Originally Posted by thazooo 
SECOND EDIT: Anyone think 8bit processing is not a bad thing, and reasons why.
8 bit processing works fine for me. I work in RGB and 8 bit fits within the color space.
I've tried using the 16 bit processing and saw no difference in prints. I agree that 16 bit will give smoother colors when you do the math, but on most folks systems it's 8 bit for display and printer. I imagine if you've got a 16 bit printer and switch to prophoto rgb or wide gamut rgb , you can pick up a few more colors. Problem being
would you see these on your display as you make your adjustments or would they just show up once printed ?
Actually this issue remined me about the old Dan Margulis challenge re: 8 vs 16 bit processing:
This 4 page paper sums it up quite well (this discussion is apparently over 8 years old):
Part 1 of 4
to take one minor quote of a contrarian to Dan:
Bruce Fraser - 1:07pm Sep 19, 05 PST I'd also suggest that you need to weigh the consequences of working in 8-
bit and finding you need 16 versus working in 16-bit and finding you only
need 8. My lack of clairvoyance is one of the factors that leads me to work in
16-bit....
Something that sticks in my mind is as sensors and circuits get better the gap between 8 and 16 bit processing (if you believe there is one) could increase...
The 8 vs 16 bit debate is based mostly on "after conversion". I think few would argue that during RAW conversion you should most likely work in at least 12 bit integer math... some state anything short of floating point math is destructive (though slow on many systems and therefore not socially acceptable)
Very few would argue that the RAW data has less than 9 fully useable bits (some seem to believe that 10 is easy and 11 is becoming standard today. Of course marketing is pushing 14 bits) so again 8 in RAW IS destructive.
Now I'm only speculating based on what I read and the use of a few RAW converters and photo editing software... and I'm miffed at the 16bit TIFF lie.