TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It depends on the operation in post processing and the type of image . If you are working with curves or other operations that modify certain portions of the image and/or the portion involves a large smooth gradient such as a sky, you can certainly create and see artifacts such as banding. My question to you would be, do you shoot and edit only 8bit JPEGs? If not and you shoot raw at either 12 or 14 bits, why would you then reduce that to 8 bits for editing? It is true that many displays or printed images are limited to 8bits (although there are 10bit displays now available), but that doesn’t mean that your entire workflow, especially editing, can’t benefit from from a larger color space, and I’m betting many/most pros would agree, which is why they’re using 16bit tools in LR/PS instead of Elements.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

That was mostly the point of my previous reply - I am not a pro, and I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference. I actually do very minimal editing I'm usually happy enough with what the camera outputs, and typically apply some small adjustments to contrast and brightness (done with the histogram view in GIMP), a small amount of sharpening, and rarely, a color temp adjustment. I have tried to use darkroom to edit the RAW file, but it's more work, and usually the camera did a good job when it converted to jpeg. Right now with my new R5, I don't have that option anyway, as UFRaw, which underlies darkroom, doesn't yet support it. Since I am happy with it, and I don't have to worry about editors, I don't worry about 8 bit vs 10/12/14/16 bit per channel. And the 8 bit channels keeps the memory requirements during processing much lower. The OP is not a pro, doesn't require the higher color resolution, so why let it bog down his work flow?

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

I use photoshop 7 I have you by 5 years and I agree that the time has come to narrow my vistas. I rarely work with larger than 11x14 images in photoshop because they use too many pixels. Most of my work is done on this size.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

GIMP 10.20 does indeed support 16 bit color which is what I export from PhotoNinja to GIMP. I am not fully conversant on 8 bit vs 16 bit so I cannot comment on that. However someone told me that you should dance with the prettiest girl so I try to stay within the 16 bit space. With my issue of slow processing perhaps that is not the best choice. Sure is food for thought.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Indeed, with night photography getting the best image without introducing extraneous artifacts is a constant concern. I find I am almost always right on the edge of what PP can accomplish so I am pushing myself, my equipment and my programs. A slow computer is a distraction I don't want to deal with but at the same time I am not ready to drop several thousand dollars if there are other ways to get what I want.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Thank you, you have captured the essence of my query.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Thanks for adding your thoughts!

Nigel7 Loc: Worcestershire. UK.

The simple principle I have always followed is based on the pixel per inch resolution of the picture. The ideal (top quality glossy magazine standard) is 300 ppi. However you probably wouldn't notice the difference if you took it down to 220 ppi. For a 24x18 inch picture that means 7200x5400 pixels ideally but 5280x3960 ppi would probably be fine.