7. Save a print copy 16-bit TIFF.
8. Print from Photoshop. Sometimes I'll do a test print on a small 4x6" sheet (I usually have some boxes of that for the various types of paper I like to print on...I'm a big fan of natural fiber papers, particularly from Moab and Hahnemuhle, and the satin and metal luster papers from RedRiver.) If the 4x6" test comes out looking good from a gamut standpoint, I'll print on the full size paper, which is usually either 13x19" or 11x14".
And you do all this on windows or osx?
All on Windows 8.1. As far as Photoshop and printing is concerned, there is no reason to "need" OSX for printing anymore. That old paradigm went out over a decade ago. Windows have been top notch graphic workstations for a long time.
So you have harped on about how there is no need to have cameras with high DR because this isn't capable of it or that isn't capable of it but yet your entire workflow is in 16bit.
In various other threads you've commented that Sony are claiming too many stops of DR for the number of bits and since you're working with a 16bit workflow obviously you think you need more than 7 or 8 bits of IQ and since 1 bit equals 1 stop of DR, 7 to 8 stops of DR is not enough for you.
Elsewhere in earlier comments in this thread you've stated that print only requires 7 or 8 stops of DR.
Something doesn't add up here. You're saying that printing only delivers 7 or 8 stops of DR yet your workflow supports 16. Why not just work in an 8 bit workspace since that is all that your printing can deliver?
The workflow is actually with an original RAW file opened up in Photoshop. It's in whatever bit depth the RAW file has, which in my case is 14-bit. The saving to 16-bit TIFF occurs at the end. You also don't really seem to understand the significant differences between print and digital images. Print is an entirely different beast. In the print world, you never hear anyone talk about "dynamic range"...it's all DMax and L* and tonalities and the subtleties of color in areas of fine microcontrast. Bit depth is ultimately about tonal space, the ability to preserve fine gradients and the subtleties of detail when your pushing the white and black point around or trying to shift out of gamut colors into the gamut of the printer+ink+paper. It doesn't matter if print only has five or six stops of "dynamic range"...that simply doesn't matter. Print is different, it uses an entirely different color model and you have to be concerned about entirely different things like ink density and ink evenness and reflectivity and metamerism and viewing light and all that.
Now, even assuming I saved the file as a 16-bit TIFF up front, there are a couple things that limit the editing latitude. For one, saving a 14-bit file as a 16-bit file is no different than saving an 8-bit file as a 16-bit file. You don't suddenly gain more information out of thin air. You started with 14 bits of information. That 14 bits of information is distributed throughout the 16-bit file...it's the same amount of information, just stored in a file capable of referencing larger numbers. You don't gain anything. Your camera's dynamic range is limited by it's HARDWARE. I could save the image as a 32-bit floating point HDR TIFF if I wanted to...that still isn't going to somehow magically create more information out of nothing. The only way to take full advantage of a 32-bit HDR TIFF is to actually take multiple frames at different exposures, and do an HDR merge that combines the extended information of all of them into a single data set that is actually capable of utilizing the high dynamic range that a 32-bit floating point TIFF image can offer.
There is no magic to converting a 14-bit RAW to a 16-bit TIFF. You don't gain anything for nothing. The only reason I do it is because the only other options are either 8-bit TIFF or 32-bit integer or floating point TIFF. I don't want to lose any information, which is guaranteed if I save as 8-bit TIFF. I don't want to waste space, which is also guaranteed if I use a 32-bit TIFF without actually having enough information precision to take advantage of it. So, I save as 16-bit TIFF.
As for why work in 16-bit or 14-bit rather than 8-bit? The math used for all the various algorithms that are applied when processing is prone to introducing error. That error often ends up affecting the lower order bits most, where information is most sparse (i.e. lower midtones and shadows), although it can and will affect the entire signal. When you have only 8 bits, those errors show up more readily as artifacts. When you have more bits, you run a much lower risk of introducing processing artifacts into your images. This is one of the benefits of working in high bit depth RAW. Even the small move from 12-bit to 14-bit was actually fairly significant from the standpoint of improving the working space for all the mathematical algorithms to do their thing with RAW images without introducing artifacts. There are also other losses when moving from a true RAW format to an RGB format. Once you bind the three color channels together at each pixel, you lose a significant amount of editing latitude unless you move to a significantly higher bit depth, and even then, you can only push and pull the exposure or other information around with the basic kinds of tools in programs like Photoshop or Lightroom so much before artifacts exhibit with a vengeance. I do massive signal stretching for my astrophotography, but in order to do so, I usually work with 64-bit IEEE floating point FITS images, so I have enough precision to minimize the impact of errors introduced by algorithms. Even then, there are still limits to how far I can push those algorithms...push them too far, and your still guaranteed to get artifacts.