8 bit and 16 bit

[Ronniebootwest]

Members of this forum are lucky because they have access to experts in 'digital photography' who are always ready to assist with any question. I have such a question. It is not my intention to dig up old bones but rather to stimulate some lively discussion on the pros and cons of image manipulation for a PTE slide show. We all aim for the very best quality for our images don't we? Well how can we get the 'very best quality' if we are limited to jpeg and a resolotion of 72 (ish).

My camera produces a 'RAW' image size of 3504 X 2336 X 300 res and I process these as 16 bit images. The result is a huge file of excellent quality. Then comes the down side! I have to reduce these files to suit PTE (1024 X 768 X 72 X 8bit) and the quality is definiely affected.

My question for you digital Guru's is this, "Do you think that there is any benefit in processing a RAW image to 16 bit mode and then post procesing colour adjustments etc., or would it be better to process directly to 8 bit as a 1024 X 768 X 72 image?"

Ron

[Maureen]

Happy Christmas Ron

To obtain the very best image always do all corrections if you can in Raw mode first.

Secondly to work with digital Audio Visual photography you have crossed an invisible boundary,

leaving all print work aside you become a projectionist.

A projectionist should totally forget all this 72 dpi business because it is the machine you use to project which has a mind of its own and picks the resolution.

All you do need to give it, is the image size in pixels.

Not any "pixels per inch" as you are NOT dealing with ink on paper.

the quality is definitely affected

This is not PTE's fault but could be due to your projection mode or settings.

Please don't use the brightness/contrast settings in Photoshop - these are used by beginners,

and it is far better to practise using the curves settings, much finer control.

Only ever use slight sharpening as the last thing you ever do to an image & then do so on a layer (use alt merge visible on a new layer then apply sharpening)

can we get the 'very best quality' if we are limited to jpeg

Yes we can if we use the tools correctly.

In the end it is the image which matters.

Having super brand new equipment does not mean you always know how to

have an eye for a good image, or know how to best use the new technology.

Many people keep their old standard equipment and produce breath taking (and prize winning) results (not that those two always go together)

Hope this helps

Happy Christmas

Maureen

[Ken Cox]

have a go here Ron

http://www.scantips.com/basics1f.html

http://www.scantips.com/

ken

[JohnFeg]

For preparing images, after they come from the camera, it is probably easier to ignore that they will be used in PTE. I don't think many people prepare images exclusively for PTE.

Therefore, consider only what you need to do to obtain the best prints.

I shoot mainly in RAW and can set my Camera RAW Reader to automatically open at 16bits (Canon)

BUT, Even when I take Jpegs, they are converted to 16bit Native Photoshop, before any processing is done.

The reduction in image degradation, in so doing, is well worth carrying out this simple chore.

Next, files are converted back to 8 bit and resized for the purpose/s they will serve. In the case of images for PTE slideshows, it's 1024x876px. I set a resolution of 72px because I retain a disk backup and that keeps the file size down.

Will be glad to hear what others do, particularly if they disagree with my method.

Best wishes to all for a very Merry Christmas & prosperous New Year

[Ronniebootwest]

Hello Ebonist,

Thanks for your comments, it seems that you and I on the same wave length! One question though - when you process your RAW images, do you 'sharpen' (focus) then in your raw processing software or wait until all post processing is done in photoshop?

Maureen, I am very happy with your suggestions - thank you very much. You suggest that the sharpening of images should be carried out last but you also state that 'all image manipulation shoud be done in the raw processing stage'. I am confused a little, please see my above reply to Ebonist and perhaps you would care to comment, i.e. should sharpening be done in the raw processor?

Ron.

[Guest damor]

Members of this forum are lucky because they have access to experts in 'digital photography' who are always ready to assist with any question. I have such a question. It is not my intention to dig up old bones but rather to stimulate some lively discussion on the pros and cons of image manipulation for a PTE slide show. We all aim for the very best quality for our images don't we? Well how can we get the 'very best quality' if we are limited to jpeg and a resolotion of 72 (ish).

My camera produces a 'RAW' image size of 3504 X 2336 X 300 res and I process these as 16 bit images. The result is a huge file of excellent quality. Then comes the down side! I have to reduce these files to suit PTE (1024 X 768 X 72 X 8bit) and the quality is definiely affected.

My question for you digital Guru's is this, "Do you think that there is any benefit in processing a RAW image to 16 bit mode and then post procesing colour adjustments etc., or would it be better to process directly to 8 bit as a 1024 X 768 X 72 image?"

Ron

Hi,

hope this makes sense to somebody.

I think that it depends on which you think as a photogrpher. Firstly,

nowadays a lot of beginers, and quite a few more advanced, tend to shoot digital images without any thought

to setting the "custom white balance" for the lighting they are using. They then rely too much on

photoshop for correcting any faults.

I have been taught, told and read that if you have the RAW facility, then use it because it will enable you to capture much more detail. thus reducing the need for manipulation.

when converting a RAW image personaly I do as little as possible and never sharpen an image unless it needs to be done. If I do, it is never saved sharpened, but applied as the last operation prior to sending it to the printer. photshop seems to do the job much better than any RAW converter I have found,even with adobes new update on their converter. Try using the ( sorry original post should have said HIGH PASS filter NOT THRESSHOLD) on a layer then change the blend to hard light or soft light which ever suits it best..

The term 8bit refers to information held in a colour channel when we speak in terms of RGB. if we take an image ,say a JPEG, then each channel holds 8 bits. Add the three together then that would equal a 24 bit image.

RAW images hold 16bits per channel which = 48 bits.

In the Early days of Photoshop it could only handle an 8 bit per channel image for manipulation,

today, it can handle more operations in 16bit mode.

If I intend to take an image, I try to take it to its limits for future use, eg.print or projection and shoot at as high a res' as possible, this gives me far greater scope.

Because of the differences in rendition of an image, It has been my short experience with PTE that it is better to keep on the smaller side for projection ie 8bits per, if you like, (smaller file size) 1024x768 at 300ppi, this gives me a file of around 2mb as bigger file "upsets my computer that always complains".But. 16bits at what ever dimentions, (inches) at 300ppi for printing. file size will vary. I get very satisfactory results this way. I cannot see much difference with 8 bit and 16 bit projected images to be honest as projection time is limited to seconds and certainly would not be able to by just looking. unless one used very low res' (ppi) images.and scrutinised it closely But the difference can show when printed.

Dave

[ContaxMan]

I'm so glad Maureen dealt with the 72 nonsense.

As for the rest, PS CS does 16 bits so so do I. Why degrade images before you have to. As far as I'm concerned, do the best you can with the raw material, regardless of how it will be presented.

In short 16 bits best (for now anyway), OK.

[davegee]

Hi all,

16 bit and 300ppi all the way thro' until I convert to JPEG using Box Top Pro JPEG at around 400Kb (in Box Top you set the file size - not the quality).

Sharpening set at "normal" in camera (D70).

A little High Pass Sharpening if required after sizing to 1280 or 1024 pixels wide (at 300ppi).

DaveG

[Lin Evans]

There are actually two issues here - to simplify. First is the issue of image processing to get the bet image for the intended purpose. What one does to a digital image for "print" purposes, and what one does for "display" purposes are often a good bit different.

For print purposes the image is captured in either RAW or jpg then processed accordingly. The RAW image has the advantage of having the full bit complement and can be adjusted for a variety of things such as levels, color balance, saturation, white balance, exposure, etc., before converting to either tiff or jpg. The primary difference in a print ready file and a display file is size and sharpness. Sharpening should ordinarily be done after all interpolation and for print output it's generally overshapened as compared to what one would want for display purposes.

The jpg file must be post processed as the 8 bit file it is unless it's first converted to tiff where it can be set to either eight or sixteen bit or even saved as a proprietary format in PhotoShop, etc., Of course if you plan to save the work and visit it again it needs to be saved and manipulated in a lossless format such as tiff until you either display it or archive it.

As Maureen covered, the 72 ppi or 180 ppi, etc., is simply a print "tag" which determines how many pixels per inch will be the chosen density at a particular print size. This has absolutely zero to do with display image quality. Most present day computer screens will display at somewhere around 96 pixel per inch so when a file has a particular size such as 1600 horizontal by 1200 vertical (about 2 megapixels) it will display on a 1:1 ratio when the video card is set to a resolution of 1600x1200 pixels. It would be too large to see completely at one time on a 1024x768 resolution screen, etc., so the display size should be chosen accordingly.

Just make your images look like you wish them to appear (assuming you have calibrated your monitor) and size them according to your intended audience. If you plan to project them then set the image size in pixels to correspond to the projector's resolution (800x600 - 1024x768, etc.). If you plan to put them on a DVD then my suggestion would be to either crop them to the final aspect ratio of the display or pay careful attention to the software being used so that you don't loose the important portion of your image to necessary crops for maintaining the proper aspect ratio on a TV monitor.

As for file compression, I would suggest trying to keep the overall file size down to under 300KB to avoid overstressing the hardware and promoting a smooth slide response.

Forget trying to display you image for slideshow purposes in the same quality you would for still image at full resolution - it's just not feasible to expect quite as much because of the tremendous variation in the client equipment. Some who play your shows will have low resolution screen displays and mediocre video cards with minimal memory while others will have state of art equipment. The "art" is in compromise to get the best overall presentation without loosing those in your audience who are equipment challenged.

Best regards,

Lin

[JRR]

Don't forget to save in sRBG for most situtations.

All the photoshop work can be for nought if the colour isn't "there".

[Maureen]

Hi Ron

Sharpening should always be the very last thing you do to an image.

For those still quoting 72 dpi and 300 dpi with an image size 2.25m ....

all images at 1024 pixels by 768 pixels will become 2.25 mb

Still unconvinced..

Try opening a large image then go to image size,

untick resample image and set the resolution to 72 dpi

then retick resample image

and set width to 1024 pixels

height to 768 pixels

Image size will drop to 2.25 m

Go back to open the original image again (use history)

Repeat above using 300dpi or any number you like to use

and your final image will still be 2.25 m with all the same information.

Open the original large image and use the crop tool set at

1024pixels by 768 pixels BUT leave the resolution box BLANK

The final image size will be 2.25 m

Still not convinced .......reread Scantips

http://www.scantips.com/basics1f.html

http://www.scantips.com/

For workflow with Photoshop .......

Book published in April 2005

Photoshop CS2 Workflow: The Digital Photographer's Guide (Paperback)

by Tim Grey Price: $26.39 from Amazon.com (read the reviews)

Step-by-Step Processing of Photographs using Photoshop 6 & 7

Photoshop workflow for digital photography (digital workflow)

I agree with this quote ..........

Unfortunately, there is no one workflow that fits all situations. Workflow should vary depending on the photograph, the corrections it needs, your shooting mode (jpeg or raw), and your planned output.

taken from this web site ....

Photoshop Workflow for Photographers

Hope this helps,

BW

Maureen

[bjc]

This topic has raised some interesting issues. So, I thought I would add my personal thoughts on these matters ( for what they’re worth !? ).

8bit or 16bit ~~ if you have the option to shoot in RAW, then do so. The benefits in doing so are both current and futuristic. Current because, for all situations outside ‘perfect lighting conditions’ RAW offers immeasurably more control over post exposure image correction. Futuristic because RAW files are effectively ‘unprocessed negatives’, on-going improvements in RAW file converters will mean that RAW files captured today have the potential to be improved upon in the future as superior software comes along. I have recently been re-working a selection of RAW files captured back in 1999,,, thanks to CS2 (et al) I can now improve ‘significantly’ on the quality of these images by comparison with what was possible back then.

It is not a bad idea to work on images opened up in 16bit – most DSLR’s shoot in 12bit (4096 brightness levels) – working in 16bit will retain all those brightness levels as opposed to 8bit (with only 256 brightness levels) – however – the benefits of doing so will only become apparent when ‘extensive’ tonal adjustments are applied to an image after opening,,, under ‘normal’ conditions little (if any) real world benefit is gained presupposing that all the important adjustments have been made at the conversion stage (exposure/colour/contrast/etc).

72dpi ~~ as Maureen has correctly mentioned – the dpi rating of an image has no bearing on its screen size (slideshow/web page/etc) – a 1024x768 pixel image will fill a monitor screen set to a screen resolution of 1024x768, be that a 14” monitor or a 21” monitor, and irrespective of whether the image is set to 50dpi or 500dpi – nor does the dpi rating of an image effect it’s file size when saved – dpi relates ONLY to the physical size of an image on paper.

Sharpening ~~ there are many differing opinions as to WHEN sharpening should be applied to an image – but it is worth pointing out that if you are working on full-size images, and then resampling down for slideshow usage, your images will almost certainly require further sharpening (even if sharpening has already been applied) as down-sizing an image actually softens it. For those who frequently work on slideshow production it’s well worth the effort to develop your own Photoshop Action which can be made to re-size / apply sharpening (etc.etc.etc.) and save the current image as a JPG to a folder of your choosing even whilst still working on a layered PSD file. Such Actions can also by ‘played’ on entire folders full of ready-prepared images, or even directly on RAW files, potentially enabling the entire contents of a slideshow to be produced fully automatically for you whilst you check-out your emails (as if !?). For those with CS2, the “Image Processor” will do likewise ~ able to produce a JPG / TIFF / PSD (or even all three at once) at any given size, to any folder of your choosing, including the application of Actions, from any folder of images or pre-set selection of images in Bridge.

bjc

[Ronniebootwest]

Don't forget to save in sRBG for most situtations.

All the photoshop work can be for nought if the colour isn't "there".

Hi Jim, This statement of yours is very interesting, why srgb? I thought that most folk use RGB.

[Guest damor]

yes,lets get the ball rolling.

PPI refers to the ....

1.Image resolution. that is the amount of pixels the image will contain.

the lower the number of pixels in an image, the less information it will contain. Resulting in a poorer imageallround whether it is displayed on screen or printed

The higher the number of pixels an image has, more information is held. Result...better quality image. again whether it is printed or projected.

Adobe ps (X) resize dialogue makes no reference to DPI. It only deals with PPI

DPI refers to printer resolution ..dots per inch and determins how much ink is laid down on the paper.

ie 720 dpi or 1440. or even 360 dpi. some printers even print above these figures.

the lower the dpi.....results in a poorer quality print. INK on PAPER not Screen or image information.

most modern prtinters use a micro spray to lay the ink down and dpi gives us a guide to control the qualty.

Dave

ps.

(in a nutshell) srgb is the new color space that is used in "camera technology" applying the same "color space to your imaging application ( photoshop etc) will do away with colour mismatches. More for the printing industry than us. footnote

Adobe was not produced for photographers it was originaly for the graphics people but did allow for photography/ due to the suuden impact of digital photography Elements was born which was aimed at the Snappers of this world.

[Ronniebootwest]

I am very pleased with the responses in this thread, I guessed that the subject would rouse you 'Gurus'

It is a fantastic learning curve for even the most experienced!

I am curious about one thing now, SHARPENING. I am aware that most experts always suggest that this should be done as the last thing before printing and, in fact, that has been what I have always done. However, I recently purchased the RAW processor from Phase One (It was highly recommended) and I note that they refer to sharpening as 'FOCUS'. They also alow you to choose between 'standart look' and soft look' I have tried all combinations from no sharpening to maximum 400 sharpening. I must confess to liking the 'Soft' setting at 300. This of course detracts from the statement that 'sharpening should always be done LAST'

Ron

[Guest damor]

I am very pleased with the responses in this thread, I guessed that the subject would rouse you 'Gurus'

It is a fantastic learning curve for even the most experienced!

I am curious about one thing now, SHARPENING. I am aware that most experts always suggest that this should be done as the last thing before printing and, in fact, that has been what I have always done. However, I recently purchased the RAW processor from Phase One (It was highly recommended) and I note that they refer to sharpening as 'FOCUS'. They also alow you to choose between 'standart look' and soft look' I have tried all combinations from no sharpening to maximum 400 sharpening. I must confess to liking the 'Soft' setting at 300. This of course detracts from the statement that 'sharpening should always be done LAST'

Ron

Hi Ron,

not having tried the RAW p' from Phase One, I wonder about what they refer to as "standard" that is whos standard? Also wondering if they are calling "sharpening by a different name". FOCUS pssibly does the same anyway. However, After a few years of playing with PS and doing a lot of layer work.I found that if I use the unsharp mask to sharpen the uncompleted image and apply it " add, if and item" there would most certainly be a horrible result, eg, halo of various unimaginable colour around the edges of.... foliage for further example.

so, sharpening the image last, as you know, gives you the chance of applying the filter to the whole image and not bit by bit, not saving the image as sharpened allows you to adjust it if you want a different effect,

or to correct any mistakes at a latter date.

Cheers,

Dave.

[davegee]

Hi Ron,

Regarding sRGB.

Try this:

If like me you work in RGB try saving an RGB file as a JPEG at a suitable size for PTE.

Then do the same thing (same file) except for changing to sRGB immediately before saving as a JPEG.

See if you can tell the difference between the two versions?

DaveG

[Ronniebootwest]

[quote except for changing to sRGB immediately before saving as a JPEG.

[JRR]

Hi Jim, This statement of yours is very interesting, why srgb? I thought that most folk use RGB.

Ron:

Yes I agree most people do use RGB.

I brought this up a few weeks ago in the forum and had a mixed reaction...

RGB for on screen veiwing is fine when you use a colour managed software, but computers handle sRGB better when not in colour managed software. I don't pretend to be an expert as to why, I have just been advised of this by many different people and have seen the difference.

I understand most folks use sRGB for posting images to the net.

At our photo club for various reasons, we switched from colour managed to non-colour managed software for projecting images in competitions and people wondered why their images looked so bad. Many have switched to sRBG for submissions and have seen a marked improvement.

It has been the same with AVs, one person changed her entire show from RGB to sRGB and was VERY happy with the change on the screen.

You can change the working space in PhotoShop EDIT>Colour Settings.

Perhaps a few of the techies can enter this discussion

[JohnFeg]

Ron and Dave,

i) I've never considered using the sharpening facilities offered by my RAW converter. From the comments added by others, to this most rewarding discussion, there seems a general consensus on this.

ii) I'd be grateful if Dave would expand a little on his comment regarding the use of the High-pass filter and Hard/Soft Light blending modes.

iii) I'm going to test out the idea of re-sharpening images intended for PTE, something that I hadn't thought about .

To make for an objective trial, intend making up a presentation comprising, say 3 images - a landscape, a portrait and something with lots of edges (buildings?) and processing each image with increasing degrees of secondary sharpening.

It will have to wait until the New Year, so there is plenty of time to make suggestions!

And:

To add another alternative to the choice of colour spaces, I have, over the past 3 years, exclusively used Adobe RBG both as a camera and as a Photoshop setting. I'm very pleased with the results this gives.

John

[MikeL117]

Ron:

Yes I agree most people do use RGB.

...

Perhaps a few of the techies can enter this discussion

Hi folks

To put the record straight.

RGB is a colour MODE where the image is stored as Red, Green and Blue data. There are others: LAB, CMYK etc. for display using AV software including PTE we all use only RGB.

sRGB (sRGB IEC6166-2.1 to give it its full name) is a colour profile this tells the computer how to interpret the actual numbers stored in the RGB file to the colours displayed. sRGB has what is known as a restricted gamut profile which means that not every colour that can be displayed exists in its tables. This may seem to be a bad thing but it also means that most devices can display all the colours that sRGB knows about so there should be little or no CHANGE in colours between different devices if they are properly calibrated to sRGB. sRGB is very well supported and even if it is not directly supported it is likely that its own proprietary colour space is very close to sRGB. sRGB was designed as a display colour space.

If you are producing images ONLY for AV it is a good idea to work in sRGB throughout.

That said if you want the very best quality then one of the wider gamut spaces should be used for all the processing then converted to sRGB on a flattened copy before re-sizing and final sharpening for display. AdobeRGB (1998) is a good profile to use that will give you much better reds and this is now directly supported by some of the better digital cameras. If you are using a RAW workflow then ProPhoto RGB is the widest commonly available, this knows about more colours than can be generated by most output devices. If you are likely to be doing much messing about with your images then ProPhoto RGB will preserve more colours so that when you finally convert to your output profile you will still have all the colours you need (like using 16bit files there is more headroom to play with). Others have custom profiles made depending on their particular workflow.

Hope this makes some sort of sense.

Mike

PS

There are no hard and fast rules about sharpening only guides. That is why there are many heated debates on when and how much to apply. If you can see that an image has been sharpened then it is probably too much unless it is used for an effect. All images from the present generation of digital cameras need some sharpening at some stage unless you want the soft look. It is usually a good idea to sharpen last but there are many places in the processing of an image when it is apropriate to apply some sharpening (like just after re-sizing).

[Guest damor]

Ron and Dave,

i) I've never considered using the sharpening facilities offered by my RAW converter. From the comments added by others, to this most rewarding discussion, there seems a general consensus on this.

ii) I'd be grateful if Dave would expand a little on his comment regarding the use of the High-pass filter and Hard/Soft Light blending modes.

iii) I'm going to test out the idea of re-sharpening images intended for PTE, something that I hadn't thought about .

To make for an objective trial, intend making up a presentation comprising, say 3 images - a landscape, a portrait and something with lots of edges (buildings?) and processing each image with increasing degrees of secondary sharpening.

It will have to wait until the New Year, so there is plenty of time to make suggestions!

And:

To add another alternative to the choice of colour spaces, I have, over the past 3 years, exclusively used Adobe RBG both as a camera and as a Photoshop setting. I'm very pleased with the results this gives.

John

Hi John,

Using Adobe RGB (Adobe RGB 1998) is often quoted as a very good and reliable color space for desktop printing due to its large gamut or, range. first used,again for industy printers who would then convert the image etc to CMYK. you are, of course right to use this space for printing, but dont convert to cmyk.

colour management can be very confusing even to experts who very often can't make up their mind which is best for this or that. sRGB (sRGB IEC62966-32.1) represents the traits of many home Pc Monotors.It is widely used by quite a number of software companies and the computer, camera and many other hardware manufacturers. The word is that this is the most usful space for web work. but again not for prepress work as it has a lower colour gamut.

hope that helps. I have to go now as its my wifes Birthday and she is starting to display a good shade of red.

somewhwere near the the danger gamut I think! will get back to you on the HIGH PASS later.

Cheers

Dave

[Guest damor]

Hi John,

Using Adobe RGB (Adobe RGB 1998) is often quoted as a very good and reliable color space for desktop printing due to its large gamut or, range. first used,again for industy printers who would then convert the image etc to CMYK. you are, of course right to use this space for printing, but dont convert to cmyk.

colour management can be very confusing even to experts who very often can't make up their mind which is best for this or that. sRGB (sRGB IEC62966-32.1) represents the traits of many home Pc Monotors.It is widely used by quite a number of software companies and the computer, camera and many other hardware manufacturers. The word is that this is the most usful space for web work. but again not for prepress work as it has a lower colour gamut.

hope that helps. I have to go now as its my wifes Birthday and she is starting to display a good shade of red.

somewhwere near the the danger gamut I think! will get back to you on the HIGH PASS later.

Cheers

Dave

Hi, again,

The history behind unsharp mask stems from the dark room days when the clever old photographers used to sandwich an unsharp neg with a sharp negative the result was increased edge contrast. And I believe that Adobe uses a similar technique called the UNSHARP MASK. Contra to its name, it has nothing to do with unsharp images or for that matter a mask!

As a photoshop user you are all aware of this filter and its faults. Also as a digital camera user you should be aware of digital noise that plagues us so often. Now when you apply the unsharp mask to some images it plays havoc, for want of a better description, with digital noise, noticably in the shadow areas of the image, infact often all over.

That is why I try to steer clear of the USM as much as possible. and use the HIGH PASS FILTER.

after I have edited my image I finaly apply this method of sharpening.

in your layer palette select the background layer and drag to make a naw layer (do it which way you prefer,there are a few ways)

Highlight the now background copy layer

with it still highlighted, go to ....Filter->Other->High Pass.

You then set the RADIUS to between 8 to 10. then clik OK. right click that layer and rename it HIGH PASS. Your image will now look very grey but dont worry the next step will cure that. With your "HIGH PASS" layer highlight follow this tip....

your next best move is to enlarge or zoom your image to actual pixels. this helps you judge the effect you are looking for.

In the layer palette go to blend mode and select HARD LIGHT. your image contrast should "jump at you"

try swiching the layer off and back on to see the difference. If you dont like that, try the soft light blend mode.

This has a softer effect. softer still is the "pin light" which has very little effect but still makes a change in contrast. you can further reduce the effect by lowering the opacity to between 25 and 60% I normaly find that enough, but i'm sure you'll find your own level.

If your not happy with this you can allways discard the layer, content in the knowledge that you have not damaged the original image and start again. You can also save the image without flattening for future modification.

hope it helps.

Cheers Dave.

[nickles]

Just a comment concerning sharpenening of images.

I nearly always shoot in RAW format and preserve the images "as shot" direct from the camera in the original RAW 16 bit format. That way I can adust in jpg format at any future date.

This is just my personal taste....sharp images are nice for getting details...but to me is not necessarily best for PTE slideshows. I more often prefer soft images. In my younger 35mm days I often used a soft focus filter or smeared vaseline on a filter to obtain softness...a glamour photography technique.

I think from an artistic point of view softness often conveys the image better than sharpness...but this is my personal taste. I participate in a lot of photography forums and find that too many people get overly concerned with sharpness and fine detail.

I use both PS and PSP software...but most often PSP. They have a very controllable Soft Focus filter thats better than the old glass filters. Try slight soft focus on a few of your slides you might be pleased.

Slight soft focus of a slide show prepared for a DVD production turns out nice as it removes the "jiggies" that often appear as a result of sharp images.

Just some thoughts....

ken

PS...Merry Christmas everyone

[davegee]

Ron,

Changing Colour Mode:

In CS/CS2 go to Image/ Mode/ Convert to Profile.

There are differences in JPEGs produced from RGB and sRGB files - I just wondered if you could see the same differences?

John,

High Pass sharpening:

Duplicate Background layer

Set Blend Mode of Duplicate Layer to Soft Light

Desaturate

Apply High Pass Filter at around 6 pixels (vary to taste)

Set Opacity to 25% to 50% as required.

Record all of that as an action and it is a one button sharpening procedure.

DaveG