Coming from RAW, what is your workflow? Do you edit in 16 bit or 8 bit? I know 16 bit contains more info, but when your saving it in 8 bit JPG file, will it be still noticable than working with 8 bit?

I usually work in 8-bit. I would convert my RAW file to 16 bit if I would be doing some agressive color and tonal corrections in PS after RAW conversion.

But I read somewhere that it would be better to use Pro Photo as your color space when using 16-bit files.

Pro Photo for wider gamut, but when the printer(minilabs) gamut is only sRGB, isn't it just counter productive?

8-bit. 16-bit is for more advanced life-form.

I usually edit in 8-bit. :)

This conversation is like Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon. I might as well throw in my experience. I have printed before images with some ugly combed histograms but have not yet seen banding that I would expect from a lack of tonal information. Furthermore, outside of the new Canon proGraf 5000, all printers print using 8-Bit. From an output standpoint, there isn't much merit for 16-bit files. Unless the next generation of printers can show the difference in quality we're sticking with 8bit.

Pro Photo for wider gamut, but when the printer(minilabs) gamut is only sRGB, isn't it just counter productive?

If you know that your photo will only go to a minilab for every time you print it then that should be fine. However, keeping your photo in the widest space possible gives you the flexibility of having your images printed properly on other machines with wider color gamuts than the minilab.

8 bit it is :)

Whew - for a minute there, I thought I wandered into a discussion of the theory of relativity ... This is still very helpful. At least now I know that okay lang ang 8-bit. I've been saving / converting raw files to 16 bit tiff and they turn out to be really large. I thought kase the bigger the file - the better it is. But then again, 8 bit is okay lang pala.

As per Sir Jo Avila... it really depends... here, 90%, I use 8 bit.

Pro Photo for wider gamut, but when the printer(minilabs) gamut is only sRGB, isn't it just counter productive?


Yes, it is. Which why I usually convert to Adobe RGB 8-bit. Its easy for me to convert to either sRGB which the mini lab uses and CMYK (in case the shot will get published). :D

But you did ask about 16-bit and I just felt that I had to supply the necessary info for that scenario :D

Well, there is the argument that a bigger gamut would be good in the long run in case printers in the future can make full use of it :D

Whew - for a minute there, I thought I wandered into a discussion of the theory of relativity ... This is still very helpful. At least now I know that okay lang ang 8-bit. I've been saving / converting raw files to 16 bit tiff and they turn out to be really large. I thought kase the bigger the file - the better it is. But then again, 8 bit is okay lang pala.

Well, there is the argument that a bigger gamut would be good in the long run in case printers in the future can make full use of it http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/images/smilies/Drogar-Laugh%28DBG%29.gif <--- true! Read that here too .. looking forward to attending your classes in January!

ok, thanks guys. Very informative.

My workflow is 16-bit from ACR to Save As. I only convert to 8-bit for web or for printing. But most of my processed images are saved as Adobe RGB 16-bit. I noticed some noticeable banding on plain areas (like sky) when i use 8-bit in blending multi-layer PSD files. If you're doing HDR imaging, 16-bit is a must.

@mitz
Banding as seen in the monitor or in the prints?

@mitz
Banding as seen in the monitor or in the prints?

In monitor. Since i see it in the monitor, i assume it will appear in print.