p.1 #1 · 32 bit mode for 16 bit images & RAW/smart objects question
Hello,
I was watching a Joel Grimes video where he took a portrait with strobes bracketed with ISO, then converted this to a 32 bit image to edit (though didn't edit it as a 32 bit file in PS, as he says you can't do that, which is wrong).
I found this interesting so searched for "photoshop 32 bit editing" and found this video which describes the benefits of using 32 bit color mode in PS for 16 bit images (better gradations of the adjustments that are available).
The differences between using the adjustments in 32 vs 16 bit modes appear significant in the video.
I tried this out.
I took an image and duplicated it to a nother file and converted one to 32 bit color mode. I added a curve to both (I was surprised to see that curves were available in 32 bit mode as other videos stated that they aren't) and increased value 125 to 150.
32 bit mode version on the left, same channel layer on both
It appears, to me, that the adjustments on the 32 bit layer are much more nuanced. More accurate?
There isn't much information or testing that I can find on the uses of 32 bit mode in practical applications (not HDR).
Adobe seem to be adding more adjustment layer options so this mode seems to be more powerful.
Is this a good option for tone and color adjustments for your "Important" (fine art/whatever) work?
Seems it may be able to give you more fine tuning, more "accuracy"? The extra billions of colours allow much finer gradations with virtually no chance of banding, it seems.
Then you could convert it to 16 bit mode to use filters/the rest of the adjustments.
For black and white conversions it may give great versatility for tone adjustments.
For most work perhaps it's overboard (just as using LAB color may be overboard for most work), but it seems that we're getting to the stage where we can start using this in our "finer" work?
Does anyone have expereince with this?
A second question:
Lightroom now has a new "color grading" panel. Color grading on raw files (in C1/lightroom/whatever) will be more "accurate", one could say, than the rendered raw files in photoshop, though it's much more versatile in photoshop as you can mask them, blendif them etc.
When opening an ACR file in PS as a smart object, when you open it again within PS, are you workign on raw pixels again or on the rendered file?
