Best way to process images with soft blue sky and tranquil water

[Macmahon]

Tim,

Looking at the sky Jpeg image when opened in Dropbox I can see no banding but when I download it and view at the same physical screen size (as was displayed in dropbox) and also at any size up to 100% the banding is very clearly evident.

Grahame

Grahame
That's odd. I've downloaded the jpg and opened it and viewed it at 100% and a bunch of other ways without seeing the banding. What software are you opening the file into?
Tim

[Stagecoach]

Grahame
That's odd. I've downloaded the jpg and opened it and viewed it at 100% and a bunch of other ways without seeing the banding. What software are you opening the file into?
Tim

Tim, I used PS Elements and also Windows Picture fax viewer which both show the banding. The banding shows in the sky area approx 1/3 in from the left from centre down. My monitors not calibrated but interesting that I can not detect it in the dropbox screen but can when downloaded and viewed at the same size.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Grahame & Christina,

When I try opening the ARW file using Nikon Capture NX2, the software won't open that file format (no surprise). When I display the image and its EXIF data using my cataloging software, it indicates that it was captured on a Sony A200 and that its resolution is 3880 x 2600. However, the cataloging software is unable to display the image at 100%, probably because it doesn't support that file format. So, I'm unable to review it as I would prefer using either of the two software apps with which I'm most familiar.

The reason Windows Live came up is that I tried using Windows to display the image just to see what would happen.

When I open the file using Lightroom 5.3 and display it at 100%, I see no banding even though I'm looking for it in the area Grahame saw it.

Sorry that I'm no help, but I'm suspicious of the ARW file format, as I have never heard of it and don't even know whether it is a RAW format as Christina indicates. If it is a RAW format, my cataloging software is using an unknown version of DCRAW to convert it and Lightroom is using ACR 8.3 to convert it.

[Stagecoach]

Mike,

The ARW file would not open in ViewNX for me only PS Elements ACR. I also noted that PSE shows it as taken on a Sony which made me think as Christina has a Nikon D7100? A google search also defined an ARW file as a Sony RAW.

With the RAW (whatever and wherever it has come from) opened in ACR and Elements I see no banding at all, it's just the Jpeg titled 'with sharpening' that shows the banding.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Grahame. This whole situation is making more sense now that I realize ARW is Sony's RAW format. The image was captured almost three years ago, long before Christina had her Nikon D7100 and before the model was released.

When I view the JPEG using my cataloging software and Capture NX2 at 100%, the banding is obvious. When I view it using Lightroom at 100%, it is so barely evident that I don't think I would recognize it as banding if I hadn't seen it using the other two applications.

However, the resolution of the JPEG is not quite as large as the RAW file. If it were, I imagine the banding would be more evident regardless of the application used to view it. Note to Christina: When making comparisons at 100% viewing, always use the same size file.

Considering that Grahame and I (and perhaps others) can't see the banding when viewing the RAW file and can see it only when viewing the JPEG, I would conclude that the banding is being created during the conversion to the JPEG. This is probably due to the limitations of an 8-bit file rather than sharpening. However, this technical stuff is not my strength.

[Shadowman]

Thank you to both Johns for your suggestions.

John Shadowman, I think I would miss too many shots with that.

John UK. My jpegs are set at the highest quality. I will check out that link and perhaps the Nikon software.

Here are some images cropped 100%, not sharpened for posting which would probably show the noise and stuff better but I wasn't sure if I should sharpen them or not.

Sky with Banding



Funny sky and water (Noise I think)



Funky water (I have tons of this type of water)



Funny sky (blotchy/smeared)

I can see what looks like mottled blue tones in the fourth image and in some of the others, but this was when viewed at 100%. I printed the image at 4" x 6" and the noise wasn't visible, but when I resized to 12" x 20" the noise was visible. I use Noiseware NR software and just using the default setting was enough to smooth it out. Noiseware also has a sharpening and contrast filter that I'll use to bring back any lost detail.

[Shadowman]

Christina,

This tutorial best describes what you are experiencing. Take a look at the EXAMPLES for RGB channels at different ISO levels.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...ge-noise-2.htm

[ajohnw]

Not sure where you found this information. Until recently I used ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2 for my RAW processing. As a matter of fact I used it going all the way back to Nikon Capture. As far as I've ever deduced and/or read anywhere, the Nikon software basically mimics the processing as set in the camera picture controls. If you have NR set up in the camera, then it does NR. Capture NX2 has some default settings but ViewNX2 does not.
I.

From actually using it as others have found. It generates an icc file in temp for every shot processed. These differ from shot to shot. Some people have extracted them and used them in other raw developing software - including me - but they don't work well and leave a difficult curve correction. That even applies to when the icc file is used on the image that generated it. As a for instance on one shot it resulted in the blue channel being 3 stops over exposed. In practice no channel was over exposed.

The noise reduction in ViewNX2 is apparent from a nef file I posted on here fairly recently. I assume NX2 has more facilities for noise reduction.

The other aspect I noticed is that the Nikon software gives more accurate colouring without any additional work. A good place to start. I would hope both and the new package can export 16bit. I suspect some of Christina's problems are down to exporting jpg's directly from raw and it looks like Adobe don't expect people to do that to me.

I do use a package that can use Adobe camera profiles. Let's just say I find them interesting and leave it at that. With the software I use I can get far better more consistent results using the channel multipliers Nikon put in the raw files.

Really I feel a lot depends on if people like rolling around in thorn bushes. Personally I feel there is no harm in letting software do as much work as possible all on it's own leaving me to do the creative bit.

One thing for sure if I did run Windows which I don't I would most certainly use Nikon software for the initial stages.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all for your replies. I am in a rush this morning but I will reply in more detail later.

The file is a raw file from my older Sony camera, all my Nikon raw files also have the same name.

My computer screen is calibrated, not profiled (not sure about the latter)

Grahame, thank you for seeing the banding! John, thank you for seeing the funny sky. It is hard to see in my posts here but I can see the blotches on my screen, more so when compared to images with perfect blue sky.

[Mike Buckley]

My computer screen is calibrated, not profiled (not sure about the latter)

You're using the Spyder4 Express, which performs both functions. As I understand the terminology, which may not be exactly correct, calibrating the monitor is everything the device does to get your monitor to display accurate colors. Profiling it is what the device does to save that information in a file so you don't have to calibrate your monitor every time you turn it on.

[ajohnw]

I had a play with the raw file. Sony came as a bit of a surprise. I've stuck it here temporarily. I used ufraw and adjusted to fill the histogram - underexposed by ?? not possible to avoid black clipping so just increased the exposure. I'd guess + 1/2 to 1 stop in the camera would help.

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/15628659/original


I see no banding - hope others don't either. I get a bit of a reflection problem during the day but could see slight signs in the crop.

Once I started working on it from a jpg bands appeared. That's a completely novel experience for me so can't help wondering if it's down to the raw file as it's rather small. I recollect Adobe using a lossy compression on it's own raw files but apart from that pass. There is info missing somewhere. I have had this happen while adjusting some of Christina's other jpg's and assumed it was down to low quality levels. The answer should be to export in a 16 bit. format and save jpg's from the main editor but if info isn't in the raw file that wont help. A weak median noise removal gets rid of it but that will also loose detail on some images. That will also remove the noise in the other shots but other methods would be better on the bird shots. For that it needs to be area aware so that fine detail isn't lost.

I messed up a fake hdr using Hugin by generating a cloud exposure and a forground exposure from the same raw file. It's messed up as the foreground exposure is pushed to far and I took the sky to pure white. Out curiosity really. Hugin uses Enfuse and it's best to experiment with exposure settings from raw. Generally detail at both ends of the tone range will work best. Done with a white sky in the bright exposure it needed selection techniques on the sky.



I think an enfuse plug in is available for one of the adobe packages - it's a low level open source utiliity that's been around for a long long time and other packages just provide a gui for it.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

Once I started working on it from a jpg bands appeared.

To be clear, did the banding appear when you converted from RAW to JPEG or was it additional post-processing of the JPEG that created the banding?

[ajohnw]

To be clear, did the banding appear when you converted from RAW to JPEG or was it additional post-processing of the JPEG that created the banding?

Any noticeable change to the jpg in the editor Mike. I have had the same thing happen on some of Christina's other jpg's, sky in particular.

Part of the problem on this one could also be under exposure. In ufraw I can increase by 2 stops without any of the sky clipping but black is still clipped. I'd guess that another stop in the camera would have caught all of the dark end. Ufraw can have a gradation problem on some cameras without the correct ICC file but it's generally well tuned for anything that has been around for a while. I only really notice it on an E-M5 if the exposure is near perfect. So far for me it's jpg out put hasn't had this problem at all. That isn't something I would normally do though. More often I would save 16bit png or tiff as the editor export sends a gimp file or at least some thing my other editors wont accept.

One thought that struck me is that perhaps Adobe haven't put much thought into the raw converter jpg save as it's an unusual thing to do. This aspect plus in this case under exposure but if adobe is using a lossy raw I would have to wonder about that.

Just did another convert with Rawtherepee. Auto levels, shadow recovery and highlight compression to get rid of the clipped highlights - no banding but this is working straight from the raw file along with any info in it. It now looks to me that not editing with a high bit depth image is the main problem. Dark areas are flat and lack contrast but that's a limitation of shadow recovery - Nikon's D-Light is much better.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Hi Tim,

Quite the opposite! Thank you for letting me know. I need to hear this because it lets me know that I need to improve my post processing skills.

The only thing I sharpened in the image was the hillside, simply because I don't think clouds and water should be sharpened, ie; they are naturally soft. ( Yes, my screen is calibrated.)

You know I can't see the problems in the images with as great clarity as I can see them on my own screen when viewed at 100%. I don't know why this is, but I do know that the sky and water in these images don't look right because I can compare them to other shots with sky and water in them, where the sky and water look just fine. The birds here are fine... Actually I think I've figured it out as a result of all the replies and info here... In the cloud shot it is banding, and in the other shots it is luminance noise.



Thank you.

The only thing I sharpened in that image

Christina

You're probably not going to like me for this, but

1 I don't think your attempt to bring out the clouds has improved the image. The clouds in the RAW file look more detailed and punchier, to me.

2 I also don't detect that the 'sharpened' jpg is any sharper. I confess it's a tricky photograph to evaluate sharpness but I'm pretty sure the jpg is not sharper

However, here's the good news
3 I don't see any banding in the jpg at all (just as I saw none in the earlier images you posted (which are great BTW))

I was prepared to jump on your 8-bit export for sharpening. 8 bit JPEGs often demonstrate posterisation in delicately toned blue skies etc. But I don't see any posterisation.

It has just occurred to me to wonder whether the banding you're seeing might be an artefact of your screen calibration: Have calibrated and profiled recently?

Just a thought.

Cheers

Tim

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing and advising. I believe part of the problem is the way I have been exporting files from Lightroom. I will review my export settings and double check all, to make sure I'm working on the 16 bit file and sRGB setting.

There are issues in the sky and the water, which some people can see and others can't but at least I know that others can see them too. I can see it in other images that I have, too, and it is something that I need to figure out.

Christina, make sure you do as much color processing as possible with the 16 bit file in LR. Subtle shading is where 8 bit really falls apart and that's where you get the banding. Also make sure you are converting to sRGB when you export from LR. Actually I don't see any issues with the photos you posted here. Are you sure your monitor is set up properly?


Not sure where you found this information. Until recently I used ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2 for my RAW processing. As a matter of fact I used it going all the way back to Nikon Capture. As far as I've ever deduced and/or read anywhere, the Nikon software basically mimics the processing as set in the camera picture controls. If you have NR set up in the camera, then it does NR. Capture NX2 has some default settings but ViewNX2 does not.

Interestingly now I've started using LR I like the fact that it starts from scratch with the RAW file. The one exception is WB which it can now read from the file (per my understanding not the case for earlier versions). But I shoot with all picture controls "turned off" anyway so don't see much difference between LR and ViewNX2.

[Brownbear]

Thank you to everyone for your replies and helpful advice.

Dave...

The noise is in the tonal areas with graduations.. Thank you for letting me know what details to look for. Now that I know what the problem is I should be able to figure out how to avoid and hopefully fix it.

John (Shadowman)

Yes, mottling is a great description. Thank you for the tutorial link and the link on noise reduction. The latter was very helpful in showing me what type of noise I need to fix.

Mike and Grahame...

Thank you as always for helping me figure things out. Yes, the cloud shot is from Mexico and taken with my Sony camera. I also have some cloud images taken with a Nikon D90. My sincere apologies for the confusion resulting from the different file types. I posted the raw image because I figured that with the raw image would show the true state of the image and any associated problems with banding, the best of all file types... If Tiff and DNG files also show this I will use these types of files in future.

I'm not sure why I have so many different file types, but I will work on figuring this out and I will fix it.

I will also check out View NX2

Richard and Giman...

I realize that the noise and banding doesn't seem to be apparent in the 100% crops, or smaller sizes, but it is there. I print some of my images quite large and because I adore images with blue sky, water and clouds, signs of mottling and banding bother me. Some of my images taken with my older cameras have nicer skies and water, and this shouldn't be the case... Hence the images I posted are processed, because they represent something I am doing poorly while post processing - that I need to learn to fix.


John (UK)

Thank you as always for your helpful advice, and for sharing your expertise. I will check out View NX2, and how I am exporting files. I think the mottling is blue luminance noise.

Yes, as Mike also noticed the banding appears when one is working on the jpeg. I am going to try processing this photo again, from raw (just one file type) and I will post the image if it turns out half decent. I have a lot of images of storm clouds (even hurricane storm clouds) that I am fond of, that I would like to figure out how to process well.

Yes, the image is underexposed in the hillside and trees. It was taken during the early morning and the greenery appeared black. (it was dark) I exposed for the clouds and in post processing darkened the clouds because that is how they looked, orange and stormy, so this is what I am trying to bring out. On sunny days the hillside is a beautiful green and the clouds are white just as your edit shows, but this isn't how the scene looked on that morning. However, everything single edit you demonstrate along with the tips is very helpful. Thank you. I truly appreciate all of your help.



Thank you to everyone!

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, it can be good to share a RAW file or not.

The two best reasons for sharing a RAW file are to get comments from people who will use the same software as yours to convert it or to ask people to use that software to edit it. That means advising everyone which converter you used.

The best reason not to share a RAW file is so everyone has the best possibility of rendering the same look. Even then, be aware that there are no assurances because some people won't use a calibrated monitor. Some people will use software that for whatever reason doesn't render an image generally the same as most software. Some people don't realize their preference settings are changing the look (example: a setting may automatically open your image using a different color space than the one that you imbedded). There are probably other factors as well.

[Brownbear]

Thank you.

Christina,

Depending on what you are trying to accomplish, it can be good to share a RAW file or not.

The two best reasons for sharing a RAW file are to get comments from people who will use the same software as yours to convert it or to ask people to use that software to edit it. That means advising everyone which converter you used.

The best reason not to share a RAW file is so everyone has the best possibility of rendering the same look. Even then, be aware that there are no assurances because some people won't use a calibrated monitor. Some people will use software that for whatever reason doesn't render an image generally the same as most software. Some people don't realize their preference settings are changing the look (example: a setting may automatically open your image using a different color space than the one that you imbedded). There are probably other factors as well.

[ajohnw]

Thank you to everyone for your replies and helpful advice.


John (UK)

Thank you as always for your helpful advice, and for sharing your expertise. I will check out View NX2, and how I am exporting files. I think the mottling is blue luminance noise.

Yes, as Mike also noticed the banding appears when one is working on the jpeg. I am going to try processing this photo again, from raw (just one file type) and I will post the image if it turns out half decent. I have a lot of images of storm clouds (even hurricane storm clouds) that I am fond of, that I would like to figure out how to process well.

Yes, the image is underexposed in the hillside and trees. It was taken during the early morning and the greenery appeared black. (it was dark) I exposed for the clouds and in post processing darkened the clouds because that is how they looked, orange and stormy, so this is what I am trying to bring out. On sunny days the hillside is a beautiful green and the clouds are white just as your edit shows, but this isn't how the scene looked on that morning. However, everything single edit you demonstrate along with the tips is very helpful. Thank you. I truly appreciate all of your help.



Thank you to everyone!

Until you get used to the vagaries of a camera's metering system it might be best to set your camera to auto bracket +/- 1 stop especially when taking shots where cloud detail is especially important. I reckon this one is about 2 stops under without clipping cloud detail. The extra stop would probably have kept all of the dark end in the raw file rather than clipping it so much that any degree of recovery will be more.difficult than it need be.

On your other post don't be afraid to pp jpg's. A lot of comments on that are getting rather dated. Cameras often put 9 stops in them these days usually mostly compressing the dark tone ranges. The highlight end tends to differ according to the in camera curve that is used. These curves set how the say 12 bits in the camera are mapped into an 8 bit colour space. Your pp will improve what ever you work on. Jpg's are just easier at times.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Thank you John!

Just to finish this thread off, so others may learn from my challenges.

1. The noise/blotches in the sky is mostly luminance noise in the blue channel. I did the tutorials John (Shadowman) recommended and if I open the files in photoshop CC and decrease the noise in the blue channel only it helps a lot.

What I find very odd is that in Photoshop CC if I try to selectively decrease luminance noise in the blue channel only, using a duplicate layer, the the advanced mode to reduce the noise in the blue channel is not available. Nor is noise reduction available in an adjustment layer?

2. I exported the cloud photo from Lightroom as a DNG file (instead of as a jpeg) and worked with it in Adobe Photoshop CC in ACR, and as soon as I started working on it to decrease the exposure of the clouds to bring out the detail (curves), and/or sharpening with an unsharp mask .3 radius at 100% or even 40% the banding was very evident. Something is super sensitive about the image. Hence this set of cloud shots will be just a memory for me...

For those who couldn't see the banding I share my attempted edits in which the banding should be highly evident, so you know what it looks like.. And also just to share this magnificent cloud before I delete the shot forever more. (:



And a different shot from the same morning with whiter clouds.. Banding still evident!



Off to find some new clouds to photograph!