Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-21-2016, 10:17 AM   #1
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
8bit vs 16 bit question

I'm slowly exploring Photoshop elements, and noticed that for almost every operation I need to reformat image to 8 bit color depth.
I theory I understand the difference.
What I don't understand is where do I really need 16 bit? Printing? Bigger screen? Something else?

09-21-2016, 10:27 AM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,091
Are you talking about exporting to jpeg? Jpeg is 8-bit by definition, but that conversion should be one of the last steps. 16 bit gives you a much wider range of tonality and color depth to work with during the editing process. (Assuming you are working with the RAW file or .tif.)

note: Pentax RAWs are either 12 or 14-bit, depending on camera model

Last edited by paulh; 09-21-2016 at 10:32 AM.
09-21-2016, 10:34 AM - 2 Likes   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
A little bit of math here to start off with. 2^8=256 and 2^16=65,536. So 8 bit color gives you a total of 256 colors, while 16 bit color provides you with 65,536 shades of colors. Where you will see this is usually in the sky in various images, where you have bands of colors - blues with 8 bit colors.

This is because 8 bit color does not have enough shades of blue to nicely simulate the actual colors of sky say at a sunset at blue hour where you have light blues near the horizon going into deep dark blues up at the top of the frame. With using 16 bit color, you will have more than enough shades of blue to blend them from the lightest to the darkest with blue shades to spare.
  • Example of a red color palette
  • There are some ways to simulate better color translations, but they still leave artifacts. It is just better to do everything in 16 bit or even better just go to 32 or 48 bit color capable software and the problem disappears forever.


So what is the difference and why does Adobe force 8 bit color in Photoshop Element$ vs the regular Photoshop - $$$$$$$$. If you want the correct color blending as opposed to striping, they make you pay. There is going to be a new Windows version of Affinity Photo that is going to be released here around the first part of October, that was the Mac product of the year last year, that is rumored to be a Photoshop killer - for $50.

Last edited by interested_observer; 09-21-2016 at 11:24 AM.
09-21-2016, 10:45 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
16bit just gives you more leeway to work with. It is especially important if you have nuanced gradients and are adding contrast, saturation. Or if you are recovering highlights, shadows. In those cases, every bit of data can help, and 8bit simply does not have as much finesse. In your case, I would do everything I can in 16bit, then convert to 8bit, do the 8bit operations. Then export as 8bit jpeg (note that pretty much all jpegs are 8bit, most software doesn't even allow you to export as 16bit jpeg).

I do not do printing, so I don't know about that, but I assume it helps. Don't know whether the difference is noticeable or not

09-21-2016, 10:50 AM   #5
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
Paul, I'm talking about tiff image 16 bit which I've tried to edit in Elements 14. Specifically I'm fighting with object removal, some complicated case. Even for stamp cloning I need to switch to 8 bit.
Personally I can't see the color depth difference from my monitor, neither in my picture, nor in pictures of others from flickr.
That's why I'm curious, in what cases exactly 8 vs 16 bit is important?
Store printers? I doubt. Lab printers maybe?
09-21-2016, 10:54 AM   #6
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
With using 16 bit color, you will have more than enough shades of blue to blend them from the lightest to the darkest with blue shades to spare.
Ok, I do have 16 bit shades, but what is the purpose of it in case of deliver my photo to the screen or printer if they will not reproduce all 16 bit shades?
09-21-2016, 11:01 AM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Paul, I'm talking about tiff image 16 bit which I've tried to edit in Elements 14. Specifically I'm fighting with object removal, some complicated case. Even for stamp cloning I need to switch to 8 bit.
Personally I can't see the color depth difference from my monitor, neither in my picture, nor in pictures of others from flickr.
That's why I'm curious, in what cases exactly 8 vs 16 bit is important?
Store printers? I doubt. Lab printers maybe?
The Adobe Elements software was developed with only 8 bit data structures internally. So, when it is faced with loading a 16 bit TIFF file, it converts everything to 8 bits first, so its internal operations is all based on 8 bit data. Where as the full up version of Photoshop was designed with 32 bit data structures, and it just automagically loads the 16 bit TIFF image into its internal 32 bit data structures - no problem. It then operates on everything using 32 bit data structures.



09-21-2016, 11:06 AM   #8
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
The Adobe Elements software was developed with only 8 bit data structures internally. So, when it is faced with loading a 16 bit TIFF file, it converts everything to 8 bits first, so its internal operations is all based on 8 bit data. Where as the full up version of Photoshop was designed with 32 bit data structures, and it just automagically loads the 16 bit TIFF image into its internal 32 bit data structures - no problem.
I've heard so manys time that Elements is more than enough for the basic editing, and photographers don't really need Photoshop instead.
From what you, guys, are telling me here, it means that statement is not really true.
Still many photographers are happy with Elements.
09-21-2016, 11:06 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Ok, I do have 16 bit shades, but what is the purpose of it in case of deliver my photo to the screen or printer if they will not reproduce all 16 bit shades?
That is correct. I used Elements a couple of times and I got the banding. I have something like 20+ images I need to finish work on and was thinking of upgrading to regular Photoshop. Then ran into Affinity and decided to wait. To me it's worth trying the initial beta trial and probably buying the new product. If it does not cut it, then I'll bit the bullet and do the Adobe Cloud version (although I will hate to).
_________________

Elements does not know what to do with the 16 bit shades. It is unable to cram 16 bits into its 8 bit data structures, so it converts them, there by loosing all of the 16 bits of shading.



---------- Post added 09-21-2016 at 11:14 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
I've heard so manys time that Elements is more than enough for the basic editing, and photographers don't really need Photoshop instead.
From what you, guys, are telling me here, it means that statement is not really true.
Still many photographers are happy with Elements.
It has all the functions - stamping, cloning, cropping, erasing, etc. It just does it all in 8 bit data space. Adobe does this to move its customer base up to Photoshop - when you find out that all of your images have color banding to them. To get the correct color gradients in soft color translations - say of an image of a green leaf, you need to go to a more "capable" utility. That is why I just want to go to something that will do everything correctly - right out of the gate. Adobe has developed a set of products Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop, and to maintain that product structure or progression, this is the price you pay.

Now that all the cameras are at least 12 bit color, and the advance ones at 14 bit color - using Elements with 8 bit color does have its limitations.

09-21-2016, 11:37 AM   #10
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Elements does not know what to do with the 16 bit shades. It is unable to cram 16 bits into its 8 bit data structures, so it converts them, there by loosing all of the 16 bits of shading.
Here is what don't understand and what drives me crazy
The monitor is basically 8 bit (24 for all 3 color channels). The jpeg is 8 bit. Mostly everything is in jpeg : online photos, prints and photobooks.
Still, I read about all that shade of 16 bit, and don't understand when practically I can use that importance if it will not be noticeable in jpeg printing and on monitors?
Or it will be? In theory - yes, I see those pictures of examples 16vs 8 bits on my monitor. But I see them from 8 bit monitor anyway!
Makes sense?
When do I need 16 bits tiff? And what for?

When I covert 16bit tiff to 8bit tiff in Elements, I don't see much difference on my monitor.

Last edited by micromacro; 09-21-2016 at 11:44 AM.
09-21-2016, 11:51 AM - 5 Likes   #11
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
I'm slowly exploring Photoshop elements, and noticed that for almost every operation I need to reformat image to 8 bit color depth.
I theory I understand the difference.
What I don't understand is where do I really need 16 bit? Printing? Bigger screen? Something else?
The 8-bit limitation for Elements is the number one reason why I don't use that tool. The big question is, why does that bother me? Below is a mix of computer fact and conventional wisdom mixed with personal experience:
  • Bit depth (how many data bits per color per pixel) determines both the number of and the values for the colors in your image
  • With 8-bit color, that provide 16.8 million colors (256 shades for each of red, green, and blue). The 256 figure is the important one.
  • Increasing the depth to 16 provides about 65,536 shades for red, green, and blue for a total of 281 trillion colors. Way overkill, right? Yes, your eyes cannot fully differentiate the millions of the 8-bit palette, much less 281 trillion! Again, the 65,536 figure is the important number.
  • Most people's eyes can easily differentiate most of the 256 shades of, say, true blue and therein lies the problem with 8-bit color (see fifth point on the next list)
The list above is very basic and there is actually more to it at the data and hardware level. Now how about a few practical considerations?
  • JPEG images are limited to 8-bit and lower
  • TIFF supports multiple bit depths, but 16-bit is most common
  • PNG supports either 8-bit or 16-bit color
  • RAW capture with a Pentax camera will either by 14-bit or 12-bit, depending on the camera
  • With 8-bit color, issues like banding of blue skies and/or sunsets are much more common. In short, subtle color gradations are more difficult to render.
  • While all adjustments in PP have the potential to generate artifact, the tendency to do so is much higher in an 8-bit working environment
  • Despite nominal support for 16-bit color, Photoshop Elements is, for all practical purposes, an 8-bit working environment and for most purposes and for most people that works fine. The processor and memory requirements are lower allowing for snappy response and fits well with the JPEG images that most people shoot.
  • I won't go into the full list of reasons (very involved), but staying with 8-bit JPEG has many advantages in terms of hardware requirements, file size, and image consistency between displays/media.
  • Photoshop, Lightroom, PaintShop Pro*, and several other tools provide a 16-bit work environment
  • Working at a higher bit depth allows for more robust editing (less artifact and better tone gradation) and more flexibility for print and screen output
  • You can work with 8-bit images in a 16-bit work environment, but the limitations (less data) of the image may affect the scope of what may be done without artifact
  • All of the above totally ignores the important considerations of display limitations, color gamut, and color space. For a detailed explanation of color in digital photography, I have found the tutorials at the Cambridge in Color Web site helpful:

    Tutorials on Color Management & Printing
Conventional wisdom for serious work goes like this:
  • Capture at high bit-depth and wide gamut (what we did not talk about above). Usually this requires RAW capture.
  • Edit at high bit-depth and wide gamut
  • Publish to the bit-depth and gamut of the target media. For the Web that generally means 8-bit JPEG in the sRGB color space (also not talked about above).
  • Note that the publication step may create unexpected shifts in color and contrast that the photographer should be aware of and should account for
I hope this helps.


Steve

* Many of PSP's features are 8-bit only. Its inclusion with the other tools is based on its color management capabilities in general.

Last edited by stevebrot; 09-21-2016 at 12:07 PM.
09-21-2016, 12:12 PM   #12
Veteran Member
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,722
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Conventional wisdom for serious work goes like this:
  • Capture at high bit-depth and wide gamut (what we did not talk about above). Usually this requires RAW capture.
  • Edit at high bit-depth and wide gamut
  • Publish to the bit-depth and gamut of the target media. For the Web that generally means 8-bit JPEG in the sRGB color space (also not talked about above).
  • Note that the publication step may create unexpected shifts in color and contrast that the photographer should be aware of and should account for
I hope this helps.

Steve, thanks.
By other words, it's better to edit image in high bit depth and publish in 8bit than to edit in 8bit and publish in 8bit.
And for fine art prints, if needed, contact decent pro lab for help.
Probably that's all I need to know before studying color management.
09-21-2016, 12:22 PM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,280
Even though the end result may be an 8-bit jpeg, processing in 16-bits still avoids all kinds of nasty things (like banding) happening along the way while you are shuffling bits and pixels to and fro by doing histogram adjustments, saturation and color curve edits etc, saving the 16->8bits conversion until the very end when it cannot do as much harm anymore. That's why it is imortant to process in 16 bits and why Elements is really limited.

Although I do not use any Adobe products, back when Gimp was still limited to 8-bits I used to do all of my image-wide edits in Digikam or Krita (both 16-bits editors) leaving only some spotting or cloning to be done in Gimp. Nowadays, the newer 2.9.4 version of Gimp is fully 16/32 bits and I do more with it for exactly the above reason.
09-21-2016, 12:29 PM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Steve, thanks.
By other words, it's better to edit image in high bit depth and publish in 8bit than to edit in 8bit and publish in 8bit.
And for fine art prints, if needed, contact decent pro lab for help.
Probably that's all I need to know before studying color management.
Yes, that is the gist. The main caution I might give is to be aware of color space in the "publish" step. If publishing to the Web, the safe bet is sRGB. There will be some changes to colors, but with most tools, those will be dealt with gracefully.


Steve
09-21-2016, 12:31 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 33,091
Lana, I was away for awhile, but Steve, newmikey & others pretty much covered everything. Elements may still work for many photographs, despite its limitations. It may function just fine for photos without gradients (an evening sky, etc). It should do well for happy snaps and kitty pics.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
8bit vs, adobe, bits, color, data, elements, images, photographers, photography, photoshop, shades
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
14-Bit vs. 12-Bit RAW Biro General Photography 10 04-21-2016 05:43 AM
14 Bit vs 12 Bit Raw Real Life Example cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 07-05-2013 01:44 PM
Raw: 14 bit vs 12 bit Wingincamera Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 11-03-2012 12:37 PM
16bit vs 8bit CS4 SuperAkuma Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 17 09-02-2009 05:14 AM
what is the difference bwt exporting to 8-bit or 16-bit tiffs? rdrum76 Photographic Technique 3 01-22-2009 01:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top