How do I change CS4 Color Bit Depth Default

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode.

Just choose 16 bits in the ‘New document’ dialog.

And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit.

That is not possible. Photoshop will never do that.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode. And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit. I have reset the preferences to default at start up and that doesn’t help. Anybody experience this problem and/or know how to correct it. I have been to the Adobe website but can’t seem to find any references to my problem. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, flip

Unless you zoom in very very close or doing some editing on low-rez or damaged image, you shouldn’t see much or any difference.

*If* you can see with your very own eyes without trying, then I guess you have the GRAPHIC CARD setup incorrectly. This is Windows’ duty and you should be able to change to Hi-Rez color mode.

IOW, it’s not Photoshop but the graphics card setting.

On 28/02/2011 7:26 AM, Joel wrote:

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode. And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit. I have reset the preferences to default at start up and that doesn’t help. Anybody experience this problem and/or know how to correct it. I have been to the Adobe website but can’t seem to find any references to my problem. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, flip

Unless you zoom in very very close or doing some editing on low-rez or damaged image, you shouldn’t see much or any difference.
*If* you can see with your very own eyes without trying, then I guess you have the GRAPHIC CARD setup incorrectly. This is Windows’ duty and you should be able to change to Hi-Rez color mode.

IOW, it’s not Photoshop but the graphics card setting.

adding to that your monitor is 6bit color.

In article ,
says…

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode. And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit. I have reset the preferences to default at start up and that doesn’t help. Anybody experience this problem and/or know how to correct it. I have been to the Adobe website but can’t seem to find any references to my problem. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, flip

Unless you zoom in very very close or doing some editing on low-rez or damaged image, you shouldn’t see much or any difference.
*If* you can see with your very own eyes without trying, then I guess you have the GRAPHIC CARD setup incorrectly. This is Windows’ duty and you should be able to change to Hi-Rez color mode.

IOW, it’s not Photoshop but the graphics card setting.

I found out that my new graphics card wasn’t playing well with my default monitor profile.

Good call.

Thanks, flip

flip wrote:

In article ,
says…

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode. And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit. I have reset the preferences to default at start up and that doesn’t help. Anybody experience this problem and/or know how to correct it. I have been to the Adobe website but can’t seem to find any references to my problem. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, flip

Unless you zoom in very very close or doing some editing on low-rez or damaged image, you shouldn’t see much or any difference.
*If* you can see with your very own eyes without trying, then I guess you have the GRAPHIC CARD setup incorrectly. This is Windows’ duty and you should be able to change to Hi-Rez color mode.

IOW, it’s not Photoshop but the graphics card setting.

I found out that my new graphics card wasn’t playing well with my default monitor profile.

Good call.

Thanks, flip

I think íts your setting. Your whatever graphic card may not give the max your monitor can do, but it should be able to give 32-bit mode.

On 2/27/2011 11:40 PM, Joel wrote:

flip wrote:

In article,
says…

flip wrote:

Today when I started Photoshop the photograph didn’t look right. After a while I realized it was starting in 8 bit color mode. And even photographs I know are not 8 bit open as 8 bit. I have reset the preferences to default at start up and that doesn’t help. Anybody experience this problem and/or know how to correct it. I have been to the Adobe website but can’t seem to find any references to my problem. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, flip

Unless you zoom in very very close or doing some editing on low-rez or damaged image, you shouldn’t see much or any difference.
*If* you can see with your very own eyes without trying, then I guess you have the GRAPHIC CARD setup incorrectly. This is Windows’ duty and you should be able to change to Hi-Rez color mode.

IOW, it’s not Photoshop but the graphics card setting.

I found out that my new graphics card wasn’t playing well with my default monitor profile.

Good call.

Thanks, flip

I think íts your setting. Your whatever graphic card may not give the max your monitor can do, but it should be able to give 32-bit mode.

Think I can help…..Open Photoshop, click ‘File, Open As, and Fill in Camera Raw as your opening setting. Navigate to any old JPEG, open it in Raw. At the bottom of the Raw Workspace, between the button, is a blue link that will derscribe colorspace, PPI settings etc. Double-click on that, and it will open your Workflow Options dialog. Look for the ‘Depth’ box, and it should say ‘8 bits per channel.’ click on the pull-down to the right, and the 16 bit option should be visible. clock on that, hit OK, and you’re home free.

darkman wrote:

Think I can help…..Open Photoshop, click ‘File, Open As, and Fill in Camera Raw as your opening setting. Navigate to any old JPEG, open it in Raw. At the bottom of the Raw Workspace, between the button, is a blue link that will derscribe colorspace, PPI settings etc. Double-click on that, and it will open your Workflow Options dialog. Look for the ‘Depth’ box, and it should say ‘8 bits per channel.’ click on the pull-down to the right, and the 16 bit option should be visible. clock on that, hit OK, and you’re home free.

No, that won’t help him a bit. His problem is (was) with the graphics card settings. That has nothing to do with opening images in 16 bits per color rather than 8 bits per color. It’s also useless to open an 8 bits image as 16 bits. You only increase the size of the container, but the content remains the same. It’s like pouring one gallon of water in a two gallow container. You can do that and it doesn’t hurt, but it won’t increase the amount of water you’ve got.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

darkman wrote:

Think I can help…..Open Photoshop, click ‘File, Open As, and Fill in Camera Raw as your opening setting. Navigate to any old JPEG, open it in Raw. At the bottom of the Raw Workspace, between the button, is a blue link that will derscribe colorspace, PPI settings etc. Double-click on that, and it will open your Workflow Options dialog. Look for the ‘Depth’ box, and it should say ‘8 bits per channel.’ click on the pull-down to the right, and the 16 bit option should be visible. clock on that, hit OK, and you’re home free.

No, that won’t help him a bit. His problem is (was) with the graphics card settings. That has nothing to do with opening images in 16 bits per color rather than 8 bits per color. It’s also useless to open an 8 bits image as 16 bits. You only increase the size of the container, but the content remains the same. It’s like pouring one gallon of water in a two gallow container. You can do that and it doesn’t hurt, but it won’t increase the amount of water you’ve got.

You are very right about the graphic card issue, but not very right about 8-Bit MODE vs 16-Bit or 32-Bit MODE.

By using your same sample about the bucket

1. With 10 Galon bucket you may not be able to hold many large ROCK

2. But with the exact same 10 Galon bucket it can hold lot of regular SAND and ir can hold even more of very FINE SAND (the type of samd using for sand blashing).

So, if you run into some JPG being abused by some RAW expert (like messing up some color channel, more noise, out of wax etc.) and you need to do some retouching on the damaged 8-Bit image. Then try to change it ti 16-bit or 32-bit mode and you should see the difference. I only work on 16-bit mode, and they are poor low-rez photos I download from internet (for DVD label) so I don’t care much about the small detail. Or I never worked on 32-bit mode to know much about it, and my regular work I work on 8-bit hi-rez photos.

I’m guessing you’re both correct. Expanding from 8 to 16 bits doesn’t increase the photo’s detail; it does increase the amount of available information. It divides the same 8 bit pixels into 16 bits – still no improvement in perceived detail. But if the photo is subsequently adjusted, lets say with a filter, the filter’s algorithm has 16 bits to work with potentially yielding a more detailed result.

"Joel" wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

No, that won’t help him a bit. His problem is (was) with the graphics card settings. That has nothing to do with opening images in 16 bits per color rather than 8 bits per color. It’s also useless to open an 8 bits image as 16 bits. You only increase the size of the container, but the content remains the same. It’s like pouring one gallon of water in a two gallow container. You can do that and it doesn’t hurt, but it won’t increase the amount of water you’ve got.

You are very right about the graphic card issue, but not very right about 8-Bit MODE vs 16-Bit or 32-Bit MODE.

By using your same sample about the bucket

1. With 10 Galon bucket you may not be able to hold many large ROCK

2. But with the exact same 10 Galon bucket it can hold lot of regular SAND and ir can hold even more of very FINE SAND (the type of samd using for sand blashing).

So, if you run into some JPG being abused by some RAW expert (like messing up some color channel, more noise, out of wax etc.) and you need to do some retouching on the damaged 8-Bit image. Then try to change it ti 16-bit or 32-bit mode and you should see the difference. I only work on 16-bit mode, and they are poor low-rez photos I download from internet (for DVD label) so I don’t care much about the small detail. Or I never worked on 32-bit mode to know much about it, and my regular work I work on 8-bit hi-rez photos.

On 3/25/2011 3:25 PM, Kele wrote:

I’m guessing you’re both correct. Expanding from 8 to 16 bits doesn’t increase the photo’s detail; it does increase the amount of available information. It divides the same 8 bit pixels into 16 bits – still no improvement in perceived detail. But if the photo is subsequently adjusted, lets say with a filter, the filter’s algorithm has 16 bits to work with potentially yielding a more detailed result.

"Joel" wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

No, that won’t help him a bit. His problem is (was) with the graphics card settings. That has nothing to do with opening images in 16 bits per color rather than 8 bits per color. It’s also useless to open an 8 bits image as 16 bits. You only increase the size of the container, but the content remains the same. It’s like pouring one gallon of water in a two gallow container. You can do that and it doesn’t hurt, but it won’t increase the amount of water you’ve got.

You are very right about the graphic card issue, but not very right about 8-Bit MODE vs 16-Bit or 32-Bit MODE.

By using your same sample about the bucket

1. With 10 Galon bucket you may not be able to hold many large ROCK
2. But with the exact same 10 Galon bucket it can hold lot of regular SAND and ir can hold even more of very FINE SAND (the type of samd using for sand blashing).

So, if you run into some JPG being abused by some RAW expert (like messing up some color channel, more noise, out of wax etc.) and you need to do some retouching on the damaged 8-Bit image. Then try to change it ti 16-bit or 32-bit mode and you should see the difference. I only work on 16-bit mode, and they are poor low-rez photos I download from internet (for DVD label) so I don’t care much about the small detail. Or I never worked on 32-bit mode to know much about it, and my regular work I work on 8-bit hi-rez photos.

I will say I’m glad I tried to help – there’s a lot about Photoshop that probably Abobe isn’t even really aware of. The back and forth afterward (yup – in here) made me realize how vast this stuff is. One thing – working in 16-bit right out of a RAW image – isn’t that where the advantage lies? I can see where a low-res JPEG can’t be helped.

Darkman

darkman wrote:

I will say I’m glad I tried to help – there’s a lot about Photoshop that probably Abobe isn’t even really aware of. The back and forth afterward (yup – in here) made me realize how vast this stuff is. One thing – working in 16-bit right out of a RAW image – isn’t that where the advantage lies? I can see where a low-res JPEG can’t be helped.

Correct. The true advantage of high bit editting lies in working in 16 bits from the start. A RAW file is usually 12 bits or 14 bits, so working in 16 bits (Photoshop can’t work in 12 bits or 14 bits, only in 8, 16 or 32 bits) retains all that information.

Yes, you can argue that there is a slight advantage of opening an 8 bits image in 16 bits in some cases, but that advantage is only slight. You are only talking about rounding errors (image editting is just mathematics), not about real extra information.

—
Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com

darkman wrote:

On 3/25/2011 3:25 PM, Kele wrote:

I’m guessing you’re both correct. Expanding from 8 to 16 bits doesn’t increase the photo’s detail; it does increase the amount of available information. It divides the same 8 bit pixels into 16 bits – still no improvement in perceived detail. But if the photo is subsequently adjusted, lets say with a filter, the filter’s algorithm has 16 bits to work with potentially yielding a more detailed result.

"Joel" wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

No, that won’t help him a bit. His problem is (was) with the graphics card settings. That has nothing to do with opening images in 16 bits per color rather than 8 bits per color. It’s also useless to open an 8 bits image as 16 bits. You only increase the size of the container, but the content remains the same. It’s like pouring one gallon of water in a two gallow container. You can do that and it doesn’t hurt, but it won’t increase the amount of water you’ve got.

You are very right about the graphic card issue, but not very right about 8-Bit MODE vs 16-Bit or 32-Bit MODE.

By using your same sample about the bucket

1. With 10 Galon bucket you may not be able to hold many large ROCK
2. But with the exact same 10 Galon bucket it can hold lot of regular SAND and ir can hold even more of very FINE SAND (the type of samd using for sand blashing).

So, if you run into some JPG being abused by some RAW expert (like messing up some color channel, more noise, out of wax etc.) and you need to do some retouching on the damaged 8-Bit image. Then try to change it ti 16-bit or 32-bit mode and you should see the difference. I only work on 16-bit mode, and they are poor low-rez photos I download from internet (for DVD label) so I don’t care much about the small detail. Or I never worked on 32-bit mode to know much about it, and my regular work I work on 8-bit hi-rez photos.

I will say I’m glad I tried to help – there’s a lot about Photoshop that probably Abobe isn’t even really aware of. The back and forth afterward (yup – in here) made me realize how vast this stuff is. One thing – working in 16-bit right out of a RAW image – isn’t that where the advantage lies? I can see where a low-res JPEG can’t be helped.
Darkman

Well, you are talking about 16-bit file, RAW file, and I am talking about 16-bit MODE. Those are 3 different beats