> I'm surprised you don't know who he is.
I didn't say exactly that. I've never met him or read anything he's written (other than the pasted copy above which isn't that impressive). I know Katrin (quite well, for many years).
> There is no question - in my mind anyhow - he is TOTALLY
> up-to speed on today's printing technologies, researches and tests his >subject matter thoroughly before publishing, and understands the >subtilities of what Photoshop does and doesn't do like few other people in >the business.
I'm glad to hear he's got your confidence there. Since you only appear to occasionally read his list, I should add this quote from a few days back:
> It would not surprise me if this or a similar file containing mostly dull
> colors, if left in ProPhoto RGB, would get a better result from 16-bit
> correction than 8-bit. I have tested Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB, LAB, and >sRGB files enough to be highly doubtful that there are any natural color >photographs at all where the extra bits would be helpful in any real-world >context. However, I've always pointed out that I have *not* extensively >tested exotic alternatives, such as 1.0 gamma files, or ultra-wide gamut >RGBs such as ProPhoto. The reasons they are not tested are 1) they have >limited market presence and 2) I strongly recommend against their use in >color correction.
So apparently wide gamut spaces (or spaces outside those listed above) are not on his radar. He also posted:
> As I indicated in my first brief response, the example is meaningless,
> because it assumes a condition that I have always excluded, and that wasn't
> known at the time his partners said those things. I have always made clear
> that exotic RGB definitions, such as 1.0 gamma, or ultra-wide gamut RGBs, >are not tested because, first, almost nobody uses them, and second, those >knowledgeable about color correction would be unlikely to edit in them >except under very unusual circumstances. To summarize: working with >actual images is a useful exercise, and we should thank Andrew for making >this one available. It does not actually show an
>advantage for 16-bit manipulation in ProPhoto RGB, but in all probability he >could have constructed an image that did if he had worked harder at it.
So these spaces are exotic and thus not worthy of his testing. Can you see why I'm not so sure he's really pushing the envelope in examining all the issues here?
> It so happens that the benefit of 16 bit editing is NOT easily proven IN
> PRINTED OUTPUT OF COLOUR IMAGES THAT HAVE HAD 'REAL WORLD' >CORRECTIONS APPLIED TO THEM, and that is why there is and has been so > much debate about this issue.
Sure it is, I've done it and so you can you.
>The fundamentals of this debate are all about testing methodology, test
> conditions, what one tests for (i.e. all that lies behind the contentious
> phrase "REAL WORLD") and what are the evaluation criteria.
The $800 desktop printer I have here that shows both the usefulness of high gamut working spaces and high bit gamut illustrate this to my eye. Are you sure Dan's done the same?
> So it ain't over yet, and there
> is nothing to be gaineed by disparaging peoples' professional credentials
> because you have issues with them in respect of these matters.
Disparaging? How? I think I made it clear how I feel about Dan.
> As for NAPP's Hall of Fame being a marketing device - let us get real - >there are so few people to have been honoured in this way, the process is >so recent and it is so obscure how such a distinction translates into >marketability that this comment cannot be taken seriously.
Well it appears those who present at these shows are so honoured. But I take the Marxist approach to this. In this case, Groucho that is (you know the old saying about joining a club that would have him as a member). Before you jump all over this, keep in mind I wrote for years for NAPP and have just finished two articles for them. So I have nothing against them whatsoever.
That Dan was the first to be introduced into this club you’re so impressed with has no bearing on the points I’ve raised here.
> The one consensus item I retain from this discussion is that 16 bit editing
> provides headroom and insurance.
That's all I've ever said. I'll add however that large gamut working spaces necessitate high bit editing unless you like the noise and other issues that can result by working in only 8-bit. However, most editing can and should be done (in this example) in the RAW converter which is working not only in high bit but in a linear encoded gamma. However, the bottom line is it appears that after years of Dan saying that no real world image exhibits any advantages of high bit editing, I've at least proven that this isn't so.