommended. In that case is Photoshop Elements unsuitable to Photo Editing? Another big questions. I am able to open my Nikon D5100 NEF files converted via Adobe DNG converter as DNG files , through ACRAW in the Photoshop Elements 8. (But of course it has limited editing possibilities.) What I do want to know is that when I open this DGN file in Elements 8, does it process as 16 bit or whatever bit the DNG file has, or will it be again 8 bit processing of RAW files. And if I do the editing of DNG in whatever limited features available in PSE 8, and then save this as a tif image - and this I have found out to be a 16 bit tiff. Now if I save this as PSD in PSE 8 and then edit and then do further editing ans save as jpeg, will there be loss of quality in the image or will the image be not as worthy as edited in Full Photoshop (which I can't afford). My main editing in PSE 8 is with the Transformation tools and since adjustment brush is not available in PSE 8 ACRAW editor,I have to do some sort of masking with feathering etc. and do local editing of colour cast or brightness/contrast. Is this workflow Okay or is Photoshop Elements just not worth it for Photo Editing?S0orry for the long qestion - but it seems to be very critical to me. Thanks in advance PRSS |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I very much doubt you or anybody else will be able to tell the difference between an 8 bit and a 16 bit image except it will take up a lot more space on your HD. What are you doing with your images? THAT is the question. If you are using them on the internet, or printing them with an inkjet printer then NOBODY will know the difference. The only way anybody will know is if you use a high end calibrated printer ($$$$+) and the image has many subtle shades and graduations. Don't waste energy worrying about it! You will find lot's of 'experts' debating this sort of thing till the cows come home. Read, but don't take too much notice and don't loose any sleep over it. My two cents on the subject! |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
Why TIFF? I'm not familiar with PSE, but older versions of PS would not permit some features to be used with 16 bit images. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I am perhaps going to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the IQ progress of DSLRs has now outstripped the need for 16 bit processing. In the old days we needed to suck out the max quality from our images using every device possible.... then 16 bit nefs were the choice. But I haven't used 16 bit since the D3... and frankly, jpegs from the latest cameras are good enough for most situations. I still use raw when shooting with D3 commercially in case I need to 'recover' an image. But find the D7000 jpegs are exceptional. I do worry that there is still an attitude of chasing the best quality to the nth degree...instead of letting the image hold the viewers interest. I sometimes think if all the viewer can do is look at pixels and ink dots...they are missing the bigger picture! You only need to seek improved quality when YOU aren't satisfied. Just my take. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Ed Matusik wrote:Why TIFF? I'm not familiar with PSE, but older versions of PS would not permit some features to be used with 16 bit images. Given I have so much storage space, and I am 'only' using a D200 with comparatively small files I see TIFF as the best, most durable and versatile (retains layers) format for the master image. I never use TIFF except for the master image, all display and print versions are JPEG medium to high quality. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:I am perhaps going to be a bit controversial here and suggest that the IQ progress of DSLRs has now outstripped the need for 16 bit processing. I think that was what I tried to say!  |
|||||||||
jk
|
TIFF in 16bit mode is probably overkill unless you have the best of everything and need that quality of output. I would say that 8 bit TIFFs are great for archive and other use. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ed Matusik wrote:Why TIFF? I'm not familiar with PSE, but older versions of PS would not permit some features to be used with 16 bit images. You can't save 16 bit as a jpeg, so you either keep it raw or save as a tif ...or psd to retain the bit depth. Some of the filter effects don't work on 16 bit most of the important stuff does. I use to save as tif to retain layers but also you can have lossless lzw compression with tif that gets files size down to jpeg level without loss. The other benefit with tifs in the old days was many page layout programs wouldn't accept cmyk jpeg. I often had to sent brochure artwork with tif images linked...or the colour jpegs came out mono from the press!!! But of course that's changed now and jpegs work too. |
|||||||||
Ed Matusik
|
Eric wrote: Ed Matusik wrote:Right, I've used TIFF in the past too, but PSD seems to be pretty good for saves. I also keep my RAW files as well. I generally do all my editing in other than JPEG, then save for web or as high quality JPEG. - EdM |
|||||||||
PRSS
|
Thanks everybody. Glad to learn that I don't have to lose my sleep because I couldn't do 16 bit editing. Probably 16 bit editing is being hyped up too much - Google searching on this topic almost made me to conclude that 8 bit editing of photos were only for amateurs and for snapshot photography and any serious pohtographer has to edit in 16 bit. Thanks once again PRSS |
|||||||||
Eric
|
PRSS wrote: Thanks everybody. Glad to learn that I don't have to lose my sleep because I couldn't do 16 bit editing. I am afraid you get this elitism all the time. The truth is that professional photographers rarely sell their work to other professional photographers. They sell them to the general public...who wouldnt recognise 16bit if it poked them in the face. Even many of the editors at publications are clueless about the basics. I had a US magazine phone me a couple of years back... "Your file is too low resolution" "No its not" When I open it in Photoshop, its 72dpi" "Its an eps file...you set what size you want it to be when you open it" "Yes, but its still only 72dpi" Deep sigh... "Have you got Photoshop open now?" "Yes" "Open the file and tell me what the first window says" "Like I said before...it says its 72dpi !!!!" "So change the figure to 300dpi" "OH ...its the right size now..whats heppening there?" "You are downsampling my image to the default setting of 72dpi" "Wow thats never happened before....someone must have played with the settings" "Have a nice day" |
|||||||||
PRSS
|
Very good point. Now I shall stop worrying and start photographing and enjoy my Nikon ! With best regards PRSS |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |