Originally Posted by silvershoes 
I agree. I've tried several times to use ACR, I even bought Bruce Fraser's book, and always came back to PPL.
It's possible ACR works better for other camera brands, although I've seen similar discussions by Nikon users and many prefer the Nikon software even though it's admittedly kludgy.
As for the whole 16-bit thing, a lot of people (including Fraser) point to the histogram in PS to "prove" how "destructive" various processing methods are. Histograms are useful to a point, but they're programs like any other and a lot of their value depends on what's going on in the calculations. It's my understanding that some features of PS haven't changed since being introduced - new versions introduce new features but aren't a complete rewrite.
If it makes you feel better to process in 16 bit, by all means do so. I think the real test of processing is in looking at the output with an educated eye and not worrying so much about theoretical numbers. If you print an 8 bit file and a 16 bit file and can't see a difference, the difference isn't enough to worry about.
Easy to say when you don't have a hard drive full of "fake" 16bit TIFF's.
Good thing I still have the RAW... Actually what bothers me is not 16 vs 8 and does it matter but 16bit is just a lie. I recently been trying GIMP and it at least warns me "we can only process this in 8 bit, file will be truncated" or some such error message..I really do expect to at least know the basics of what my software can and can't do. Honestly though, this is a lot harder then most imagine.
As to Silkypcs retail I would not pay $150 for an an 8 bit only program especially if it indeed processes RAW in 8 bit (which is quite primitive if you ask me). THIS IS RUMOR, I have currently no way to confirm or deny this
Again, to be honest for years I've been doing major post conversion tweaks in Corel Photopaint (which I buy because it can, wait for it, do some 16bit manipulations). I've always wondered why my histograms got so spiky when doing some work on 16 TIFF's from PPL . Though, since the Corel histograms, color pallettes are all listed in 8 bit anyways, it's hard to completely fault the TIFF's.
Yes this is an annoying "property" of Corel but it is quite visible...
ACR and the associated CS whatever is 1)too bloody expensive 2)from what I gathered it has it's fair share of processing problems in regards to a few key areas (personal opinions mostly).
There are always work arounds and quality differences are hard to see when you are viewing on low gamut monitors, printing w/ low gamut printers and maybe here the 8 bit is an advantage because it has already reduced your files and truncated your color pallet....
IS it really too much to ask to know what your software can or can't do??????????
AS to output.. what's good enough today may not be good enough tomorrow.. besides the final image is usually truncated to 8bit jpg for printing but it may not always have to be..
I ADMIT that I may be a tad blowing this whole issue out of proportion but then again others may want to know what their buying as well. Hard to fault PPL since it's free though and my MAJOR issue is no longer with them per se.. it's different when I shell out cash, convert something to supposedly 16bit and someone tells me it's just a stuffed 8 bit file...... ohhh how special is that..
On the "good news" front I see PSP now (and actually has been for awhile
)
supports 16bit and CMYK (what about LAB format???) so my options appear to be growing... Not sure about their RAW editor..
Oh well enough rambling........