Should you convert an 8-bit JPEG to 16-bit before editing?
Asked 4/16/2013
3 views
2 answers
0
If I'm editing a JPEG file rather than a raw file, is there any real benefit to converting it to 16-bit first for post-processing? I've seen advice saying all further editing should be done in 16-bit, but since JPEG starts as 8-bit, does converting it actually improve image quality, or only help in some workflows? Will I notice a difference if I just edit the JPEG directly in 8-bit?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
3
It depends on both the image and how much editing you are planning to do. Let's say you're only going to adjust levels. Then
8-bit JPEG -> 16 bit PSD -> levels adjustment -> 8-bit JPEG
Will give identical results to:
8-bit JPEG -> levels adjustment
This is because an 8-bit image converted to 16-bit is identical to the 8 bit version (the lower order bits will all be zero) and there's no difference between doing the levels on a 8 bit image (which will be computed internally at a higher precision and then rounded) and doing the levels command on a 16 bit image and then converting to lower precision.
However, if you do several steps, then keeping a high precision intermediate version of the image will give you better results. If you keep rounding to 8-bit after every single operation, you're very quickly going to lose tonal range and end up with a heavily posterized image.
Now I said it depends on the image content, a very contrasty image with posterization will generally go unnoticed, whereas a low contrast image with subtle graduations in the sky or in skintones will be heavily degraded by posterization.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually, converting an 8-bit JPEG to 16-bit does not magically restore lost data or improve quality by itself. An 8-bit JPEG converted to 16-bit still contains the same original tonal information; the extra bits start empty.
For a simple edit like a single levels adjustment, editing the JPEG directly in 8-bit will typically give the same result as converting to 16-bit first and then exporting back to 8-bit.
Where 16-bit can help is during a longer, more destructive editing workflow. If you make multiple adjustments and save intermediate results, working in 16-bit can reduce repeated rounding/posterization errors in those intermediate steps. That said, the gains are limited because the source file was already only 8-bit to begin with.
So: it is not a must for JPEG editing, and often you won't notice any difference for light edits. The biggest quality benefit comes from starting with a higher-bit source such as raw or a true 16-bit file, not from up-converting an 8-bit JPEG after the fact.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Best lossy archival format for 16-bit TIFF edits
Does converting an 8-bit image to 16-bit or 32-bit help prevent posterization when editing?
Why use RAW processors like Lightroom or Darktable instead of converting to 16-bit TIFF and editing elsewhere?
What’s the difference between 8-bit RGB and 16-bit RGB, and when should you use each?
Should I pay extra for TIFF when having old slides scanned, and what should I use to convert TIFF to JPEG?