16-bit vs 8-bit output, decided difference?

"Fine-art" and "giclee" printing are elusive subjects within themselves. Here's another: 16-bit vs 8-bit final image file used for printing.
Practice: 16-bit files (LightRoom and CS5) used throughout the file-tweaking stage along with AdobeRGB for wider gamut. All well and good.
The ending large print, 16-vs-8, is there an actual and perceptive difference? (coming out of high-end Epson machines, 11880 as an example). 16-bit files often become huge (storage, transmission). Theoretical advantage is understandable . . . but what about in real life?
Another aspect is PPI (pixels per inch file sizing). One high-end print service says 200 ppi is all that's needed. Are there any concrete answers when sending work out?

I use Millers exclusively and their requirements are normally for no more than 240 ppi. I've been totally pleased with the results.

Jim

I only print files at 16 bit that have complex gradations in the smooth areas or other areas of fine detail that loses detail at 8 bit. That, in reality for me is few files. Most of the images I print at 20x30 or larger I do so at 240 ppi (Epson printers) and they look great. I have gone as low as 180 for really large files and the reduction in fine detail is made up for in smaller more manageable file size and the increased viewing distance. Only other photographers view large prints at a foot or less. The general public back up in order to get the view and feel of the image.

In the real world you are likely going to be able to print in 8 bit for most of your images and the real way to tell is to print both and see if you see a difference. Pro labs such as Miller's, WHCC or Bay Photo will all print on their chemical machines (Chromera, LightJet etc.) at 8 bit and usually in sRGB format so 16 bit will be of no benefit there.

I do however, convert into 16 bit from RAW and keep my master files in 16 bit format just so I always have it but everything sized for printing is sample down to 8 bit except for those that require it. Hope that helps.

Thanks, Les, I appreciate your seasoned input. I otherwise use Miller's and their chemical machines and results at 20 x 30 are always excellent (mounting issues sometimes a problem, less than flat-flat surface). Millers won't even accept anything but Jpeg, sRGB only, and they even suggest saving a file in PhotoShop at quality level "10" instead of the max 12. Their gurus saying "10 greatly reduces file size and there isn't much of, if any, visual difference."
All of the above stands is stark contrast to legend, lore, and possibly fact - about giclee printing and that of so-called "fine-art" paper. I haven't yet used it, on the verge of trying. Artists that use it wax eloquently about the process. Then again, artists can at times be a bit dreamy-eyed. Giclee/fine-art printing opens Pandora's box when it comes to allowed file types: 16-bit, psd,Tiff, AdobeRGB, etc. that can easily balloon file sizes into the stratosphere.
"More is better" is, of course, always the mantra; theoretically - yes. With a discernible visual difference in the printed image (and at double or triple the cost), that is the $64 question. Likewise the 16-bit vs submitting a downsized 8-bit file.
I'd be inclined to say: the more I've read on the giclee/fine-art subject, the less I understand. Opinions that are all over the map, yet few seem to genuinely know - other than reverting to the "more is better" theme, or the other "but that's the way we've always done it." I have no desire to try to reinvent the wheel. In graphic design Less is More. The best print at the smallest file size - Amen!

okie wrote:Thanks, Les, I appreciate your seasoned input. I otherwise use Miller's and their chemical machines and results at 20 x 30 are always excellent (mounting issues sometimes a problem, less than flat-flat surface). Millers won't even accept anything but Jpeg, sRGB only, and they even suggest saving a file in PhotoShop at quality level "10" instead of the max 12. Their gurus saying "10 greatly reduces file size and there isn't much of, if any, visual difference."

I agree with the level 10 on JPEGS. I never use 12. If I need it I send a TIFF.

okie wrote: All of the above stands is stark contrast to legend, lore, and possibly fact - about giclee printing and that of so-called "fine-art" paper. I haven't yet used it, on the verge of trying. Artists that use it wax eloquently about the process. Then again, artists can at times be a bit dreamy-eyed. Giclee/fine-art printing opens Pandora's box when it comes to allowed file types: 16-bit, psd,Tiff, AdobeRGB, etc. that can easily balloon file sizes into the stratosphere.
"More is better" is, of course, always the mantra; theoretically - yes. With a discernible visual difference in the printed image (and at double or triple the cost), that is the $64 question. Likewise the 16-bit vs submitting a downsized 8-bit file.
I'd be inclined to say: the more I've read on the giclee/fine-art subject, the less I understand. Opinions that are all over the map, yet few seem to genuinely know - other than reverting to the "more is better" theme, or the other "but that's the way we've always done it." I have no desire to try to reinvent the wheel. In graphic design Less is More. The best print at the smallest file size - Amen!

Quite often less is more and I tend to saty on the small file size side of things...use only as much as you need and no more. However, that does not apply to my master files which are worked up as 16 Bit files with layers intact. I can always go smaller, harder to go up. Good luck and let us know how you do.