Don't get me wrong; I wasn't defending Dan's claim nor refuting it. I start to see skies banding with some simple saturation adjustments in Aperture, which is what fuelled my interest in this in the first place. Does anybody know what the processing is like under that hood?
Its high bit, linear encoding. Apple will not tell us what color space it uses but based on tests, I'd say I'm 99% sure its using Adobe RGB primaries.
That's odd, considering it still expresses color and luminance measurements in the program as 8-bit figures.
Lightroom and other converters operate in a similar fashion. The histogram is 8-bit (otherwise it be HUGE). The values in high bit would confuse many users. What's happening under the hood is some linear encoded editing space which again, is not indicated in the Histogram so why not the numbers.
One then has to ask where is there useful feedback in a Histogram (I'd submit on either end and elsewhere, its not at all useful) and the numbers (highlight and shadow, neutrality are useful here, otherwise, little else).
Good article—thanks. It pretty much corroborates my thinking on workflow.
So, my question remains: In Aperture and Lightroom (I own both but use Aperture currently), I'm assuming you have your 12-14-bit RAW files which you import and are adjusted internally in some sort of high-bit processing, right? I'm trying to figure out at what points in the chain your photo is ever converted to 8-bits besides printing and export/JPEG creation.
When you send your file from either of the above apps to Photoshop on a "round trip", how do you know if it's converting to 8-bits or keeping it high-bit in order to enter Photoshop? This process is automated, so I cannot see any way to assure that it doesn't convert to 8-bit PSD.
I always have a master archive in high bit, wide gamut. Iterations for the web are 8-bit, sRGB.
Round trips, at least in LR are high bit all the way. I have an export preset for this and that's how I have the Export to Photoshop settings as well (16-bit, ProPhoto).
I always have a master archive in high bit, wide gamut. Iterations for the web are 8-bit, sRGB.
Round trips, at least in LR are high bit all the way. I have an export preset for this and that's how I have the Export to Photoshop settings as well (16-bit, ProPhoto).
Right. I noticed just now the exporting options for PSD files are 16-bit in Aperture, so perhaps the round trips are too.
*** LATER ***
Indeed, the photo opens in Photoshop as a 16-bit file. At least as far as LR & Aperture users are concerned, this is a moot point.
I'm find these discussions intriguing. My day job is as a video cameraman and editor, and there are similar issues.
Most video codecs are 8-bit colour. Only recently has Panasonic introduced a new 10-bit high definition codec. In standard definition Digibeta was the king of the formats because it had 10-bit colour and only very minor compression.
In the video world it is universally agreed, without any doubt whatsoever, that 10-bit Digibeta is superior to any other standard definition 8-bit codec.
But that is when the footage comes out of the camera. The main reason for working with 10-bit colour was for colour grading, compositing etc.
With digital photographs I can see where this Dan guy is coming from. But I am new to printing techniques and technicalities. My own assertion is that if you convert the 16-bit RAW file to 8-bit the resulting file will still cover the same range of tones. But if you start to push the picture very hard it will fall apart more quickly than the original 16-bit one (for example bringing back an underexposed image stands far more chance with a RAW than with a JPG)
One of the problems here is that all computer displays, other than the absolute latest, and very, very expensive ones, display 8-bit colour. So you cannot see the true effects of working in 16-bits, such as subtle graduations etc, on the LCD anyway AFAIAA. Many people convert their final output photo to an 8-bit format anyway, so for a well exposed, well composed image, 16-bit colour correction (not origination as RAW will always be best) will probably not be of a huge advantage. But if there is a problem photo then 16-bit working will help. So it is always good to have that data if you need to access it.
So I can fully see where Dan is coming from, but there are one or two caveats. But again I am seeing this from a video point of view and don't have much experience with digital stills.
So I can fully see where Dan is coming from, but there are one or two caveats. But again I am seeing this from a video point of view and don't have much experience with digital stills.
This Dan guy is suggesting there's no need to ever deal with more than 8-bits no matter the degree of editing you'll apply to the data or the output device. He's never proven this point so it simply an opinion and one not based on mathematics or any degree of empirical testing as others, myself included have proven data loss, both visible and in print resulting from editing on 8-bit data. So again, where is he coming from that makes any sense at all?
Now that the high bit debate has put his name on the lists, he's going after Camera Raw and Lightroom, saying that due to their curve handling, they are unfit for professional use. Again, nothing what so ever to back this up, just a guy who likes to throw gasoline on the flames. Others (notably Mark Segal) DID prove with empirical techniques that Dan's wrong. Dan simply has an enormous BS factor. Oh, should you be on his list, he's now officially closed down (censor) any discussions of this debate as he did in the past on the list when readers asked about his high bit challenge nonsense.
This emperor has no cloths, naked, its not a pretty sight.
This emperor has no cloths, naked, its not a pretty sight.
*sigh* Yes, we get it, you don't like Dan and you don't agree with
him, but the silly metaphors are just...well, silly. You don't have to bash
him every time his name is mentioned. Sticking to facts will make your case
stronger, anyway.
Personally I like him. We've dined, drank wine together over the years. I'm frustrated with his on going, enlarging BS factor. I'm frustrated he says stuff that he can't back up and when given proof, he dismisses it. IF Dan were a true flake, had nothing to offer, I'd dismiss him. Its that he DOES have some good things to say and teach that makes his dismissal of facts and sound scientific testing even more frustrating. He really doesn't need to build straw man arguments and build controversy to direct attention to himself. All that slamming of Adobe and Photoshop (now Lightroom and CR) to cast a light on him is unnecessary, especially when he's way off base technically!
IF he can prove his points, fine. But he doesn't. Its right because HE says so. Others generally try to provide files and processes that anyone else can test to prove to themselves one point of an argument or the other. IF Dan would do that once, it would be wonderful. Instead, he prefers to speak and have minions accept what he says as fact, when they are, in the case of high bit editing, wide gamut spaces and Raw processing, flat out wrong. Of course, I have provided the examples for anyone who's truly interested to try them and provide useful feedback, and I welcome criticism based on true color theory, not color religion. If only we could say the same for Dan.
But seriously, I'm not saying you're wrong about the facts and I'm not saying
Dan is infallible, I just think it's not very professional to attack him personally
every time he's mentioned around here. You clearly know your stuff and you
have a well presented case. I just think you take strength away from your
arguments by saying kooky things like the emperor bit above.
The question here was specifically about editing in high bit! The fact it provides a venue to discuss one of the most controversial issues in imaging is useful because the controversy is only due to Dan and one I'll add isnt' shared by nearly every other imaging expert I respect (Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe, Mac Holbert, JP Caponigro, Martin Evening, Scott Kelby, Ian Lyons, Steven Johnson, Katrin Eissmann, in addition to really smat engineers and geeks like Mark Hamburg, Thomas Knoll and Bill Atkinsion TO NAME A FEW). They all disagree with Dan.
That attitude has now been applied to wide gamut editing spaces and Raw processing. Nothing new here with respect to those who have done the testing and disagree with Dan again (same list above). He's making claims now that CR and LR are unfit for professional use based his ability to exactly define the mathematics used. What's not professional is making up stuff, and when asked to prove the points, dismiss the requests for proof.
Dan's a big boy. He can come here and provide the proof asked for on his list or the proof asked for on this list. I'd be thrilled if he'd venture here or any open list and explain himself fully and provide the proof many of us have requested.
Read the Mark Segal article and the page on the Lindbloom site:
As I understand it, there are certain areas where Dan's 8-bit claims are demonstrably wrong. Most notably, if you are working in Photopro or another wide gamut space, you will likely need 16 bits to avoid visible banding. And Dan also appears to be wrong about the usefulness of the wide gamut spaces with the advent of wider gamut inkjet printers that take 16 bit input.
As for ACR, in PPE5, he claims that he has done alot of testing and not found any image that beneffited from ACR manipulation. In other words, he said that he could get as good results using Photoshop. There are a few things that should be made clear about this position. First, Dan is highly skilled and experienced with Photoshop. I don't think he was saying that everyone could do better with Photoshop. He does imply that anyone learning his methods could probably do as well.
He also says that there are certain types of images that cannot be dealt with as well in Camera Raw as in Photoshop. The two classes that most stand out are a) pictures with areas of high saturation that also carry detail (e.g. red flowers) and b) pictures with conflicting casts. I'm not sure, but I believe that in these areas PS still has the edge over ACR. Certainly it does in pictures with conflicting casts, since these pictures will have to use something that localizes corrections to where the different casts lie.
He also says several times that the technology in the RAW processing areas is advancing by leaps and bounds, and what he says of the CS2 ACR may not be true later of other Raw processors.
In both areas, it looks like he might be holding onto views that he developed with technologies that have now been surpassed. 16 bit and Wide Gamut is the wave of the future at the high end of print photography. In a few years we will probably be having the same wars over 16 bit v. 32 bit image editing. The mathematical argument will be the same. The question is at what point do the extra bits cease to matter.
In ACR, it looks like Adobe may already have come to the point where its ACR can do things better than PS. I know that with my time budge, ACR processing with the latest version is a big boon. I'm getting better results faster using it than if I just went to PS. But for truly critical stuff, which would require a bunch of time, I would probably use both. I'm still trying to see what the best mix is for me.
I do have one point about the burden of proof: people who introduce new technologies have the burden of showing the benefit of the new technology, especially when those technologies carry additional overhead, either in resources or simply in learning. Thus, the 16 bit crowd needs to show that 16 bit processing is better than 8 bit processing. Look at almost any book on the subject and you will see either histograms or gradients to prove the point. And neither of those things prove the point when it comes to photographs. Until the rise of wide gamut color spaces and printers that could use them, I think Dan's point on this subject was correct.
Similarly, I think people advocating the use of the new ACR tools have the burden of showing that they are better. On this one, I still don't think there is a definitive answer. And I think the answer will almost inevitably depend on the skill and training of the person. I know that I can get better results from alot of pictures by doing some massaging with ACR before going to PS. I found with alot of images that just using PS on an unmassaged file would lead to curves that were way too steep and provided some ugly results. I suspect that Dan would not have that sort of problem and would get better results with my images just using PS. In the end, I think this issue of superiority will be one that is very hard to prove, because it inevitably involves a level of skill, and because its not 100% clear what is "better" when dealing with these matters of taste and judgment.
As for ACR, in PPE5, he claims that he has done alot of testing and not found any image that beneffited from ACR manipulation. In other words, he said that he could get as good results using Photoshop. There are a few things that should be made clear about this position. First, Dan is highly skilled and experienced with Photoshop. I don't think he was saying that everyone could do better with Photoshop. He does imply that anyone learning his methods could probably do as well.
He can say this but he's failed to prove it, even when asked to do so. I can say the moon is made of cheese. I can say CR is unfit for professional use because I discovered the exact math to prove this. Doesn't make it true or even worth accepting.
He also says that there are certain types of images that cannot be dealt with as well in Camera Raw as in Photoshop.
That too he's failed to prove let along supply any files to others to try. Its simply true because he's said so.
The two classes that most stand out are a) pictures with areas of high saturation that also carry detail (e.g. red flowers) and b) pictures with conflicting casts. I'm not sure, but I believe that in these areas PS still has the edge over ACR.
Marks article, at least with HIS images proved this isn't so. So at least we have one person who disputes Dan's claim and has supplied files to show it.
Certainly it does in pictures with conflicting casts, since these pictures will have to use something that localizes corrections to where the different casts lie.
CR and LR can't do localized correction, no one who disagree's with Dan about his claims disagree's about this fact. Local corrections must be done in Photoshop.
He also says several times that the technology in the RAW processing areas is advancing by leaps and bounds, and what he says of the CS2 ACR may not be true later of other Raw processors.
What a prophet. That's going to be true in all of imaging and computer software.
In ACR, it looks like Adobe may already have come to the point where its ACR can do things better than PS.
No question. And I saw that by proving it to myself. By actually testing images. Just try fixing a really bad white balance in a JPEG. Dan says he can do it better and faster than using a Raw in CR. But of course, he says but doesn't prove or demonstrate this despite the challenge by me to do so.
I do have one point about the burden of proof: people who introduce new technologies have the burden of showing the benefit of the new technology, especially when those technologies carry additional overhead, either in resources or simply in learning.
Fine. That's been done. The other side as well has to prove burden of proof, the big deal here is he's never done that.
Thus, the 16 bit crowd needs to show that 16 bit processing is better than 8 bit processing. Look at almost any book on the subject and you will see either histograms or gradients to prove the point. And neither of those things prove the point when it comes to photographs.
I have supplied the images to do this. The iDisk info is here.
I will likely regret making a minor appearance in this thread, so I will keep this as brief as possible, as I like balance in reporting and there is only one side being presented here.
The following is a quote from Dan Margulis in reply to Andrew Rodney, from Dan's ACTL group:
>>Personally I find Bruce Lindblooms analysis fair. Some others do
not. In the end, it1s up to someone1s opinion (and you know the old saying
about opinions). >>
No, Andrew does not find Lindbloom's analysis fair--he is well aware that it
is bogus. Yes, many parts of this discussion have been matters of opinion. But
Lindbloom's page is based not on matters of opinion, but of fact. Namely,
1) He asserts that I sabotage my test files by converting them from 16-bit to
8-bit and back again to 16-bit before I test them, which "makes it into a
non-test."
2) He asserts "There is no accountability--Dan's word is final. There has
never been even a single case where the experiment could be performed
independently by anyone else to see if the same result was obtained."
These two are *not* matters of opinion--they are either true, or they are
false. And they are the linchpins of Lindbloom's page. The rest of what he says
simply collapses without them.
Both of the above statements are categorically false. They have been exposed
on this list, and brought to Andrew's attention, many times. Lindbloom knew
that they were false when he posted them. Andrew Rodney has posted many,
many links to this page with full knowledge of its falsity.
Dan Margulis
For those wishing to read what exactly was said way back when by who, there are freely available archives of the threads in question found here:
In no way do I find what Lindbloom says as bogus. I posted the link! Anyone with half a brain can read Bruce's analysis of what Dan has said publicly. That's why I post this link!
I would think that the file to try to test Dan's claim is the red flower he uses as an example in Chapter 16 of PPE5. Its figure 16.3. This is the one where he claims to show that using individual RGB curves does a better job than ACR.
Marks article, at least with HIS images proved this isn't so. So at least we have one person who disputes Dan's claim and has supplied files to show it.
That article has no examples that use either highly saturated images, or that have conflicting casts. The article does seem to show that ACR works as well as Photoshop for the kinds of images he has shown, but that's a pretty narrow range. For someone who is so demanding on proof, I would have thought you would be a bit more sceptical about how much that article does in fact prove. But it is an excellent start, and a very worthwhile read.
What a prophet. That's going to be true in all of imaging and computer software.
Sarcasm has been duly noted, and will be ignored in the future.
Dan says he can do it better and faster than using a Raw in CR. But of course, he says but doesn't prove or demonstrate this despite the challenge by me to do so.
Why not just believe him about what he can do. I know chef's who can chop faster and better than a food processor, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't use the food processor.
It's a bit off topic, but this whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite books, called Conjectures and Refutations, by a philosopher named Imre Lakatos. Its about experimentation and the growth of knowledge in mathematics. Basically, when one person comes up with a theory, others will try to attack it. When an exception to the theory is found, you have a choice of either rejecting the theory, rejecting the exception, or changing the theory so that the exception is incorporated. It seems to me that Dan's instinct, as a matter of arguing these positions, is to reject the exceptions. I don't see it as that big a deal. I'm always amused at how worked up everyone gets over it.
In no way do I find what Lindbloom says as bogus. I posted the link! Anyone with half a brain can read Bruce's analysis of what Dan has said publicly. That's why I post this link!
Which is why I posted the quote and links to balance things out and to tell the other side of the story, now others who were not there then can make an informed decision, rather than a biased one sided one based around incorrect information.
Dan states in black and white directly to you Andrew - two years ago, that this Lindbloom page misrepresents the facts and I have not seen that denied (when one takes the time to read what was actually said). Yet you continue to link it.
Anyway, as I said I have limited time and patience to dirty up this list with a topic that has been hashed to death elsewhere, which is again why I posted the archives. The same goes for picking up this conversation with you Andrew, I just do not have the time or will power.
I have faith in the membership here at DG, that they can read what has taken place and not be misled - when they are given both sides of the story. Now I feel that they have been given fair information, unlike previously.
I would think that the file to try to test Dan's claim is the red flower he uses as an example in Chapter 16 of PPE5. Its figure 16.3. This is the one where he claims to show that using individual RGB curves does a better job than ACR.
The document is only available on the CD if you own the book. We've asked Dan to allow it to be supplied to anyone who wishes to test these theories and he's remained silent about this. And yes, some of us DO have this file and HAVE rendered it with none of the issues expressed by Dan (so again, he's just wrong). He doesn't really have an idea how to render a Raw file. He advises users zero out the settings and 'fix' the image later in Photoshop. Bottom line, the red flowers CAN be rendered quite simply without showing the effects he claims with a simple tweak of the saturation slider.
Excellent points, Duffy!
I have noticed that the critics of Margulis who for years have blown the hottest air invoking science, are precisely the ones who display the greatest ignorance of scientific method.
By the way - and it's not important to your dead-on observation, and no criticism of you - the Imre Lakatos work to which you refer is "Proofs and Refutations"; the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, whom I believe also would turn in his grave in the face of some of the pseudo-scientific drivel promulgated by you-know-who, was the author of the not unsimilar "Conjectures and Refutations."
That article has no examples that use either highly saturated images, or that have conflicting casts.
His 2nd piece does use a highly saturated image. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pdf/Curves2.pdf He wrote that in direct response to Dan who, as usual dismisses any argument by saying the test files used are unfit for the discussion. Again, only Dan can decide what images are appropriate or not. Even if someone dismisses his theories with a dozen images, that doesn't count. Nor does he admit that any of the images that prove him wrong weaken is original positions. This goes back to the Lindbloom page.
Read #5, it sums up the issues with Dan:
There is no accountability — Dan's word is final. There has never been even a single case where the experiment could be performed independently by anyone else to see if the same result was obtained. This situation is akin to a trial where you are the prosecuting attorney and Dan is both the defense attorney and the judge. It's just not fair.
Lastly:
If one takes this technique to its logical conclusion, Dan's 16-bit challenge would become "When considering all images showing no 16-bit advantage, 16-bit images show no advantage."
Remove 16-bit and pop in the Raw processing or wide gamut spaces.
Bruce is a scientist, used to scientific proof or sound theories. Dan is a religious mouthpiece. If what he's saying is so true, how about supplying those files to anyone who can test his theories or supplying that spreadsheet that he says proves his point. What's he afraid of? Perhaps the truth.
Is anyone here who feels the need to defined Dan (where is he anyway?) really in agreement that Dan has played fair in supplying any ounce of evidence to back up his claims, as opposed to those like Mark and myself who disagree with him? I'd be happy to host his files on my iDisk if as he says, bandwidth is so precious. I'd be happy to host the spreadsheet. How can anyone take him seriously based on how he makes claims without an ounce of proof?
Excellent points, Duffy!
I have noticed that the critics of Margulis who for years have blown the hottest air invoking science, are precisely the ones who display the greatest ignorance of scientific method.
Really. So supplying actual files and instructions is unscientific. Saying something is true then avoiding any means to supply the files and the techniques is good science? Let's see, where is that spreadsheet that proves the exact math behind CR and proves Dan's point that the math is sloppy (his words exactly) and unfit for professional use (again his words)?
You guys really do believe this religious nonesense? Please, send me a Raw file that Dan uses to prove his point with exact instructions, then if I can't render it my way such that the points he's saying prove he's right I'll admit it at the top of my lungs. I've yet to see such proof. And as I said, its not up to us to prove every image on earth can't show a benefit from high bit editing, its his burden of proof to show they don't. And oh, yes there is the DNG I submitted that does show damage in 8-bit that doesn't show up in high bit. But when you change the rules on the fly as Dan does, it makes it real easy to again dismiss this file and othersl like it. And you call that scientific? Give me a break.
...And as I said, its not up to us to prove every image on earth can't show a benefit from high bit editing, its his burden of proof to show they don't....
Well, there you go again, with yet more pseudo-science: You're asking Dan to prove a negative. Moreover, Dan never said, "every image on earth"; you consistently resort to misrepresenting Dan in order to attack him. And BinaryFx's links above, as well as recent posts on the ACT list, clearly betray your ignoring Dan's responses when he directly answers your objections, yet you persist with prior criticisms as if Dan's answers never occurred. Anyone who's followed the Mark Segal articles knows that he has yet to address Dan's salient point.
Well, there you go again, with yet more pseudo-science: You're asking Dan to prove a negative.
I'm asking him to provied a single file that illustrates his points that I can see. Do you have one?
Moreover, Dan never said, "every image on earth"; you consistently resort to misrepresenting Dan in order to attack him.
He's pretty clear in what he's said about high bit editing (and yes, it vacillates depending on what he's saying as usual). If he never said every file on earth, then which ones? How are WE to know when to use 8-bit versus 16-bit editing based on Dan's recommendations? If you don't know when a file will fall apart, seems that you should always use high bit. Getting back to the original post here, not dismissing Dan's theories, can you tell us when we should or should not edit in high bit, based on YOUR understanding of Dan's theories? Or even your own theories?
Anyone who's followed the Mark Segal articles knows that he has yet to address Dan's salient point.
This is a classic Dan line. Anyone who's done this or that knows it. Anyone who's followed Mark's article can take what they want from it but at least he's supplied the exact technqiues and files for you to attempt to test these techniques for yourself, unlike Dan. So anyone knows Mark's points are not salient? That means if they do, they dont' count because you (and Dan) say they don't. This is great color theory for those who can't think for themselves. The paper Mark wrote is open to peer review. Why don't you tell us why its not salient using point by point examples, rather than assume anyone would buy into this because YOU say so. More Dan brainwashing.
Lets see how it sounds when turned around:
Anyone who's read Marks papers knows he's addressed all the salient points. You buying that? No, why not, I just told you it as fact. Oh, my name isn't Dan.
So, please tell us why the points are not salient, don't assume everyone knows it because that's ridiculously false.
So like Dan, you're NOT going to answer any of the questions presented to you, even though they take us back OT on the subject of high bit. It figures.
So like Dan, you're NOT going to answer any of the questions presented to you, even though they take us back OT on the subject of high bit. It figures.
I think it would be best for this thread to die a quiet death. Just about everything that can be said about the topic has been, and obviously neither 8-bit or 16-bit proponents are going to come to an agreement here.
Agreed?
0
Options
Mark SegalRegistered UsersPosts: 8Beginner grinner
That article has no examples that use either highly saturated images, or that have conflicting casts. The article does seem to show that ACR works as well as Photoshop for the kinds of images he has shown, but that's a pretty narrow range. For someone who is so demanding on proof, I would have thought you would be a bit more sceptical about how much that article does in fact prove. But it is an excellent start, and a very worthwhile read.
Duffy
Hello Duffy,
I much appreciated your post #46, and would like to offer some clarification that may help in respect of the quote just above.
Firstly, I agree with Dan that CR cannot eliminate more than one cast in a multi-cast image using the White Balance part of the program, and I did say so in Annex 3, which was published after the main article in response to Dan's critique of the first publication.
Secondly, in Annex 3 I do deal directly with the issue of bright colours which contain important image detail. I show how I can replicate the problem which concerns Dan, and how I can resolve it, both within Camera Raw. I do that for yellows, oranges and reds.
In fact, if you take the whole 42 pages of stuff I developed in its entirety, I have encompassed quite a range of typical image adjustment situations photographers are likely to encounter. Despite that of course, it is inherent in this enterprise that there will be images which don't respond in the manner I have demonstrated.
But no-one ever contended that Camera Raw or Lightroom are perfect substitutes for Photoshop. Adobe never intended that, and they are the program developers, so why should any one else?
To my mind, the whole point of this discussion has been that the "range setting capability" of an application as sophisitcated as Camera Raw 4.1 cannot be written-off as unsuitable for professional use because the occasional image needs more detailed attention in Photoshop than possible in Camera Raw.
Comments
Its high bit, linear encoding. Apple will not tell us what color space it uses but based on tests, I'd say I'm 99% sure its using Adobe RGB primaries.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
That's odd, considering it still expresses color and luminance measurements in the program as 8-bit figures.
I see now why you've been speaking with authority—thanks for that link.
Lightroom and other converters operate in a similar fashion. The histogram is 8-bit (otherwise it be HUGE). The values in high bit would confuse many users. What's happening under the hood is some linear encoded editing space which again, is not indicated in the Histogram so why not the numbers.
One then has to ask where is there useful feedback in a Histogram (I'd submit on either end and elsewhere, its not at all useful) and the numbers (highlight and shadow, neutrality are useful here, otherwise, little else).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
So, my question remains: In Aperture and Lightroom (I own both but use Aperture currently), I'm assuming you have your 12-14-bit RAW files which you import and are adjusted internally in some sort of high-bit processing, right? I'm trying to figure out at what points in the chain your photo is ever converted to 8-bits besides printing and export/JPEG creation.
When you send your file from either of the above apps to Photoshop on a "round trip", how do you know if it's converting to 8-bits or keeping it high-bit in order to enter Photoshop? This process is automated, so I cannot see any way to assure that it doesn't convert to 8-bit PSD.
Thanks.
Round trips, at least in LR are high bit all the way. I have an export preset for this and that's how I have the Export to Photoshop settings as well (16-bit, ProPhoto).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Right. I noticed just now the exporting options for PSD files are 16-bit in Aperture, so perhaps the round trips are too.
*** LATER ***
Indeed, the photo opens in Photoshop as a 16-bit file. At least as far as LR & Aperture users are concerned, this is a moot point.
Most video codecs are 8-bit colour. Only recently has Panasonic introduced a new 10-bit high definition codec. In standard definition Digibeta was the king of the formats because it had 10-bit colour and only very minor compression.
In the video world it is universally agreed, without any doubt whatsoever, that 10-bit Digibeta is superior to any other standard definition 8-bit codec.
But that is when the footage comes out of the camera. The main reason for working with 10-bit colour was for colour grading, compositing etc.
With digital photographs I can see where this Dan guy is coming from. But I am new to printing techniques and technicalities. My own assertion is that if you convert the 16-bit RAW file to 8-bit the resulting file will still cover the same range of tones. But if you start to push the picture very hard it will fall apart more quickly than the original 16-bit one (for example bringing back an underexposed image stands far more chance with a RAW than with a JPG)
One of the problems here is that all computer displays, other than the absolute latest, and very, very expensive ones, display 8-bit colour. So you cannot see the true effects of working in 16-bits, such as subtle graduations etc, on the LCD anyway AFAIAA. Many people convert their final output photo to an 8-bit format anyway, so for a well exposed, well composed image, 16-bit colour correction (not origination as RAW will always be best) will probably not be of a huge advantage. But if there is a problem photo then 16-bit working will help. So it is always good to have that data if you need to access it.
So I can fully see where Dan is coming from, but there are one or two caveats. But again I am seeing this from a video point of view and don't have much experience with digital stills.
My Smugmug gallery
Pentax K10D
Canon 60D
This Dan guy is suggesting there's no need to ever deal with more than 8-bits no matter the degree of editing you'll apply to the data or the output device. He's never proven this point so it simply an opinion and one not based on mathematics or any degree of empirical testing as others, myself included have proven data loss, both visible and in print resulting from editing on 8-bit data. So again, where is he coming from that makes any sense at all?
Now that the high bit debate has put his name on the lists, he's going after Camera Raw and Lightroom, saying that due to their curve handling, they are unfit for professional use. Again, nothing what so ever to back this up, just a guy who likes to throw gasoline on the flames. Others (notably Mark Segal) DID prove with empirical techniques that Dan's wrong. Dan simply has an enormous BS factor. Oh, should you be on his list, he's now officially closed down (censor) any discussions of this debate as he did in the past on the list when readers asked about his high bit challenge nonsense.
This emperor has no cloths, naked, its not a pretty sight.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
*sigh* Yes, we get it, you don't like Dan and you don't agree with
him, but the silly metaphors are just...well, silly. You don't have to bash
him every time his name is mentioned. Sticking to facts will make your case
stronger, anyway.
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
IF he can prove his points, fine. But he doesn't. Its right because HE says so. Others generally try to provide files and processes that anyone else can test to prove to themselves one point of an argument or the other. IF Dan would do that once, it would be wonderful. Instead, he prefers to speak and have minions accept what he says as fact, when they are, in the case of high bit editing, wide gamut spaces and Raw processing, flat out wrong. Of course, I have provided the examples for anyone who's truly interested to try them and provide useful feedback, and I welcome criticism based on true color theory, not color religion. If only we could say the same for Dan.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Well, at least I hope he didn't pay.
But seriously, I'm not saying you're wrong about the facts and I'm not saying
Dan is infallible, I just think it's not very professional to attack him personally
every time he's mentioned around here. You clearly know your stuff and you
have a well presented case. I just think you take strength away from your
arguments by saying kooky things like the emperor bit above.
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
That attitude has now been applied to wide gamut editing spaces and Raw processing. Nothing new here with respect to those who have done the testing and disagree with Dan again (same list above). He's making claims now that CR and LR are unfit for professional use based his ability to exactly define the mathematics used. What's not professional is making up stuff, and when asked to prove the points, dismiss the requests for proof.
Dan's a big boy. He can come here and provide the proof asked for on his list or the proof asked for on this list. I'd be thrilled if he'd venture here or any open list and explain himself fully and provide the proof many of us have requested.
Read the Mark Segal article and the page on the Lindbloom site:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Curves.shtml
http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
As for ACR, in PPE5, he claims that he has done alot of testing and not found any image that beneffited from ACR manipulation. In other words, he said that he could get as good results using Photoshop. There are a few things that should be made clear about this position. First, Dan is highly skilled and experienced with Photoshop. I don't think he was saying that everyone could do better with Photoshop. He does imply that anyone learning his methods could probably do as well.
He also says that there are certain types of images that cannot be dealt with as well in Camera Raw as in Photoshop. The two classes that most stand out are a) pictures with areas of high saturation that also carry detail (e.g. red flowers) and b) pictures with conflicting casts. I'm not sure, but I believe that in these areas PS still has the edge over ACR. Certainly it does in pictures with conflicting casts, since these pictures will have to use something that localizes corrections to where the different casts lie.
He also says several times that the technology in the RAW processing areas is advancing by leaps and bounds, and what he says of the CS2 ACR may not be true later of other Raw processors.
In both areas, it looks like he might be holding onto views that he developed with technologies that have now been surpassed. 16 bit and Wide Gamut is the wave of the future at the high end of print photography. In a few years we will probably be having the same wars over 16 bit v. 32 bit image editing. The mathematical argument will be the same. The question is at what point do the extra bits cease to matter.
In ACR, it looks like Adobe may already have come to the point where its ACR can do things better than PS. I know that with my time budge, ACR processing with the latest version is a big boon. I'm getting better results faster using it than if I just went to PS. But for truly critical stuff, which would require a bunch of time, I would probably use both. I'm still trying to see what the best mix is for me.
I do have one point about the burden of proof: people who introduce new technologies have the burden of showing the benefit of the new technology, especially when those technologies carry additional overhead, either in resources or simply in learning. Thus, the 16 bit crowd needs to show that 16 bit processing is better than 8 bit processing. Look at almost any book on the subject and you will see either histograms or gradients to prove the point. And neither of those things prove the point when it comes to photographs. Until the rise of wide gamut color spaces and printers that could use them, I think Dan's point on this subject was correct.
Similarly, I think people advocating the use of the new ACR tools have the burden of showing that they are better. On this one, I still don't think there is a definitive answer. And I think the answer will almost inevitably depend on the skill and training of the person. I know that I can get better results from alot of pictures by doing some massaging with ACR before going to PS. I found with alot of images that just using PS on an unmassaged file would lead to curves that were way too steep and provided some ugly results. I suspect that Dan would not have that sort of problem and would get better results with my images just using PS. In the end, I think this issue of superiority will be one that is very hard to prove, because it inevitably involves a level of skill, and because its not 100% clear what is "better" when dealing with these matters of taste and judgment.
Duffy
He can say this but he's failed to prove it, even when asked to do so. I can say the moon is made of cheese. I can say CR is unfit for professional use because I discovered the exact math to prove this. Doesn't make it true or even worth accepting.
That too he's failed to prove let along supply any files to others to try. Its simply true because he's said so.
Marks article, at least with HIS images proved this isn't so. So at least we have one person who disputes Dan's claim and has supplied files to show it.
CR and LR can't do localized correction, no one who disagree's with Dan about his claims disagree's about this fact. Local corrections must be done in Photoshop.
What a prophet. That's going to be true in all of imaging and computer software.
No question. And I saw that by proving it to myself. By actually testing images. Just try fixing a really bad white balance in a JPEG. Dan says he can do it better and faster than using a Raw in CR. But of course, he says but doesn't prove or demonstrate this despite the challenge by me to do so.
Fine. That's been done. The other side as well has to prove burden of proof, the big deal here is he's never done that.
I have supplied the images to do this. The iDisk info is here.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I will likely regret making a minor appearance in this thread, so I will keep this as brief as possible, as I like balance in reporting and there is only one side being presented here.
The following is a quote from Dan Margulis in reply to Andrew Rodney, from Dan's ACTL group:
For those wishing to read what exactly was said way back when by who, there are freely available archives of the threads in question found here:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-bit-16-bit.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16-bit-2002.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-more-16bit.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-bit_from_camera.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16bit-histogram.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16bit-LAB.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2006HTM/ACT-16-bit_summation.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2006HTM/ACT_Dan_16bit_summary.htm
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/2007HTM/ACT06-Clear_16-bit_super.htm
Have fun, I feel that balance has now been restored to the force!
Sincerely,
Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
That article has no examples that use either highly saturated images, or that have conflicting casts. The article does seem to show that ACR works as well as Photoshop for the kinds of images he has shown, but that's a pretty narrow range. For someone who is so demanding on proof, I would have thought you would be a bit more sceptical about how much that article does in fact prove. But it is an excellent start, and a very worthwhile read.
Sarcasm has been duly noted, and will be ignored in the future.
Why not just believe him about what he can do. I know chef's who can chop faster and better than a food processor, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't use the food processor.
It's a bit off topic, but this whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite books, called Conjectures and Refutations, by a philosopher named Imre Lakatos. Its about experimentation and the growth of knowledge in mathematics. Basically, when one person comes up with a theory, others will try to attack it. When an exception to the theory is found, you have a choice of either rejecting the theory, rejecting the exception, or changing the theory so that the exception is incorporated. It seems to me that Dan's instinct, as a matter of arguing these positions, is to reject the exceptions. I don't see it as that big a deal. I'm always amused at how worked up everyone gets over it.
Duffy
Which is why I posted the quote and links to balance things out and to tell the other side of the story, now others who were not there then can make an informed decision, rather than a biased one sided one based around incorrect information.
Dan states in black and white directly to you Andrew - two years ago, that this Lindbloom page misrepresents the facts and I have not seen that denied (when one takes the time to read what was actually said). Yet you continue to link it.
Anyway, as I said I have limited time and patience to dirty up this list with a topic that has been hashed to death elsewhere, which is again why I posted the archives. The same goes for picking up this conversation with you Andrew, I just do not have the time or will power.
I have faith in the membership here at DG, that they can read what has taken place and not be misled - when they are given both sides of the story. Now I feel that they have been given fair information, unlike previously.
Stephen Marsh.
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/
The document is only available on the CD if you own the book. We've asked Dan to allow it to be supplied to anyone who wishes to test these theories and he's remained silent about this. And yes, some of us DO have this file and HAVE rendered it with none of the issues expressed by Dan (so again, he's just wrong). He doesn't really have an idea how to render a Raw file. He advises users zero out the settings and 'fix' the image later in Photoshop. Bottom line, the red flowers CAN be rendered quite simply without showing the effects he claims with a simple tweak of the saturation slider.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I have noticed that the critics of Margulis who for years have blown the hottest air invoking science, are precisely the ones who display the greatest ignorance of scientific method.
By the way - and it's not important to your dead-on observation, and no criticism of you - the Imre Lakatos work to which you refer is "Proofs and Refutations"; the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, whom I believe also would turn in his grave in the face of some of the pseudo-scientific drivel promulgated by you-know-who, was the author of the not unsimilar "Conjectures and Refutations."
His 2nd piece does use a highly saturated image. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pdf/Curves2.pdf He wrote that in direct response to Dan who, as usual dismisses any argument by saying the test files used are unfit for the discussion. Again, only Dan can decide what images are appropriate or not. Even if someone dismisses his theories with a dozen images, that doesn't count. Nor does he admit that any of the images that prove him wrong weaken is original positions. This goes back to the Lindbloom page.
Read #5, it sums up the issues with Dan:
Lastly:
Remove 16-bit and pop in the Raw processing or wide gamut spaces.
Bruce is a scientist, used to scientific proof or sound theories. Dan is a religious mouthpiece. If what he's saying is so true, how about supplying those files to anyone who can test his theories or supplying that spreadsheet that he says proves his point. What's he afraid of? Perhaps the truth.
Is anyone here who feels the need to defined Dan (where is he anyway?) really in agreement that Dan has played fair in supplying any ounce of evidence to back up his claims, as opposed to those like Mark and myself who disagree with him? I'd be happy to host his files on my iDisk if as he says, bandwidth is so precious. I'd be happy to host the spreadsheet. How can anyone take him seriously based on how he makes claims without an ounce of proof?
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Really. So supplying actual files and instructions is unscientific. Saying something is true then avoiding any means to supply the files and the techniques is good science? Let's see, where is that spreadsheet that proves the exact math behind CR and proves Dan's point that the math is sloppy (his words exactly) and unfit for professional use (again his words)?
You guys really do believe this religious nonesense? Please, send me a Raw file that Dan uses to prove his point with exact instructions, then if I can't render it my way such that the points he's saying prove he's right I'll admit it at the top of my lungs. I've yet to see such proof. And as I said, its not up to us to prove every image on earth can't show a benefit from high bit editing, its his burden of proof to show they don't. And oh, yes there is the DNG I submitted that does show damage in 8-bit that doesn't show up in high bit. But when you change the rules on the fly as Dan does, it makes it real easy to again dismiss this file and othersl like it. And you call that scientific? Give me a break.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I'm asking him to provied a single file that illustrates his points that I can see. Do you have one?
He's pretty clear in what he's said about high bit editing (and yes, it vacillates depending on what he's saying as usual). If he never said every file on earth, then which ones? How are WE to know when to use 8-bit versus 16-bit editing based on Dan's recommendations? If you don't know when a file will fall apart, seems that you should always use high bit. Getting back to the original post here, not dismissing Dan's theories, can you tell us when we should or should not edit in high bit, based on YOUR understanding of Dan's theories? Or even your own theories?
This is a classic Dan line. Anyone who's done this or that knows it. Anyone who's followed Mark's article can take what they want from it but at least he's supplied the exact technqiues and files for you to attempt to test these techniques for yourself, unlike Dan. So anyone knows Mark's points are not salient? That means if they do, they dont' count because you (and Dan) say they don't. This is great color theory for those who can't think for themselves. The paper Mark wrote is open to peer review. Why don't you tell us why its not salient using point by point examples, rather than assume anyone would buy into this because YOU say so. More Dan brainwashing.
Lets see how it sounds when turned around:
Anyone who's read Marks papers knows he's addressed all the salient points. You buying that? No, why not, I just told you it as fact. Oh, my name isn't Dan.
So, please tell us why the points are not salient, don't assume everyone knows it because that's ridiculously false.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Thanks for corroborating my points.
So like Dan, you're NOT going to answer any of the questions presented to you, even though they take us back OT on the subject of high bit. It figures.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I think it would be best for this thread to die a quiet death. Just about everything that can be said about the topic has been, and obviously neither 8-bit or 16-bit proponents are going to come to an agreement here.
Agreed?
Hello Duffy,
I much appreciated your post #46, and would like to offer some clarification that may help in respect of the quote just above.
Firstly, I agree with Dan that CR cannot eliminate more than one cast in a multi-cast image using the White Balance part of the program, and I did say so in Annex 3, which was published after the main article in response to Dan's critique of the first publication.
Secondly, in Annex 3 I do deal directly with the issue of bright colours which contain important image detail. I show how I can replicate the problem which concerns Dan, and how I can resolve it, both within Camera Raw. I do that for yellows, oranges and reds.
In fact, if you take the whole 42 pages of stuff I developed in its entirety, I have encompassed quite a range of typical image adjustment situations photographers are likely to encounter. Despite that of course, it is inherent in this enterprise that there will be images which don't respond in the manner I have demonstrated.
But no-one ever contended that Camera Raw or Lightroom are perfect substitutes for Photoshop. Adobe never intended that, and they are the program developers, so why should any one else?
To my mind, the whole point of this discussion has been that the "range setting capability" of an application as sophisitcated as Camera Raw 4.1 cannot be written-off as unsuitable for professional use because the occasional image needs more detailed attention in Photoshop than possible in Camera Raw.