Is this an M9 smearing or banding or just a mess?

[raid]

I see some smearing in the sky of some new images. Is this simply a digital artifact or is it some new M9 mess or was the sky this way? Are my eyes tired? What is it? I am getting tired if it all.

I see the smearing when inspected on large computer screens. My M9 was repaired for some defects recently, and it came back to me "like new", I am being told. The second image shows the "smearing" in the sky. Was it clouds? I want to enjoy photography without the continuous worry (it seems) that something seems to be wrong with the M9. I used also the M8 side by side, so let me go back to inspect the sky as recorded by the M8.

 

[gb hill]

Being that the sun is setting I'd say it's the sky. Both photos look good to my eyes. Hope I'm not missing anything & your M9 is OK.

 

[lukitas]

could be very high and very thin cloud.

hard to see.

 

[Particular]

Do you see the same in the raw file? You could be testing the limits of what jpeg can do.

 

[raid]

M8 image for a comparison view.

 

[raid]

I think that you guys are correct here. This is what "digital" seems to be like. Velvia was different looking, and this stays on my mind.
I trying to be practical about it. If it looks fine to you, it is OK for me too. It is not as if I am creating masterpieces for the New York Museum of Art! I love my family and I like taking photos of them and their surroundings, which includes the beaches.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I see some smearing in the sky of some new images. Is this simply a digital artifact or is it some new M9 mess or was the sky this way? Are my eyes tired? What is it? I am getting tired if it all.

I see the smearing when inspected on large computer screens.

Is there a clue to the issue on the bottom right of the image?
Does the unrotated image have the same banding ?

 

[raid]

Is there a clue to the issue on the bottom right of the image?
Does the unrotated image have the same banding ?

This was my (quickly done) error in rotating and cropping the edges.

 

[Godfrey]

Pictures are underexposed, which will always exaggerate any noise or banding.
Difficult light like this—huge dynamic range—means bracket, bracket, bracket to get the best results, with any camera.

G

 

[raid]

Godfrey: Thanks for your input here. I also have images with extra exposure, but I prefer them with this exposure.

 

[Chris Bail]

These look like they are banding to me, though it's subtle. I wouldn't blame the camera. Like Godfrey said, this type of lighting will exaggerate banding.

For what it's worth, A bit of noise reduction in photoshop will probably clean up the banding...I downloaded your second image and gave it a try. Do a layer mask of the sky and apply a noise reduction filter. The color stays nice and the banding blends in to a smooth gradation. If you have a full Res jpg of the file (or raw), I could try it properly and report back.

 

[Corran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterization

 

[raid]

These look like they are banding to me, though it's subtle. I wouldn't blame the camera. Like Godfrey said, this type of lighting will exaggerate banding.

For what it's worth, A bit of noise reduction in photoshop will probably clean up the banding...I downloaded your second image and gave it a try. Do a layer mask of the sky and apply a noise reduction filter. The color stays nice and the banding blends in to a smooth gradation. If you have a full Res jpg of the file (or raw), I could try it properly and report back.

Thanks Chris. msg me your email address so I can email you the image file.

 

[raid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterization

Thanks.

"Unwanted posterization, also known as banding, may occur when the color depth, sometimes called bit depth, is insufficient to accurately sample a continuous gradation of color tone. As a result, a continuous gradient appears as a series of discrete steps or bands of color."

This could be what I am seeing then. I am so used to low ISO slide film colors without banding that the digital limitations are less appealing to me.

 

[Corran]

raid, are you shooting straight to jpeg, and then editing that? I haven't seen posterization in my images for years - the RAW/DNG files don't have any of that with proper editing. I never shoot straight to jpeg anymore, but I did back 5 years ago or so and ran into this problem occasionally, especially in challenging light conditions.

Also, perhaps a setting was changed when you sent your camera in for service that changed the bit depth for RAW files? I can't remember if that's possible in the M9 menu right at the moment and my M9 is at home.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey: Thanks for your input here. I also have images with extra exposure, but I prefer them with this exposure.

Um, push them down in rendering to this exposure...? 🙂

It's best to consider the camera as a data acquisition tool when looking at technically difficult photos like this. Capture with raw data files and render afterwards.

That's pretty much the same experience when working with film, but with a lot more flexibility due to the ease with which digital images can be manipulated.

G

 

[Kwesi]

Raid, this looks like the results of a compressed file. Are you shooting uncompressed DNGs?

 

[Vince Lupo]

Are you doing any PP in Lightroom? If so, have you played with the 'clarity' slider? I find in Sliver Efex you can get banding if you go too far with the clarity slider, or go too dark with the 'dynamic brightness', and thought that maybe LR could cause the same thing with colour images.

I also agree with Godfrey that underexposure can possibly be a contributing factor.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I'll chip in on a PP issue, I get this when I try to bump the Sat/Cont/Sharp too high. My .dng will look OK and when I get things the way I like them, Vivid, I see this. You can Blur the sky to lessen the effect but it still is visible. Does it show in a print?

 

[raid]

Raid, this looks like the results of a compressed file. Are you shooting uncompressed DNGs?

Yes, I do. Would the resulting jpg be compressed looking?