I have never noticed banding in a camera jpeg, unless it is low resolution. Now, if you muck with it adjusting levels, etc, banding might show up in those camera jpegs.
So that raises a question. If most cameras provide 8-bit jpegs, why do they cause banding if you edit them in 8-bit? Or if you edit RAW pictures with 8-bit editing programs? Is there banding before they're edited?
I suppose for many amateurs who have a color printer at home making 8 1/2 x 11" prints, Elements might be good enough. Doesn't tones and banding become an issue with size? To what size is 8 bits perfectly OK?
Once you get to the printing stage, 8 bits works quite well.
It is in the editing stage that limited bit depth can create problems.
...problems? How do you deal with them if you're using Elements or another 8-bit editor?...
What problems? How do you deal with them if you're using Elements or another 8-bit editor?
?
Stop using an 8-bit editor and begin editing with a 16-bit program.
With Elements, some of the editing tools work in 16 bit, provided you are editing 16 bit RAW files.
With Elements, some of the editing tools work in 16 bit, provided you are editing 16 bit RAW files.
Jay,
If you shoot raw, here is some information about the bit depth precision available:
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nikon-d300-d3-14-bit-versus-12-bit.html
The internal calculation is made in 16 bits, which is overkill.
Most displays are only 8 bits. For critical work there are pro displays like yours in 10 bits, which makes a significant difference. My understanding is that you would not be able to see the difference with more than 10 bits.
Back to Elements: anything you edit in the raw module of Elements is calculated in 16 bits and you have the option to open the file in the pixel editor in 16 bits. Then, you lose the ability to use layers and many detail adjustment tool. If you open a 16-bits layered tiff or psd, you'll be prompted to choose between keeping 16 bits and flattening the layers, or keeping the layers and converting to 8 bits.
If you keep in mind that by far the most important advantage of 16-bits is to avoid posterization, you no longer need 16-bits after the raw editing stage, so many users set the export to the editor to 8-bits. Do a test and convert a 16 bits to 8 bits and see if you can tell the difference by swithching between the two versions.
If 16-bits is what you are after, consider subscribing to Photoshop; after all if you have a super display, that may be worth it.
Where did 16 bit go in PSE 2020?
I just upgraded to PSE 2020 and no longer find my RAW images are in 16 bit. In the prior version they were. Some edits, though not all were allowed. Now with the 2020 my files are 8 bit by default. Or so it seems. Googling has yielded no results. Nothing in Preferences. Any help?community.adobe.com
Which version(s) of Elements?
Many companies offer discounts for seniors, AARP, AAA, veterans, teachers. Adobe offers discounts for students and teachers which of course is a great sales technique because once they get you using their product as a student, you'll probably stick with it for life. All those monthly payments for 50 years at $10 a month equals $6,000 (assuming no increase in charges). Of course, teacher's get a discount because then they'll teach Adobe products so their students have to use them.
And if you merely earned at 3% annual rate of return over those 50 years, your retirement account would be over $13890 fatter.
Well, let's be fair. The guy is going to spend something on editing programs over those years even if purchased and not rented by the month.
Alan,
Yes, for example I paid $200 initially, and every few years I would pay $99 for an upgrade, when I felt I needed to do that. 'when I felt I needed to do that' is an important option that is no longer available.
I am still using LR v6.1 because I had not purchased a newer body which caused a need for a later subscription version of LR. And I might be able to continue to use that same LR v6.1 forever, if I do not opt for mirrorless body in the future...but the subscription model mandates payment even when you do not need support for a newer model camera, or for one of the newer editing features.
I use LR 6.1 regularly too. As far as forever, at 77, it doesn't seem like I might need a replacement.
Alan,
Yes, for example I paid $200 initially, and every few years I would pay $99 for an upgrade, when I felt I needed to do that. 'when I felt I needed to do that' is an important option that is no longer available. 20 years of LR cost me a total of $700, rather than $2400 if it had always been subscription.
I am still using LR v6.1 because I had not purchased a newer body which caused a need for a later subscription version of LR. And I might be able to continue to use that same LR v6.1 forever, if I do not opt for mirrorless body in the future...but the subscription model mandates payment even when you do not need support for a newer model camera, or for one of the newer editing features.
A different bone of contention is the concept of certain groups (students, teachers, retirees) paying less to use software than a income-generating professional using that software.
purchased a newer body which caused a need for a later subscription version of LR
Only if you're foolish enough not to cancel it if you don't use it. Most people blow more than that a month in coffee drinks and streaming video channels they barely watch.Just as I have thought Photo$hop is a racket to drain your credit card as fast as possible without you noticing it.
Only if you're foolish enough not to cancel it if you don't use it. Most people blow more than that a month in coffee drinks and streaming video channels they barely watch.
Doesn't the camera manufacturer supply software to convert their RAW files to something you can edit in LR? Does the latest version of Camera RAW work with the earlier, standalone version of LR?
With Elements, some of the editing tools work in 16 bit, provided you are editing 16 bit RAW files.
Which tools can they and which can't they?
Which version(s) of Elements?
Here's an explanation about 16 bits. Since my Elements has the raw editor, I could open a raw using 16 bits in the raw editor without posterization. Then when I close the raw eidtor and go to Elements for further editing in Elements, I can reduce to 8 bits and not worry about posterization assumin gthis guy is right...
When you post-process in 8-bits, there is a multiplicative effeect - error gets amplified every time you do something with the data. That's different from post-processing in 16-bit throughout and then do the final conversion to 8-bit sRGB.
...I assume if I open a jpeg, which is always in 8 bit, the whole thing is moot as far as adjusting in 16 bit. Right?
Some info on 16 bits with Elements: https://asktimgrey.com/2017/11/20/bit-depth-importance-2/
You might want to take a look at DxO PureRAW: https://www.dxo.com/dxo-pureraw/Given that black and white prints from digital captures are my primary image editing products, and considering that I almost always use a curves layer to overcome the extreme linearity of digital sensors, there wouldn't be any gain for me to get a newer version of Elements than I already have (12). Adding the capability of Camera RAW to open my D810 NEFs (which Elements 12 lacks) by purchasing a later release would still leave only 8-bit layers.
Given that black and white prints from digital captures are my primary image editing products, and considering that I almost always use a curves layer to overcome the extreme linearity of digital sensors, there wouldn't be any gain for me to get a newer version of Elements than I already have (12). Adding the capability of Camera RAW to open my D810 NEFs (which Elements 12 lacks) by purchasing a later release would still leave only 8-bit layers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?