"K.Bibis - siu01kb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to: > >So, scanning at very high values, isn't it creating more problems ?
The comparisons I've seen of the high res scanners show much more detail is captured. >(making full use of this off-topic): >Do you notice a difference when scanning at 8 or 16 bits? Apart from the >doublesized files and that some programs cant handle 16(x3=48) bit files ? >The ones i've tried havent looked any different at 8 and 16 bits... I've done tests using 8 vs. 16 bit RAW conversions and I have found much better results with 16 bit files. Of course you can always convert to 8 bit after manipulation, and your output might not take advantage of 16 bit files, but if you are working on important images, I'd say use the 16 bit files as much as possible. Do some googling and find out about the newer scanners, then make your decision based on that. It will of course depend on your needs, budget and goals. -- Jim Davis Nature Photography http://jimdavis.oberro.com Replies in plain text only please! * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
