Professional Photography - All Comments

re: Limited Edition Printing: Is It For You?

Stephen Bay — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:37:37 GMT

To me it seems like if you are going to do limited editions by size/material, then you need to be upfront with the customer and tell them ahead of time what all the editions can be. Otherwise, if you just can arbitrarily add a new edition later (of slightly different size or material) then the "limited" nature is meaningless. To keep the print limited I have seen some photographers state all prints greater than a certain size are limited to 50 (or 100 or whatever).

Another option that some photographers use is to keep the edition open, but to raise the price as more prints get made. The more it sells, the higher the price.

Personally, I have not been limiting the number of my prints. Arbitrarily limited the number of prints doesn't seem right to me.

re: Tips for Better Landscape Photography, Part Two

David Saffir — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:38:37 GMT

Thanks for the kind words.

If you are shooting low volumes of images, it doesn't matter much. You can white balance them one at a time.

However, if shooting a large enough number of photographs that you might want to use batch processing, you'd be better off setting white balance to manual or one of the pre-sets, such as "sunny" or "shade". When using AWB, white balance will change from pic to pic; with "sunny" they are all on the same setting - so you can alter them all at once using batch processing in Camera RAW.

re: Tips for Better Landscape Photography, Part Two

Frank Jimenez — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:36:34 GMT

Thanks for the many tips. I was laughed at when somebody saw a black plastic garbage bag in my camera bag pocket! Travelling in the Pacific Northwest in June, it is a MUST!

Question, if you please. Somebody had mentioned to me to use Auto WB when shooting RAW. What's your point of view on that?

Frank Jimenez

photojoy@bellsouth.net

re: Tips for Better Landscape Photography, Part Two

KNC — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:44:24 GMT

Great tips!

re: Limited Edition Printing: Is It For You?

David Saffir — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:31:25 GMT

Helen,

You can, given enough time and technology, make excellent inkjet prints for art reproduction using many of the tools on the market. However, the current leader in this field is the HP Z3200, particularly if used with the HP Artist Solution. All the components are harmonized, and accuracy of color systems provided is unmatched. Please see the link in Jon's post above.

re: Limited Edition Printing: Is It For You?

Eileen Fritsch — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:07:27 GMT

Hi Helen!

Jon sent me this response to your question::

"The HP Z3200 is an excellent option for reproduction. The onboard calibration is a valuable tool for consistency, and the output is consistent across a wide variety of media types, including watercolor papers or canvas"

He suggested that you might find this story on fine-art reproduction interesting as well:

h10088.www1.hp.com/.../gap_content.jsp

re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

Brian — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:08:44 GMT

Hi David and Mitch,

I'm afraid I tend to lean in Mitch's direction here. Whilst I agree that there are 'theoretical' benefits from higher bit rates, in real world display situations the differences are mostly imperceptible.

Mitch is also perfectly correct - 8-10-12-14-16 bit has absolutely nothing to do with the dynamic range of a device, just the 'sensitivity' - i.e. steps it can record.

A histogram BTW is a very poor tool to use, firstly histograms in any software AFAIK (e.g PS), only has 256 steps (see monitor comment below), thus when you show a 'histogram' of a 16 bit edited file you are unlikely to see any "gaps", however if you were able to expand the histogram, or say zoom in to a section you would see the same type of gaps.

Also, whilst the human eye has an upper dynamic range (DR) of 25 to 30 stops, many many times that of a 12 stop camera this does not translate to the same capability in contrast detection i.e. perception of steps of brightness, at best the eye has about a 10,000 step range (more sensitive at lower light levels than high) see www.clarkvision.com/.../eye-resolution.html.

More importantly, (LCD) monitors typically have a DR of only 8 stops, they can only display 256 levels in R, G, or B and (most) are only 8 bit devices so.... guess what? They can only ever display 256 gradations. So if the monitor can't display the DR or the subtle gradations, just exactly how are we going to see it??

Paper: Even the best quality paper (being only a reflective device) can manage between 3-4 'stops', and whilst the 'theoretical' gradations the best paper/printer combo is higher, it is nowhere near 4000 levels, anyway the very limited DR makes comparison from 8 to 12 -14- 16 bit sources irrelevant.

Again if the displaying mechanism can't actually display the difference, how is it possible to see it?

The only real test IMHO, is to perform (like in medical science) a 'double blind" test, i.e. you are given multiple versions of the same image , say 10 x 8bit, 10 x 16 bit, 10 x 14 bit (not just 2 images, so you have a 50/50 chance of guessing right). If you can't correctly identify which is which, then poof goes your argument.

However I must concede that the creation of computer generated gradients often benefits from a higher bit rate, but that isn't a photo now is it?

To repeat, unless a true double blind test is performed. this is all just "I think I can see a visible difference, therefore there is a visible difference", well how can I dispute that, no I say - how can you prove it? Easy, a proper controlled test.

It's a little like hi-fi / audiophile claims, when the 'experts' are put in a controlled room, magically they can't determine the difference they claimed they heard between two similar components.

Regards, Brian

re: Limited Edition Printing: Is It For You?

Helen Conrad — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:25:04 GMT

Thanks for the useful info. What printer would you recommend for printing reproductions of scanned watercolor paintings (my own)? I am not a professional photographer, rather a professional artist who would like control over the printing process.

re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

Mitch — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:58:35 GMT

There is a perceptible difference in posterization between 8-bit images and 12-bit images. Yes. That's my empirical experience.

You cannot compare 12-bit and 14-bit differences between two different camera models. There are too many variables that can explain perceptible differences. You could need to use the same sensor and the same emthod of processing the RAW data. Only allow the bit depth to differ.

You don't need noise in a clear blue sky to suppress banding. That's a red herring.

I've provided the theory for why there should be almost no perceptible difference between 12-bits and 14-bits with the adjustments to tonality and color that are typical of digital photographers.

In theory, the difference between 4,096 levels and 16,384 tones could result in perceptible differences. That assumes that the device used to display the photo could display such fine differences and the human eye could perceive those differences. That's where you run into the issue of those differences being less than noise and the attentuation of noise that will happen in-camera even with a RAW file. To reduce noise, small differences in color/tone are eliminated.

I'd suggest you present scientific evidence that challenges what's in Emil Martinec's whitepaper. He makes a very strong case, whereas you simply assert. ;)

(BTW, if the photos cannot show a perceptible difference, then why did you post them *AND* why did you not mention this point?)

The shadow detail discussion is also not quite right. If you want more shadow detail (and less noise), you should increase the exposure, not the bit depth. Taking the same dynamic range and chopping it up into finer gradations does not give you an additional shadow detail.

If you think of dynamic range as a staircase, to use an analogy from Jeff Schewe, then bit-depth detemines the step size. It does not alter where the top of the bottom of the staircase ends up.

Your blog claims it's not a numbers game, yet your comments and your reply imply to my comment imply that it is a numbers game. 14-bits is superior to 12-bits, seems to be the point.

I agree, in theory, holding everything else constant, if we assume a recording medium that can distinguish even the tiniest of differences in color and that our eyes can also distinguish those tiny details, *THEN* we could conclude that 14-bits will produce a superior image compared with 12-bits.

Regrettably, everything is not constant, recording devices have their limits, and certainly human visual perception has even more restrictive limits that make it unlikely that 14-bits will result in a perceptible difference compared with 12-bits.

Cheers,

Mitch

re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

David Saffir — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:36:47 GMT

In regard to Dennis' post,

Thanks for the kind words!

In regard to Mitch's post:

My point here is *not* that there is a huge difference between 12- and 14-bit.

There IS a big difference in performance between 8-bit and high-bit images. And, getting an increase from 12 to 14 bit in the new cameras is is a plus, particularly in performance in shadow detail - that is a quite likely in images with intense shadows, and is driven by the physics of digital sensor based capture.

Next, it *should* be difficult or impossible to see a difference between the images provided in my article here - non-color managed web browsers, web-safe color, etc. The histogram is the real point of focus - and posterization does tip the balance toward an increase in image artifacts.

Noise may suppress other digital artifacts, but in many cases it is a high price to pay in overall image quality. Who wants to see noise in a clear blue sky just to suppress banding?

David Saffir

re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

Dennis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:27:15 GMT

Great information. Just one more thing to separate the weekenders from the pros.

re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

Mitch — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:02:04 GMT

Hi David:

I enjoy your site. You say some important things on this thread.

I disagree with your comments and you example that argue for a relationship between bit depth and dynamic range.

Rather than repeat a longer blog entry, I'll just post the link:

www.thelightsright.com/BitDepthAndDynamicRange

The example you show has no perceptible difference, and any perceptible difference will almost certainly be the result of other camera feature differences.

It is very unlikely that two identical RAW photos from the same camera, differing only in 14-bits v. 12-bits per channel would show perceptible differences before or even after processing typical for a photographer.

Dithering from noise alone would very likely mask any perceptible differences in terms of posterization.

Cheers,

Mitch

re: Convert to Profile vs Assign Profile

Luke — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:34:50 GMT

Thanks so much, it's finally making sense

re: Black-and-White Photo Printing: More Popular Than Ever

Evan Monaco — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:12:18 GMT

Many take images but it takes years to have the mind and the eye or a pro.

To know how to tell a story and produce a feeling in an image is the hard part. ;-)

re: Limited Edition Printing: Is It For You?

George Galaich — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:09:56 GMT

Hi,

Can you recommend any books that cover the limited/open edition printing subject and also copyright laws?

Thank you,

George Galaich

galaich@san.rr.com