Thomas T. Veldhouse added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

I didn't say it was trivial. I said it doesn't require the
user to be advanced. My daughter was using my computer with
Adobe Lightroom on it and she picked up how to use it on her
own. She is 14 and by no means a computer whiz. Further, she
did it without my help, as she was editting [JPEG] files she
took on her P&S. However, working with RAW and 16-bit in this
environment is nearly transparent.

There's an old saying that covers my view on this: "the algorithm
to solve this problem or that one is straigt-forward but not
trivial. So, I would submit that if what you learned through the
school of hard knocks you readily admit isn't trivial, it likely
also is not for novices or the faint of heart.

So, I would ask you or anyone implying that 16-bit and RAW
are simple to learn to consider the needs, wants, and time
budget of us lesser homo sapiens. Thank you.

I never once used the words "simple to learn". I said you
don't have to be advanced. There are plenty of books out
there on RAW workflow that are pretty good, and you are free
to read them. Further, there are many websites as well, which
are free for your viewing pleasure.

I have scoured my local bookstores and their on-line stores
looking for exactly what you describe, but every one I've come
across so far assumes I have either PS CS or PS Elements, while I
have PSP 9 and like it. So, workflow tutorials would be quite
helpful to me, but NOT when they are illustrated with photographs
shot off a PhotoShop screen with the steps involved. I also have
the last version of Raw Shooter Premium before Adobe bought them,
killed it, and launched Lightroom. It has these really nifty 89-
page manual, but it is a reference manual and assumes I already
know what I want to do and why and simply tells me what tools I
want. What it is NOT is a leg-up on the learning curve, which I
find so steep that RAW is outside the range of my radar and sonar
for time management reasons.

You didn't quite answer my question. What I am curious about
is if any cameras or scanners can output a FULL 16-bit color
bitmap and are there any apps that can process all 16 across
their entire function/tool/feature set. I understand the loss
if a 12- bit RAW is downgraded to 8-bit anything, especially
JPEG, so I'm still in inquisative mode.


The image is FULL 16-bit color. The ADC and source sensor may
or may not be 16-bit. Most modern DSLR source at 12-bit and a
couple new ones claim 14-bit. My old Nikon Coolscan had a
14-bit ADC in it as well, but 16-bit was available for a
premium. Moving from 12-bit to 16-bit should incur no loss,
and indeed, it offers additional room for manipulation (so it
is even worthwhile to convert 8-bit to 16-bit and then do your
manipulations and finally convert back to 8-bit for printing
or what have you).

Excuse my denseness, but a "full" 16-bit image of which only 12
or 14 bits are usuable, is NOT what I meant. You just confirmed
my supposition, nobody is yet actually producing images that have
legitimate data in all 16 bits.

Now, I have never met anyone who didn't think their own
pictures could be made better. I've not asked you, but then,
we don't know each other well. But, I use both the 80/20 Rule
and the Law of Diminshing Returns to govern how much time and
effort to devote to any editing task.

I tend to preprocess in groups. I went out to the Bad Lands
of South Dakota last June followed by the Black Hills. I
processed all the photos from a given session at one time in
just a couple of minutes. Then I look for photos that I might
like to further work with. That often happens months later
BTW. I find the photo of interest and look more closely,
perhaps correct for chromatic aberation if it exists,
exposure, color, curves. I might even get more creative and
create a composite or do some HDR work sourcing from several
frames. My point though, is that the initial processing is
usually quite fast and pretty high level.

What can I say? You're obviously better/faster than I am. I
applaud you for that skill, I simply don't have it and many of my
friends who are fellow car show and musueum photographers are in
about the same boat as I am.

Some of my car pictures are easy enough to
do in a few minutes, most are in the 15-20 minute range, and
a sizable enough number get into 30, 60, more. Since I am a
documentary rather than a creative or artistic photographer
of cars, I have many other interests than spending all day on
a small series of cars shot at an outdoor show or museum with
or without flash. Again, people hereabouts run a really wide
gamut of skills, but much more importantly, not everybody
wants, much less needs, all the sophistication. My daughter,
for example, does just a quicky crop and resame down and
takes here SD card to Meijer to print 4x6. That's all she
wants. I can't argue with her logic even though I disagree
because she's an adult who has the freedom to do what she
pleases with her time and money.

Sounds like you are in need of a workflow. Again, I suggest a
good book, but won't suggest a specific book to you at this
time. I recommend you consider a RAW workflow as well, but
that is up to you.

Do not asssume I have no workflow. I clearly do. In fact, to help
friends that are just getting into digital photography, I have
codified my workflow into 10 basic steps and about 3 pages of
text. Just because I have a finite algorithm - the workflow -
does NOT even begin to address the issues that confront me that
take far longer. Perhaps the biggest problem stems from extremes
in dynamic range tonal characteristics across the entire car or
key parts of it. Simply doing a 5 minute global tweak doesn't cut
it. If it did, I'd have cut my workflow to just 2 or 3 steps and
been a lot happier than I am.

NO, I am simply NOT going to spend time and effort, both of which
are in very short supply with me, beating my head against a stone
wall because people in this NG like RAW so much they become
zealots. I understand the fundamental concepts and why it is
better, but you and several others need to understand that not
everybody is cut out for that.

/I/ know that both size and compression have a greater or
lesser effect on final technical quality, but did the OP in
this thread? His OP was down so low in the grass, he wanted
just a simple recommendation as to how to start taking "good"
pictures, and never came back - I don't think - to even
clarify his criteria for "good".

Perhaps he read what he needed and just lurks. Usenet threads
often mutate and that is an expected occurance on USENET (or
any threaded forum).

I think the OP here, like so many, got completely blown away from
my middle-ground technical discussions and yours, blowing him out
to sea with wild stories about 16-bit color and RAW when all he
likely wants to do is what my daughter does - just get a fairly
decent 4 x 6 prints at Meijer, she simply isn't at all interested
in being an accomplished digital photographer. So, what would you
say to her, that's she's just as stupid and stubborn as I am just
because we have alternative views from your own? Surely some of
the advanced people in this NG that get into the range of what I
call elitists and image bigots must recognize that there isn't
one right way to do things, there are literally hundreds of ways.

EOT.

--
HP, aka Jerry