2 Replies Latest reply: Sep 10, 2009 12:53 PM by Brian Cohen
Brian Cohen Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)
Now that I have the NIK plugin complete set, I find myself using them A LOT, and hence, generating A LOT of TIFF's stacked with my CR2 RAW files.

I have been using 16-bit TIFF, and my average size TIFF is around 69M! Yikes! My 750 Gig drive all of sudden doesn't seem so big now, I can see my managed Aperture library growing very fast with all these TIFFs.

My workflow is 99.99% Aperture adjustments and/or NIK plugins, along with the HYDRA plugin for HDR's (not that often). Will I loose any real, discernible editing capabilities if I go with an 8-bit TIFF? It's of course about half the size ~ 35-40M.

I've google'd this question, but not really found a great explanation or answer. ANy help would be appreciated.

-Brian

Message was edited by: gandalf44

Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.6)
  • 1. Re: 16-bit vs. 8-bit TFF for Aperture plugins/export
    DLScreative Level 4 Level 4 (1,595 points)
    16 bit holds a LOT more information. Not just twice as much: it's exponential.

    8 bit = 256 levels per channel
    9 bit = 512 levels per channel
    etc
    So 16 bit = 16,384 levels per channel.

    Wether or not it's always discernible, I'm not sure, but you will lose some "headroom".

    I like to keep all that info, and Hard drives are pretty cheap these days so I bite the bullet.

    DLS
  • 2. Re: 16-bit vs. 8-bit TFF for Aperture plugins/export
    Brian Cohen Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)
    Thanks MacDLS.

    I kind of knew/assumed this . It's just hard to swallow I have these 70M TIFF's all over my Aperture library! Was not as much an issue until I discovered the NIK plugins!

    I'm trying to be selective about which images really need external plugin edits from NIK, but the tools are just so cool I want to use them on all images.

    -Brian