- This topic is empty.
240 PPI when processing in RAW
-
I have noticed that when I process RAW images that they default to 240 pixels per inch and 8 bit channel. I traditionally (and by default) would use 300 PPI and am wondering what the real difference here is in terms of quality ?. Anyone know?. Likewise what is the real difference between 8 bit and 16 bit?
I’m not sure what you mean when you say you process your RAW files and that is what you get – do you mean when you are opting to save your files, that these the default options are for 8 bits and 240ppi. If so, I’d imagine those are just the default values in your software, and you change them to suit each time you save your file.
The difference between 8 bit and 16 bit is generally robustness of the file to serious editing. For example, if I am doing some heavy colour corrections/ editing, or b&w conversions where I will most likely be playing around with the colour values to get the b&w tones I want, the more bits, the more the file will hold up with such heavy editing. Its tonality at the end of the day, so with a 16 bit file, you have a greater depth of tones in each colour, so when you are playing around with the colours or tones in your images, you have a lot more to play around with, as if doing the same corrections/ heavy editing with an 8 bit file, you will be more restricted.
So for me, 16 bit is for editing purposes, and 8 bit is for final display purposes. If you are hoping to see the difference between an 8 bit file and 16 bit one printed side by side, I imagine you probably won’t see much difference, except probably in cases where the image is dominated by a small number of colour values, where the greater bit depth will be perceivable in the subtle colour transitions. The real value is in editing, imo.
Hope this helps :)
Re: the value of different effective PPI’s for printing, I’m sure others may chime in with their experiences, but anecdotal evidence I’ve seen and read has led me not to be overly worried about it, or as someone said the only ones who will notice the difference in your prints will be photographers, who put their nose almost against prints. Everyone else simply views them at an appropriate distance. In any case, this is all second hand anecdotal evidence, as I’ve not done much printing myself, so take it all with the proverbial pinch of salt :)
EDIT: picture says a thousand words and all that – saw this before (http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157630238517848/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;), about halfway down the page you can see a 4 metre x 4 metre image which had been printed from an 8 megapixel image.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
