Kleinburg Kid Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Interesting discussion. I have a lot to learn!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I have. I wouldn't have made the comment otherwise. And my assessment is correct, here's a proof:

I took a camera generated JPEG. In Photoshop without editing I re-saved it as a 16 bit TIFF. I edited the JPEG using a parametric editor (C1) and my edits induced banding. I applied the exact same edit via C1 to the 16 bit TIFF. The same banding resulted. You can see for yourself in the illustration below. And if you think about it it's logical. If you place an insufficient amount of data into a larger container you still have the same insufficient amount of data.

Your belligerence does not serve you well.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As much as the RAW photographers espouse the benefits of RAW and bit-depth, your JPEGs have the exact same pixel resolution as the RAW files. As mentioned in a comment earlier, you want to maximize the quality and readiness of your JPEGs and then also post process. It's just that in post, your have less leeway of the adjustments vs RAW, hence the idea to maximize the JPEG.

By maximize, use the camera's picture style that matches closest to your intended result, maybe Standard, maybe Vivid, maybe Landscape. Also, use auto WB or use one of the camera's WB options that match your situation, or shoot a grey card. Expose to the right, just don't blow your highlights.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Converting an un-edited JPEG to 16-bit TIFF does not alter the image in any way. If there was banding, there will still be banding. Otherwise there will be none in the TIFF. However, it will now be 16-bit data.

Once you begin to edit the TIFF you will have the flexibility provided by 65536 possible TIFF values rather than only 256 possible JPEG values. Editing the TIFF will not introduce banding as quickly as it does in the 8-bit JPEG because there are 256x as many possible TIFF values as there are JPEG values.

Banding is caused by having to round off the adjustments (tone curve, gradient, etc.) to one of 256 possible integers. But the same adjustment in a 16-bit TIFF has more flexibility.

For example, a JPEG value of 128 will have a TIFF value of 32768. If you change that +/-0.5 units it will become either 127 or 129.

But the changing the TIFF by +/-128 units (the same amount of change as in the JPEG) will let the TIFF value range between 32640 to 32896. No no banding will be visible when it is printed or displayed on your 8-bit monitor. A 10-bit display will cut that range to +/-64 units free of banding.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

See proof above that you are wrong. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704864-2.html#12408265

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That doesn’t prove anything.

But it shows that you don’t understand binary math.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It proves what I said; that if you start with a camera JPEG, converting it to 16 bit TIFF before editing will not gain you an advantage and the same degradation that occurs editing the JPEG will also occur editing the TIFF. Anyone can repeat the test I just did.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are out of your depth again.

I knew more about math and binary numbers by the time I got out of elementary school than you do today.

I got my degree in mechanical engineering and made a living designing mathematical models.

Did you even make it out of high school? A social promotion? It’s not apparent that you understand math at all.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Normally I ignore your juvenile insults when you don't have anything to say about the topic. But in this case before you trash the thread, since it is a common myth, let's do another example for everyone's benefit.

First image below is the camera JPEG. I deliberately selected an old 10 megapixel JPEG so we can better see the damage and compare if the conversion to 16 bit helps. I only edited the sky to darken it and change the color. I was deliberately heavy handed so we can see if there's a difference.

The next two illustrations below are screenshots of the editing done in Photoshop. I opened the JPEG and immediately made a copy and converted it to 16 bit. I then applied precisely the same edits to both.

The final illustration is a 100% section of the sky from both files in which it's very clear the conversion to 16 bit was no use in mitigating the damage done by editing the 8 bit JPEG. Easy enough to prove -- anyone can download the JPEG I provided and try it themselves.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Nice try. But you are bluffing.

You still don’t understand the subject. You don’t have the capacity.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I'm with you there!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

How is hard evidence a bluff?

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Evidence of what?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Evidence that the common myth, that converting a JPEG to a 16 bit TIFF before editing mitigates damage that would be caused by editing the JPEG directly, is wrong.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Not at all.

We are looking for evidence that editing the TIFF is no better than editing the JPEG. You cannot provide that.

You are grasping at straws.