8 Bit or 16 Bit for Inkjet??

[HulaMike]

Is there any gain in inkjet print quality sending a 16 bit file as opposed to an 8 bit file?

This is a question that keeps popping up for me. Melody and I spoke about it in another thread and CrabbyMike suggested no reason to print out of 16 bit for inkjet. But I'm still not sure.

Here's a quote from the Pixel Genius site that seems to suggest printing from a 16 bit file has certain advantages although they might be slight. Bruce Fraser agreed with this point of view higher in the thread. What do you think and why??

Here's the quote:
-------------------------------------------

"This is an issue that is often debated. . .
While some rips (like ImagePrint) will accept and use the full 16 bit depth of a file, the standard print drivers are limited to an 8 bit pipline. However, Photoshop -WILL- use a 16 bit file in the print controls if you are using Photoshop to transform from youe working space to a printer profile. That transform will actually be in 20bit/channel accuracy (16 bit file into 20 bits for the color transform) before being droped down to 8 bit for the print driver.

Is it "better"? As Bruce says, technically yes, could you "see it", prolly not. Except for cases where your printer profile has to do -ALOT- of work to transform from your file's working space into the printer's profile. The main area you "may" see a difference would be in color gradients such as blue skies. You may get smoother gradients by printing out from 16 bit files. But I also agree, test it yourself on your printer using your profiles to see of you can see the difference in your standard workflow. . ."

--------------------------------

[Melody]

Searching too read a bit about it in one of our posts here:

http://fmount.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9545&page=4&pp=15


The Fuji (or any other) RAW file does not have an inherent color space. It's simply raw data that can be interpreted to "look" and "fit" a number of ways. So, prior to Theo's last post, we were indeed talking about only 2 color spaces. Adobe can be specified in 8 or 16 bit, sRGB in 8 bit only - which I see as two strikes against it - limited gamut and limited bit depth. sRGB is basically the lowest common denominator and used to describe uncalibrated monitors viewing the web. Gamut = overall range of colors, bit depth = # of colors and the subtlety of variation between colors (256 v. 65,XXX.)

Conversions - generally speaking, yes the less the better. When moving from a larger gamut to a smaller gamut you'll necessarily clip some values and you'll also see some rounding errors. Practically, I don't see the harm in moving from an AdobeRGB space to an sRGB space for minilab output, but again, I'm coming from the idea that one would want a master, multipurpose file that once built could then be duped and tweaked for a number of output destinations. Conversions can be predictable - if you softproof to the output profile (see previous posts). They aren't 100% accurate, but w/ a calibrated monitor (well, really profiled monitor, but I didn't want to muck things up more), you can get a very good idea what your conversion or your output to a given device will look like.

Profiles - there's a big old bunch of 'em and they're used to describe different things, hence the confusion. All profiles interpret the deficiencies of the particular device and transform them to a common language, if you will. Input profiles describe capture devices. Monitor profiles map the deficiencies of your screen & "bend" the data so that say an RGB value of 128, 128, 128 really does look medium gray on screen. Output profiles measure the deficiencies of printer/press and the paper/substrate and "bend" the data to compensate as much as possible to match the file's data - given the destination device's gamut.

When you said:

"But if you go straight from Fuji RAW to sRGB, presumably there is some clipping there too? Maybe that workflow just means you never know that there is more detail in your original picture, and thus are more pleased with the (I am sure superb) print than you would have been if you knew that there used to be more colours?"

[Melody]

The main area you "may" see a difference would be in color gradients such as blue skies. You may get smoother gradients by printing out from 16 bit files. But I also agree, test it yourself on your printer using your profiles to see of you can see the difference in your standard workflow. . ."

--------------------------------


SEE SEE SEE the Show Me State Blonde attitude I've gotta see it myself! :lol: :lol: Honestly I always print in 16bit no reason not to I've not seen anything saying it hurts anyway so why would I risk that?

Melody

[HulaMike]

I agree Melody. So far sending 72 to 140MB files doesn't slow me down at all and so why not?

I was surprised actually when I discovered I could send a 16 bit file to my DJ130. A lot of what I print has a lot of blue sky and I must admit the the gradations I'm printing are not striated at all, they look entirely photographic and smooth printed at 16 bit.

PS: The quote above in your first reply isn't mine.

[Melody]

OK so then you really do want a raw file saved as a psd etc from the d2x so your comparing 16bit to 16bit, it's gonna be a lot larger download that way or you could just download the trial version of CS2 and convert it yourself so you've got the entire workflow :)

You'll have CS2 in no time once you've used it hehe!

OH wait we are forgetting too is there much of a difference in a picture "taken" in rgb as opposed to srgb even with raw? As I said in the other thread my camera is set to rgb since I know I will always print in that format.


Melody

[HulaMike]

Well, I always edit in 16 bit so printing at 16 bit is just more straightforward a workflow.

As to downloading CS2 right now, ain't gonna happen. I'm printing around 400 images the next few weeks for a show and the last thing I need right now is to get my head into a new version of Photoshop. Maybe later. Remember, I was the dynosaur who waited almost a year to buy CS. :eek:

My understanding of camera color space is that raw is raw, raw has an unassigned color space and so assigning either sRGB or aRGB in the converter makes no difference really. For jpeg shooters it would make a difference I think.

[easternherp]

How I see it is that if it works at 16bit and doesn't slow the printing down then why bother going to 8bit. I would think that you get a better result and at least you can say to yourself that you have produced the best you can.

[photoworks]

Hi Mike,
I see you're working hard on your DJ130 and you're happy with it, so may I ask you a little bit?
1) How do you find this printer's performance on portaits? I'm very close to buy one since I need the big prints quickly, on special papers mostly matte and textured.
2) Is the cost/print logical?

Thanks ;)

Billy

[HulaMike]

Hi Mike,
I see you're working hard on your DJ130 and you're happy with it, so may I ask you a little bit?
1) How do you find this printer's performance on portaits? I'm very close to buy one since I need the big prints quickly, on special papers mostly matte and textured.
2) Is the cost/print logical?

Thanks ;)

Billy

Hey Billy!

There's good news and there's bad news I'm afraid.

Good News:
The DJ130 produces color across the spectrum that is rich, vivid, and as natural looking as a fine chemical print. This includes flesh tone. Print quality is very photographic looking and smooth. Its dye based ink and so more vibrant than pigmented ink printers like Epson.

Bad News:
But to get archival (80+ year rating against fading) you have to use HP's Premium Plus gloss or photo satin paper. You can certainly print other papers but you'd loose the 80 year archival quality. HP does offer a heavy photo matte paper for the DJ though. I'm not sure how its rated. Maybe Mike knows. And there's a solid rumor that HP will soon release several new Art papers that will offer archival prints.

Good News:
This printer is very easy on the wallet, much more so than the Epsons I use. My material costs for producing a 24"x35" print on HP PP satin photo paper is around $8 USD. AND I'm paying a high landed cost for consumables as everything has to be shipped to Hawaii, I can't get them locally. Maybe you're in the same position.

Bad News:
The HP archival papers are not resistant to moisture. If this is a concern you'd have to use an after spray to seal them. Matted in a sleeve or under glass? No problem at all.

HP will send you two 13x19" prints done on the 130 for free. One is a head shot done in a studio. That should convince you. Here's the link. You can see a thumbnail of the portrait on the link.

https://h41186.www4.hp.com/printbig/printbig30.html?pageseq=323073

[photoworks]

Thanks for the response Mike I really appreciate it :righton:
HP is a dominant company in Greece (like Epson) and getting inks and papers is not a problem. A new website www.papers.gr (http://www.papers.gr) offers a great variety of art papers of the best in the world. I'm going to ask them if they can send me same samples to check They also provide the ICC profiles for them by linking to the manufacturers sites.
Maybe spraying or laminating them solves the archival problem.
I'll check the link you send me for the prints but I don't doubt about the quality

Thanks again :righton:

Billy

[HulaMike]

Keep in mind that you're able to calibrate the printer itself for whatever paper you send through. This different than creating a custom ICC printer profile, it balances 'your' DJ printer to design specs for the brightness of the paper selected. This is a unique feature with the DJ series printers. That combined with a custom printer ICC should produce stunning prints for you.

[crabby]

I agree with all the above. It ain't gonna hurt and it ain't gonna help. There isn't a printer in the world that is a 16 bit device (or a monitor for that matter). So you can't even see what your missing. It's all kind of a moot point.
Why do I work in ProPhoto color space when I know that it contains colors that my printer cannot produce or that my camera's raw can't create? Because it gives me breathing room so to speak when working with the color of an image. But I preview the file in it's destination profile regularly to make sure I didn't go too far and to make corrections when I do. It's the same thing with bit depth, 16 bit gives more breathing room when moving pixel data around. That is why it is preferable to work in 16 bit. But to output 16 bit, all else being equal, you will not see a difference if conversion is the last step before printing.
Why do I print 16 bit files? Sometimes a print doesn't come out perfect and I would like to go back and tweak a little something. Especially with these big prints where a little something turns into a big something. So again the wiggle room is nice to have. But the big reason is that the 3 seconds spent converting could be better used sctatching an itch.
When do I convert to 8 bit? When I'm giving files to a client and/or uploading to a FTP site or wirelessly.

P.S. to Mike: Congradulations on your inevitable buy out on the HP 130. I have another week to decide and there's about a 30% chance I might be returning it. It just dropped down from 50% after reading your comment on the possibility of an archival matte paper.

[HulaMike]

Interesting. So the only issue you have with yours is the availability of archival matte papers? Or do you have other issues? Really like to know.

[crabby]

It is primarily the choices in matte paper issue. Not for me I prefer glossy and semi, But for reproducing other artists' fineart they all prefer archival matte and I know as soon as they see the HP logo on the back of the print their noses will all go straight to the sky. That and I'm not very thrilled with the HP way of doing things. I can't stand to have quarky little things happen when I need to churn out prints under pressure.

[HulaMike]

What quarky little things? Are there lingering Mac / server issues for you? On a PC everything's pretty straight forward.

Not trying to badger you Mike. I don't have any HP stock and HP doesn't pay me to tout this printer here. :rolleyes: Its just that you seemed so positive at first. I'm just curious as to what's changed in the last few weeks. You have more general experience with printing than me, is there something I should know about?

Just curious as I'm still very satisfied with mine.