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

Corran said:
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.
Click to expand...

I shoot always DNG files. Then I use LR5 or CS2 to get the jpg files.I just checked, and the M9 is set to uncompressed DNG.
 
Godfrey said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks for your tips, Godfrey. I may have to pay more attention to data acquisition, as you have put it. I always shoot DNG files since quite a while now.
 
Vince Lupo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I will return to LR5 to see what I can do there with the new image files. I do minimal changes in LR5.
 
Darthfeeble said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have not tried to check it out in a print yet. I never sharpen any image, and I do not often add any saturation, but I may add some contrast.
 
raid said:
Yes, I do. Would the resulting jpg be compressed looking?
Click to expand...

No it shouldn't be. I was hoping the culprit was a compressed DNG file throwing away the data needed for the subtle gradations in the sky. Perhaps reducing the contrast in lightroom might help this file, you could then reduce the resulting flatness by boosting the black level to taste
 
This is a jpg from LR5 from the DNG without any additional changes other than rotation (still no straight horizon), but the important part is the banding if it is present or not.

checking_out_banding-X2.jpg
 
They are dust spots. I used the air blower this morning to clean up the sensor a little.
 
Chris Bail said:
These are definitely jpeg artifacts. It can be fixed in Photoshop, but might be easier to control in lightroom with some settings when you export the jpeg.

Are you seeing the banding when you look at the images in lightroom?

BTW, email on the way with the photoshop fix for this.

for anyone else interested, I found this tutorial that is worthwhile to watch.

https://fstoppers.com/post-production/learn-how-fix-color-banding-using-just-one-simple-tool-7946
Click to expand...

Thank you, Chris. You are helping out directly this way.
 
raid said:
This is a jpg from LR5 from the DNG without any additional changes other than rotation (still no straight horizon), but the important part is the banding if it is present or not.

checking_out_banding-X2.jpg
Click to expand...

This one looks better to my eye, but it seems the banding is still there.
 
Due to differences in exposure, the M9 version is degraded by a lower shadow-region signal to noise ratio compared to the M8 version. Technical image IQ is highly dependent on SNR. perceived smearing could just be due to loss of perceived resolution due to low SNR (increased uncertainty can degrade spatial definition too).

Banding is always present at some level when the desired signal levels become similar to the undesired signal levels (banding artifacts). Usually the banding signals are so low they are lost due to in the least significant bit in the ADC. But at some amplification level they can be digitized. No ones camera gives a pure black image when no light is present. Just take a lens cap picture with any digital camera at 1/1000 s., f 16 and increase the brightness afterwards. All the ugly artifacts we see are rarely digitized when signals from light are present.
 
Kwesi said:
Raid, this looks like the results of a compressed file. Are you shooting uncompressed DNGs?
Click to expand...

I agree this looks like compression causing fewer gradations of colour, not banding (which as I understand it is caused by too much ISO gain) and would assume this is almost certainly caused by JPEG compression.

Does the original DNG file look posterised like this?
 
Chris kindly volunteered to improve my image file. He can best explain what he did.

"Basically, I leveled the horizon to make my life easier (about .5 degrees clockwise). Used the rectangular marquee tool to select the blue part of the sky, right click and select "create new layer as a copy" then apply the filter. I did the same for just the orange part of the sky, stopping just short of the horizon and did the same."

Lux%2002.08.15--7c%20-%20spatter%20layer-X3.jpg


he gave me also a useful link: https://fstoppers.com/post-production/learn-how-fix-color-banding-using-just-one-simple-tool-7946
 
raid said:
What are "good settings" for exporting images from LR5?
Click to expand...

I always make sure to export at 100% quality, full size. If I want to "dumb down" the file, I do it in Photoshop by simply making the image size a certain percent smaller than original.

I was thinking there must be a way to choose between 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit color, but it seems there's not.
 
Raid, I see the banding you are talking about in the sky in the first two. Looks like typical tone jumping that occurs when you try to print a very smooth vignette or fade. It may be the jpeg factor. Some of the other images posted by others don't seem to show it as much.

I would look at the raw file and compare the M9 to M8 - the M9 should be better due to the higher resolution and therefore more pixels to carry the transitions.

Of course you can smooth it work with PP.

Velvia is better ;-)
 
The banding in the first two also curves with the radius of the sun, which to me seems that perhaps it's more of the ability of the camera to render all the tones than something technically wrong with the sensor. I would think tech problems would occur in more straight lines with the sensor matrix.
 
Chris Bail said:
I always make sure to export at 100% quality, full size. If I want to "dumb down" the file, I do it in Photoshop by simply making the image size a certain percent smaller than original.

I was thinking there must be a way to choose between 8 bit, 16 bit, and 32 bit color, but it seems there's not.
Click to expand...

I thought so, Chris. I do not downsize the images except for posting purposes later with CS or PS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom