The Wheel of Time turns, grinding DSLRs into dust, leaving memories that soon become legend, where not even the Wise of UHH can still remember the technical details.

Why are you casually intermingling pixel resolution with bit-depth with colorspace? I usually ignore your 20-page back n forth with other members on technical details. I'm starting to see why they get that long ....

It's hard to understand the workflow, which might be the root-cause of the issue.

Let's assume we start with a RAW file, and a digital editor that works against the native RAW, with a further assumption of the ProPhotoRGB colorspace. In this workflow, you probably can simply skip the TIFF, as well as avoid banding issues in a single output JPEG for printing.

Let's see the TIFF output compared to the JPEG output, where each file is just the output from the digital editor from a fully edited (completed) B&W image. That's not my understanding of the workflow used to create the initial examples.

Moreover, can the base contention of the thread be replicated in multiple relevant software, rather than possibly a C1-specific result?

If the D3400 supports an AF-P lens, the suggested 70-300 is a choice. As I remember it, there are both an DX and FX versions of the AF-P 70-300 zooms. You might need to update the firmware on the D3400 to enable a AF-P lens, although Rockwell says the D3400 'natively' supports the AF-P. You might also look at the Tamron 18-400, or any of Nikons many 18-xxx DX VR models, such as the 18-200 or 18-140, etc.

I haven't used the 200-400 w/ extender. You might want to check the specs and the length of the lens, relative to the 300L. Personally, I'd just bring the 1.4x in a pocket and the 300L for the usage you described.

The age of the DSLR is over. The time of the MILC has come!

For breakfast I had the final three home-made sourdough pancakes, with real Canadian Maple syrup and Irish butter. These details too have nothing to do with anything related to 16-bit TIFF image files...

A 24MP NEF from a D7100 sits on disk as 23.3MB file. I yanked it into LR6 and exported as a JPEG at 100% quality, giving a file as 20MB. Then, exporting as a 16-bit TIFF (no compression), I get a file at 137MB. 'Time' has nothing to do with any of these three byte-size observations of a 24 megapixel digital file. Or, more exactly, time is as nonsensical as the breakfast menu options today ....

Alas, mixing pixel resolution and uncompressed data in a 16-bit TIFF format is unproductive (i.e., even less useful to a technical discussion ....)

Useless? yep.

1, Where are you going to find someone online to receive and print your ENORMOUS 16-bit TIFF?

2, Didn't you shoot in RAW and edit in that native RAW format with a qualified digital editor? The sRGB export to JPEG properly mapped all those colors with no color banding; hence, no issue.

Who are you writing too? The OP, who opened this post in 2013??

Photo Gallery.

Check the idea about the drive mode. The flash not having time to recycle for a burst of images might be an indication of this setting being a problem.

Use your <quote reply> for a clearer discussion, using directed replies.

Hooray!!

Reading other people's stories can give you inspiration and hope and the confidence you can afford a mirrorless camera.

Creativity takes the courage to enter the proper text into the AI generation window.