Watermark in Process Multiple Files not working on TIFF files

Report · May 13, 2017

I am scanning negatives using an Epson V700 photo scanner. When I try and use the Process Multiple Files feature in PSE to add a watermark it doesn't work. There are no errors in the log, the watermark just isn't there. The feature works with other TIFF files, just not the ones created via the scanning of the negatives. My thought is that there is something funky with the TIFF files created by the scanner. I have a support email into Epson, but since it is a discontinued scanner I'm not holding out much hope for help there.

One idea was to scan via PSE. However when I try to scan via PSE I don't get the option to scan negatives so the light in the top of the scanner isn't used so it doesn't work.

I also used the Process Multiple Files feature to create new TIFF files via PSE hoping that whatever was causing the issue would be removed via PSE. This doesn't solve the problem either.

I will be scanning 1500-2000 negatives so batch watermarking is essential.

Any suggestions?

Report · May 13, 2017

Just a long shot:

Try resetting the preferences.

Do other tiffs (not from the scanner) work?

Report · May 13, 2017

What settings are you suggesting that I reset. I don't think that I ever set any besides default.

Yes, other .TIFF files that I have work as expected.

I have done some more testing and here is what I have come up with so far:

- The negatives are old B/W so I scanned at 16-bit grayscale. I'm not photo geek but I always figure that at the source I should use a high number on a setting given the option (within reason).

- I re-scanned a few and messed with some settings. I changed from 16-bit grayscale to 8-bit grayscale. Now the files in PSE process multiple files works as expected.

BTW, I scanned at 600dpi.

So now:

- Why does PSE treat the two files, one 16-bit and one 8-bit grayscale differently?

- If I decide to scan at the lower setting will my printed photos be affected? What else will be affected? (I'm not a photo geek so please excuse my ignorance)

- Is there a way to change the grayscale bit rate to a bunch of photos in batch mode?

Thanks for your help

Report · May 13, 2017

jhousemb wrote
- If I decide to scan at the lower setting will my printed photos be affected? What else will be affected? (I'm not a photo geek so please excuse my ignorance)

I can't answer the other questions (maybe somebody else will chime in here), but here are some links to read about 8 bit vs. 16 bit scans:

https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+8+bit+and+16+bit&oq=difference+between+8+bit+and+...

Report · May 14, 2017

jhousemb wrote
I have done some more testing and here is what I have come up with so far:
- The negatives are old B/W so I scanned at 16-bit grayscale. I'm not photo geek but I always figure that at the source I should use a high number on a setting given the option (within reason).
- I re-scanned a few and messed with some settings. I changed from 16-bit grayscale to 8-bit grayscale. Now the files in PSE.

I was thinking about the 16 bits scanning as the explanation, but I thought this should have triggered an error message...

Elements does not support layers in 16-bits mode and the watermarking process is based on layers. That's one of the differences Adobe is very firm to keep between Elements and Photoshop.

- If I decide to scan at the lower setting will my printed photos be affected? What else will be affected? (I'm not a photo geek so please excuse my ignorance)

Excellent links provided by R_Kelly. Personally, I do trust what Andrew Rodney (Digital Doc) says about it. Anyway, the important information is that scanning in 16-bits is recommended for scanning with black and white grayscale, and it depends on how much editing and correction you are going to apply to the image.

I am not a scanning expert, but I'll take the risk of giving an advice.

First, theoretical discussion won't help you much; experiment and try to see the difference. If you can see it, perhaps not always but with different kinds of pictures, then:

- scan in 16 bits.

- Edit in Elements in 16-bits as much as you can to color correct or. That's where the difference lies. Remember that Elements allows levels, color curves and even Filter/gradient maps in 16-bits.That's what you need to avoid the only visible effect of low bit-depth: posterization.

- Convert to 8-bits in Elements and do the layers and detail work. 16-bits does not help there.

- batch watermark your 8-bits files in tiff, psd, png or even jpeg quality 10. Yes, for the final output, I don't see any advantage to store the result in 16 bits.

You may have noticed the post by Rob C:

This will probably highlight my deep ignorance of such metaphysical matters, but why would anyone choose to use anything other than the highest degree of quality available to them?
Rob C

Well, why would I choose to drink any other wine than a premium 'Grand cru' Bordeaux Château?

Same for photographic equipment: if I don't see the difference, I won't pay for the difference.

Experiment and submit the results to various people to tell if they see the difference. In digital editing, it's easy to prove mathematically than more resolution or bit-depth makes a difference in 'quality'; it's also easy to forget that experimental science tells us what most people can see... or not. For instance the 300 dpi resolution for printing is a general rule. Some people may see better,..