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

[Brownbear]

I would like to know the best way to process raw images which include either a blue sky, blue sky with soft fluffy clouds, or tranquil blue or green waters.

I've noticed that in a few of my bird images with a blue sky/blue sky with soft white clouds in the background or water when viewed at 100% that I can see what I think are artifacts in the sky, just "funky goings-on" in the sky that should be just a beautiful plain nothing but blue. I also see these things in images with water in them, especially if photographed at a higher ISO.

I realize that this can be caused by processing, but I am not sure if this is the cause in my particular case because when when processing photos I'm pretty tame, typically adjusting the white/black (not to the max points) and vibrancy sliders (about 10) in Lightroom, perhaps decreasing highlights a tad, and always an unsharp mask so only the subject is sharpened. (.7 radius - 25-30%) Sometimes I increase the saturation of a chosen colour. Sometimes I apply a mild curves adjustment, but less so lately because this always effects the look of the sky and clouds (dramatically at times) so I plan to learn to do this adjustment in Photoshop CC, selectively.


Most recently I have started export the raw file from Lightroom as a jpeg to Photoshop Elements or Adobe Photoshop CC where I apply an unsharp mask to the subject only (.3 to .7 radius - 100%), so the sky and water are still not being sharpened. Then I save the sharpened file as a copy of the jpeg.

Can anyone see anything in my post processing steps that would result in funky skies and water? Perhaps the white and black sliders in Lightroom are resulting in over processed water and sky.


Mostly I would like to know how others process images with lots of water and sky in them with the goal in mind of keeping the simple soft natural beauty of skies and water.

Thank you.

[FootLoose]

From your description of the "funky goings-on" it sounds like you might be seeing noise when you view at 100%. In the outline of your work flow, I don't see where you have adjusted for noise anywhere.

As far as applying adjustments to the sky only: you could use layers, or -- much easier -- use the adjustment brush in ACR to apply contrast, clarity, etc to just the area you want.

[Brownbear]

Yes, it could be noise (sometimes) but I think I recognize noise and I also think I see funny streaks/lines in the sky. Thus far I have avoided noise reduction because I don't like what it does to the image, but with more practice I'm hoping I will get better at this.

I will try just that (using the adjustment brush in ACR on the selected area) with my next image. Thank you.

From your description of the "funky goings-on" it sounds like you might be seeing noise when you view at 100%. In the outline of your work flow, I don't see where you have adjusted for noise anywhere.

As far as applying adjustments to the sky only: you could use layers, or -- much easier -- use the adjustment brush in ACR to apply contrast, clarity, etc to just the area you want.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Christina,

It is late and I may not have read your post as thoroughly as necessary ... but here goes anyway.

My most immediate thought was that the "funky stuff" you refer to was either:
a) jpg preview artefacts, or
b) posterisation

Is that funky stuff visible around the edges of fine detail against the sky/water? (perhaps particularly when the image is viewed at 100%)
Or is it on smooth tonal gradations of say, the blue sky? (perhaps particularly when the image is not at 100%, i.e. it is being viewed as a 'full composition')

If the first - I suspect it might be noise - you mention the blue channel (the weakest) and worse at higher iso.

If the second - I suspect it might be caused by LR working in 8, not 16 bit mode when processing.
I don't know how LR does the switch, but it always puzzled me why ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) in Photoshop or Elements defaults to 8 bit mode and needs to be manually changed, via the hyperlink-cum-droplist in the lower edge, centre of the screen.

Can you do a few 100% screen grab/crops to show us the funk?

Cheers,

[Brownbear]

Thank you Dave.

Both I think.

I will find some (easy to do) and crop 100%, and post.

Hi Christina,

It is late and I may not have read your post as thoroughly as necessary ... but here goes anyway.

My most immediate thought was that the "funky stuff" you refer to was either:
a) jpg preview artefacts, or
b) posterisation

Is that funky stuff visible around the edges of fine detail against the sky/water? (perhaps particularly when the image is viewed at 100%)
Or is it on smooth tonal gradations of say, the blue sky? (perhaps particularly when the image is not at 100%, i.e. it is being viewed as a 'full composition')

If the first - I suspect it might be noise - you mention the blue channel (the weakest) and worse at higher iso.

If the second - I suspect it might be caused by LR working in 8, not 16 bit mode when processing.
I don't know how LR does the switch, but it always puzzled me why ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) in Photoshop or Elements defaults to 8 bit mode and needs to be manually changed, via the hyperlink-cum-droplist in the lower edge, centre of the screen.

Can you do a few 100% screen grab/crops to show us the funk?

Cheers,

[Shadowman]

If you think high ISO is causing the artifacts then find out what the threshold level for your camera is before noise becomes apparent. you can always use NR in-camera but it might slow up your shooting sequence. An example prior to processing would help.

[ajohnw]

You may be describing a problem you will get working on low quality jpg's. The camera can save very high quality ones. You shoud set at least 90% quality when saving jpg's. I usually use 95%. I'm not an Adobe person but you should be able to export a 16 bit format to PS or the other one from the raw converter. Either tiff or png or maybe some adobe specific format.

Your work flow should look something like raw -> converter -> 16 bit -> PS or whatever -> jpg 90% at least and 1000px wide or so for posting on here.

I have always been a Canon man and recently went Nikon. One thing I have noticed is that adobe raw conversion curves can work well if exposures are bang on. If off changing them can make little or no difference. NBG. I have sort of run ViewNX2 and things are entirely different. Basically the Nikon software generates a profile to suit each specific shot. It also does an automatic noise reduction and allows you to select the same set of profiles that are available in the camera. I'm not sure if you can export directly from this to PS but others should know or the manual should give some clues. Full house NX2 can do that from what I have read and has the sort of facilities that you are used to. There is also a beta version of Nikon's latest and greatest available for nothing at the moment. It's called NX-D. Google should find the download. NX2 in real terms is relatively cheap and some on here really do use it.

I did a quick google on noise reduction - try this one

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p.../reduce-noise/

Frankly having now worked on a few NEF files I have a feeling that not using the Nikon raw conversion should really be reserved for masochists that are into head banging onto concrete type self harm. Take a tip try it - the Nikon software I mean. On open source which I use the best and most reliable option seems to be colour matrix - this makes use of rgb constants in the actual raw file. At least the colours come out correctly.

John
-

[Brownbear]

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)

[Richard Lundberg]

Don't see anything in particular. Of course images posted here are processed somehow.

[Brownbear]

For some reason I can't see the banding as well in the 100% crop, so here is an image that I have several of full size in drop box with definite banding in the sky.

Raw
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2hvmp860s0xp7h/DSC02447.ARW

My attempt at processing to bring out the clouds

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl58vjkaaj...0sharpened.jpg

[Giman]

??? These samples are showing absolutely normal results. Actually, they look pretty good. It just takes a lot of work to smooth them out. And, its a learned skill take times to acquire, just like anything else. I am still having trouble with noise and related issues myself.

[Brownbear]

Just to say yes, these images are processed, and even though noise is not huge, it is important to me as are artifact issues. Not a problem at small sizes but full size, yes. Processed photos posted because they represent what I need to learn how to fix.

Thank you for sharing Giman.

[Giman]

Just to say yes, these images are processed, and even though noise is not huge, it is important to me as are artifact issues. Not a problem at small sizes but full size, yes. Processed photos posted because they represent what I need to learn how to fix.

Thank you for sharing Giman.

My personal preference is to view print size at the finished image size that I will be printing. If it is acceptable at that view it works for me. 100% is just a working view.

[NorthernFocus]

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?

...Basically the Nikon software generates a profile to suit each specific shot. It also does an automatic noise reduction and allows you to select the same set of profiles that are available in the camera...

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.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

I have recently started using ViewNX more and for some water/sky shots (taken for testing purposes only) have found that applying the Nikon 'landscape' profile works very well. I then save as a Tiff for opening in PSE for minor editing/sizing as required.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Considering that many of us including you aren't seeing the problem when viewing the 100% crop, I tried to view your full-size image. However, it's an ARW file that requires accepting terms of agreement for Windows Live, which I'm unwilling to do. When using Dropbox or a similar content-sharing mechanism, your best bet is to simply use a file format that anyone can view that retains all the characteristics of your finished file. I recommend using a TIFF unless someone has a better suggestion.

[Stagecoach]

I tried to view your full-size image. However, it's an ARW file that requires accepting terms of agreement for Windows Live, which I'm unwilling to do. When using Dropbox or a similar content-sharing mechanism, your best bet is to simply use a file format that anyone can view that retains all the characteristics of your finished file. I recommend using a TIFF unless someone has a better suggestion.

Interesting Mike, I noticed it was an ARW file once downloaded but it opened in PSE ACR no problem or agreement acceptance.

I have to say Christina chooses some interesting file formats when downloading, I have seen JPEG~ORIGINAL and ARW for the first time recently

Grahame

[Macmahon]

For some reason I can't see the banding as well in the 100% crop, so here is an image that I have several of full size in drop box with definite banding in the sky.

Raw
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2hvmp860s0xp7h/DSC02447.ARW

My attempt at processing to bring out the clouds

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl58vjkaaj...0sharpened.jpg

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

[Giman]

When using Dropbox or a similar content-sharing mechanism, your best bet is to simply use a file format that anyone can view that retains all the characteristics of your finished file. I recommend using a TIFF unless someone has a better suggestion.

I heard through another thread that PNG is perhaps better since it is "lossless" yet a smaller file. Thoughts?

[Stagecoach]

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

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