Any Forum Member with Experience "Qimage One" for Mac

[The Hat]

Why do all the experts reckon that using a 16 bit driver gives them a much better photo !

Yes Mac do offer that option but yet it makes not a jot of difference whether you use the 8 or 16 bit driver, because the results are going to be the same, I know of no inkjet printer that will output using 16 bit.. So why all the kerfuffle about it..

 

[Tony4597]

I tend to both agree and disagree about 16 bit printing and what it may bring to the table.

Most experts I have had any contact with seem to be of the opinion that 16 bit brings nothing to the table and switching the option on is a waste of time as print comparison show zero difference, at least as far as photograpic image acquisition goes. It could be possible that some computer generated gradients would benefit but I have never tried as I do not work within a 16 bit pipeline

I can only speak about Epson drivers which are 16 bit compatible, but would assume Canon drivers would be the same.

But the problem is (or at least used to be?) no Windows print drivers support 16 bit printing and therefore applications such as Photoshop and Lightroom cannot send 16 bit data to the print driver.

As you noted Mac OS natively supports a 16 bit pipeline and applications such as Photoshop and Lightroom have options to switch this on.

Mike Chaney the author of Qimage put out a challenge some years ago asking for examples from anyone to find any photographic image where 16 bit printing produced a better visual result than 8 bit, stating you will not find any! AFAIK no one took up the challenge. Further to that he stated that he had no plans to support 16 bit until Windows itself supports native 16 bit printing.

Again AFAIK Windows even Windows 11 does not offer 16 bit print pipeline.

But to throw in another fact Qimage has included a simulated16 bit/channel print pipeline from v22(?) onwards! Claiming even smoother prints from 16 bit photos. One day I may find an image and the time to try it out
in hope I might go

Has anybody tried this:
As 8 bit images normally have several bits of noise in them (dither) the effect is such that 16 bit or 8 bit printers make no visible difference. But the 16 bit printer path can be demonstrate by printing a gradient over a tiny RGB range, say from RGB 127,127,127 to 135,135,135 made in a 16 bit Photoshop file

 

[thebestcpu]

Why do all the experts reckon that using a 16 bit driver gives them a much better photo !

Yes Mac do offer that option but yet it makes not a jot of difference whether you use the 8 or 16 bit driver, because the results are going to be the same, I know of no inkjet printer that will output using 16 bit.. So why all the kerfuffle about it..

That's a good question and I have some information to share yet it is only on a Mac system printing to an Epson P900 printer using the Epson Printer Driver (not the Apple version).

I printed a detailed 16-bit computer-generated 3D image via ray tracing with all sorts of reflections and partial transparencies. I printed with both the "Send 16-Bit Data" on in one print and turned off in another print.

I looked hard and could not see any differences at all.

So, I did a more straightforward experiment to understand better what that option does. First, for my system and printer, it was clear that the "Send 16-Bit Data," when turned off, is not truncating the 16-bit data down to 8-bit.

I did a controlled experiment to determine this fact.
First, I made sure that the built-in dithering was turned off both in Photoshop's gradient tool and also in the settings for Edit > Color Settings by unchecking the options "Use Dither (8-bit/channel images). This later option, if turned on, does 1-bit dither when converting from 16 bit to 8 bit, so I wanted that shut off (this is not well documented by Adobe).

I printed four images shown below. The first two images were the 16-bit gradient image, both with "Send 16-bit Data" on and then off.

The following two images were done from the same image except converted to 8-bit. The last two images were the 16-bit gradient image, both with "Send 16-bit Data" on and then off with the 8-bit version of the image.

The first two images using the 16-bit image showed no banding whether the "Send 16-bit Data" was on or off. No difference whatsoever.

The last two converted to 8-bit images showed the same banding, whether the "Send 16-bit Data" was on or off.

In conclusion, the 16-bit image data is not truncated to 8-bit at the front end of the printer driver, or one would have seen the banding.

Now, it is possible that somewhere in the printer driver pipeline, it is doing something in 8 bit vs 16 bit. It's just at a point where no impact is shown on my system, printer, and particular experiment. It's just not truncating the data at the front end going into the printer driver.

16-bit image and Send 16-bit Data turned on:

16-bit image and Send 16-bit Data turned off

8-bit image and Send 16-bit Data turned on:

8-bit image and Send 16-bit Data turned off

So, a 16-bit workflow can make a difference in the quality of some printed images, e.g., banding, yet I have not seen an example yet in my workflow where the setting of the checkbox "Send 16-bit Data" makes a difference in the print. So yes, 16-bit data makes a difference in the print, and if there are printer drivers that truncate the 16-bit image data to 8 bits on the front end, they have the potential to degrade the quality of the print.

John Wheeler

 

[The Hat]

That's a good question and I have some information to share yet it is only on a Mac sys

So, a 16-bit workflow can make a difference in the quality of some printed images, e.g., banding, yet I have not seen an example yet in my workflow where the setting of the checkbox "Send 16-bit Data" makes a difference in the print.

No inkjet printer can print in 16 bit, so where does that leave you..

The most likely cause is the photo Apps have altered the images that you send to the printer..

The same scenario applies to text, which is better 300 or 600 DPI.. !

 

[Tony4597]

Epson, Canon and HP can and DO print in 16 bit pipeline. But not in Windows as explained earlier there is no option to do so in either the OS or in the Windows application. 16 bit pipeline supported for a long time in Apple and those printing applications offer the opportunity to switch to 16 bit.

Going back to 2010/11 Epsons 3880 printer driver offered a 16 bit pipeline for Mac OS only check the user manual!

 

[The Hat]

Going back to 2010/11 Epsons 3880 printer driver offered a 16 bit pipeline for Mac OS only check the user manual!

Again it’s a pipe dream, put two photos together and ask around for differences and you’ll get the same answer, there’re both identical.. Mac O/S or not..

 

[Tony4597]

Again it’s a pipe dream, put two photos together and ask around for differences and you’ll get the same answer, there’re both identical.. Mac O/S or not..

We are not in disagreement here at all.

Two photographic images side by side are more than likely to appear identical from either an 8 bit or 16 bit print pipeline. Certainly it will not be apparent with the same two prints viewed independently and may only be visible in side by side prints using a loupe within an area of subtle gradation - which may be more noticeable in a greyscale image.

It may be more noticeable in 16 bit applications producing a synthetic gradient than photographic but even then possibly minor in nature?

The switch to 16 bit when available via the Mac OS, printer driver and application should according to Epson:

If you are printing 16-bit color images, select 16 Bit Output for the most
accurate transitions and gradations.

What I am saying is that the Mac OS printer driver (and possibly the Windows XPS drivers with third party apps) is handling more than just 8 bits of data so it may be operating at 10, 12, 14 or 16 bits of data, whether or not we can see a difference is somewhat moot as we will probably be setting for the best quality we can for print output and is dependent on the system capabilities to switch to 8 bit or not.

There are also the questions on how image data you are comparing has been acquired and the software applications limits. Some of the top of my head:
Does your camera only capture JPEGS? if so then that limits you to 8 bit data
Does your camera capture raw image data? If so is it 10 bit, 12 bit, 14 bit or 16 bit, and are any of them compressed and is the compression lossless or lossy.
What difference does your editing application make to your image? For instance Adobe Photoshop is not 16 bit but 15+1 bit application

 

[The Hat]

We are not in disagreement here at all. Two photographic images side by side are more than likely to appear identical from either an 8 bit or 16 bit print pipeline

The idea of 16 bit printing has been around for the past 20 years, but yet has not caught on why ?, if it were truly available every nerd would have to have it so they can brag that their prints are all done in 16 bit !, it’s like the way raw prints get bragging rights..

If and when 16 bit become standard on all photo printers, Win O/S will make it available for all, but until then we’ll just have to suck it up and use 8 bit..

P.S. could you imagine how big a large print would be in 16 bit format ...

 

[Tony4597]

The idea of 16 bit printing has been around for the past 20 years, but yet has not caught on why ?, if it were truly available every nerd would have to have it so they can brag that their prints are all done in 16 bit !,

16 bit is already standard on Mac and possible with Windows, so why do you keep on insisting it is not?
In isolation no one can tell if a print has been produced in a 16 bit or 8 bit workflow. Side by side 8 v 16 bit comparisons may reveal subtle differences in smoother gradients for images that may contain the necessary data to produce banding that cannot be properly disguised by dithering algorithms

it’s like the way raw prints get bragging rights..

Hogwash, no such thing as raw prints only prints that have been produced in a raw workflow keeping in a high 16 bit depth and wide gamut such as Profoto RGB as that is the only working space that can cover all the gamut of modern digital cameras.
Raw is not a bragging right it is the choice of pro photographers landscapers etc and image makers in the fine art world and its benefits over JPEG capture and workflow have been amply demonstrated for years by many experts.
That does not imply that JPEG capture is not capable of stunning prints from stunning images. Some pros such as Wedding or Sports photographers may prefer the speed of capture and the finished baked article that is the JPEG.

If and when 16 bit become standard on all photo printers, Win O/S will make it available for all, but until then we’ll just have to suck it up and use 8 bit..

Miscrosoft with windows OS does not seem to be too bothered about providing a 16 bit print pipeline other than their offering of the XPS drivers and then leaving it to the applications people who do not like the XPS route generally

As already explained 16 bit printing pipeline has been in available in Mac OS for many years as the Mac has a 16 bit pipeline and some printing applications can use it.
On the other hand Windows printer pipeline is only 8 bit but XPS drivers are available from some vendors to provide a 16 bit printing pipeline.

For instance Canon provide a 16 bit driver for at least some of their printers:

You must meet the following requirements:

• A 16 bit image. Some cameras are able to produce 16 bit images (Hasselblad and Fuji for example) maximum or more likely 14 bit or even 12 bit. There is no point in trying to convert an 8 bit image to 16 bit. As 12 and 14 bit images are better able to handle smoother gradations compared to 8 bits per channel image they will be fed through a 16 bit pipeline
• Image editing software that supports 16 bits per channel image data e.g. Photoshop
• Canon Print Studio Pro and a suitable Canon printer e.g. Prograf Pro 100, Prograph Pro 2000, Prograph Pro 1000 and Pro 10s

P.S. could you imagine how big a large print would be in 16 bit format ...

No need to imagine as I already do have images in 16 bit format

Shooting raw image (.RAF or DNG) on a Fuji 100Mp camera at 14 bits produces a file size of around 80MB pixel dimensions 11,648 x8,736.

Editing that image in 16 bit photoshop the saved file size is 582MB. Printing that image without cropping at 360ppi yields a print approx 32" x 24". Printing at 720ppi yields print siz of 16" x 12".
If I had to print via Photoshop I would only save the 582MB Tiff temporarily until print approved and then discard the TIFF.
A better method and my preference is to edit the raw image in the Develop module of Lightroom, soft proof then print through the Lightroom print module. This does not require spawning a new file of 582MB and has the ability to create a virtual copy (or many) for proofing

Am I worried that I am missing something out being in a Windows enforced 8 bit print pipeline and will I be making a switch to Mac OS? The answer is no as at this time IMHO there is not enough gain in IQ for the odd occassion where 16 bit may be useful

 

[thebestcpu]

Interesting discussion about 8 vs 16-bit printer drivers and 8 vs 16-bit workflows.
As for me, with some experimentation, I did learn what the "Send 16-bit Data" option does and does not do, so that was worth the effort.
Yet, since I started this thread about questions on Qimage One (of which I am still interested in more responses), I will ask the moderator/manager to move this good additional discussion off to its own thread.

Thanks to all who have responded to me about Qimage One so far!
John Wheeler