![]() So it seems that in PWP, at least, stacked photos (maybe all photos) are edited as 16 bit photos no matter what the source is. I'm wondering if we are even talking about the same thing? I hope someone who knows photo editor development at this level chimes in. That is really interesting, It appears HDR is what is called "stacking" in PWP. ![]() It may be incorrect but it is what I have believed to be true. Tonal range without loss of information." This extra bit depth allows for manipulating a much wider Images transformation treats them internally as though they were 16-bit black and It was 16 (48) bit long before Photoshop went 16 bit.This is what the author of that program said:Įven if your input images are 8-bit black and white or 24-bit color, the Stack My views on this were formed years ago when I used the image stacker transformation in PWP. Do you hope to sell photos at some point? Are you the sort who wants to save as much data from a photo as possible? Again there are no wrong answers, just what works for you. Will you ever use commercial grade printer services? Some have 16 bit capability. But you need to ask yourself if that is the only way you will share these photos. I currently use ACDSee Pro 6 which has extensive batch file manipulation controls.Ĭonsumer grade printers do use 8 bit color depth to print. If I recall correctly, FastStone can do this. I don't think there is a wrong answer here. However, I COULD see some people deciding an 8 bit Tiff makes more sense in terms of post processing workflow. I don't see much value in converting a jpg into a 16 bit color bit depth tiff, you've already lost the extra info in the 8 bit jpg. Some stitching programs (Many? Most?), require that you use jpgs. I intend to retouch these panoramas for personal use for a photo album and perhaps some enlargements for framing.My questions are now:ġ) Is it of any use to take a set of jpeg photo's, process it to panorama form, save in tiff, retouch and then convert back to jpeg for printing? I did a quick comparison and it seems as if the tiff does give better results. It looks as if tiff's size is more or less the numerical sum of the originals. When saving, one has a choice of tiff or jpeg.The file sizes have a vast difference,tiff a factor of 10 times larger. I processed the jpegs with Arcsoft's Panorama Maker (worked quite well ).(The raw material I am leaving for future use). Recently I took dozens of panoramas of dessert landscapes on my D7000 in both raw and jpeg. I intend to retouch these panoramas for personal use for a photo album and perhaps some enlargements for framing.My questions are now:ġ) Is it of any use to take a set of jpeg photo's, process it to panorama form, save in tiff, retouch and then convert back to jpeg for printing? I did a quick comparison and it seems as if the tiff does give better results.Ģ) Is there a way to convert tiff to jpeg in bulk?ģ) Is it of any use to go through all the trouble working with large files (tiff or even jpeg) when the printers compress these files before printing? I processed the jpegs with Arcsoft's Panorama Maker (worked quite well ).(The raw material I am leaving for future use).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |