Re: A response to Dan's challenge


samarsh@...
 

--- In colortheory@y..., Victor <lights@o...> wrote:> The point I was trying to make is that the manipulation> being done here is a continuous sort of gradient adjustment. This> operation, not the scan, is what benefits from the 16 bits. That'swhy> I suggested adjusting the workflow the way I did.> > I'm assuming that the post was made in response to the claim that> there is no need to make 16 bit scans. While the processing> demonstrated here obviously benefits from 16 bit manipulation, I'm> claiming that it is not the scan that needs to be 16 bit.> Victor, I think the list would agree with you when it comes to thegradient and not the image gaining from the high bit edit.This was one reason why LivePicture was popular in this area.The 'computer generated art'is not the debate.The debate is for photographic images which do not contian any humanor computer generated gradations or feathering/blurring.In many earlier posts, Dan lays out the full terms of his request foran image which is natural which benefits more so in high bit thanregular bit.Here is a link to a shorter repeat of the original request:groups.yahoo.com/group/colortheory/message/1161Sincerely,Stephen Marsh.

Join colortheory@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.