-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sara Valentine
Leading Member
Agreed. And I'd recommend the same to the OP if they have displeasure in the IQ beyond the banding.
I disagree with the continued classification of the localized adjustments as extreme. Plenty of photos in the past were derived from latent images manipulated in exposure, manipulated in development, dodged and burned to make compensations for the scene not providing the ideal illuminance distribution across the photographic medium for capture in a single frame.
What techniques are those, excluding exposure merging?
Nikon's competitors (e.g. Sony) have demonstrated the ability to mitigate this issue. Nikon is behooved to reach parity before insisting their users compensates for what appears to be readily solvable inadequacies.
This is getting reductive. The image will require as much manipulation as the photographer desires for the specific scene and vision; not bounded by some arbitrary standard of what happens to "most [other] images".
That depends on the aesthetic intent determined by the photographer which technical IQ may facilitate.
Last edited:
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
Huh?
Jim, I know you are above average here, any of these sensors pushed from black to +5 needed for this will show banding.
Jim, I know you are above average here, any of these sensors pushed from black to +5 needed for this will show banding.
jfriend00
Forum Pro
You have to admit that 6 stops is a lot. Yes, people may have been doing that before, but it is a lot. Even without banding, IQ is seriously compromised when shadows are pushed 6 stops (lots of noise, loss of detail and some loss of color accuracy or fidelity).
Exposure merging is the way to do it with enhanced IQ. That's how you give those deep shadows an appropriate exposure that can be merged with a highlight saving image.
If you really want to do it with a single Z image, then you either have to learn how to avoid compositions that can trigger the banding (I'm not sure this has been totally figure out, but it appears to have something to do with a bright light source in the image along with a big shadow push) or you have to use one of the RAW developers than handles the banding for you.
I don't think anyone disagrees. Nikon shouldn't have this issue and they will probably figure it out at some point. I don't know if we really know this is "readily solvable". My guess is that Nikon has some tradeoffs in how they do things and this occasional behavior is an accepted tradeoff for some other image benefit that Nikon thinks is more important. That doesn't mean they want it to remain this way forever, just that this is the best state of their technology at the time. Remember, this is version one for Nikon's FF mirrorless.
Are you really going to argue that most images require this? Or even that most photographers encounter this issue regularly?
Z bodies are currently not reliable for a 6-stop shadow push. That's the state of the system. Sometimes they work just fine (no banding), sometimes they do not unless you a use a specific RAW developer. Those are the choices today.
Well, bracketing and blending will get you a better IQ in the shadows and no banding. I'm not sure what "aesthetic intent" in regard to blending or not blending is.
A good argument against bracketing and blending is that it requires a still subject and still camera (tripod for best result) so you have probably to have that available in order to do bracketing and blending. Hopefully Nikon will adjust their firmware at some point to make this less of an issue.
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
All the Sony examples of banding here over the years.
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
Thx, only the D850 has no banding.
Can you tell me where you see the banding in the A7rIII image?
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
More in the A7III, but yes in the A7RIII too, It is different than the Z6, Sony has thicker bands.
Really who cares?!? I am never going to make a swing of -5 to +5 in a picture. I would bracket!
Ok, where?
You seem to care to some degree since you're participating in this discussion.
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
Posted a couple versions of the OPs pic to show maybe DxO is doing a better job than CaptureOne cleaning up a pic. (Pic that should have been bracketed)
There are some baby skunks at my bird feeder, they will be more fun that this place. It is kind of dark, hope I will not need to push the pics 10 stops & get banding!
--
- JJ
Last edited:
Sara Valentine
Leading Member
So what? Perhaps it's just as the photographer intended with full regard of the limitations of the system (outside of the banding) for the given exposure. "Extreme" or "a lot" is not wrong.
So no additional techniques.
I thought you've been writing that you can't do it on a Z even if the banding wasn't present?
I don't think the users of the current Z's should have to wait as long as they are for this issue to be resolved.
That's not even what I'm suggesting.
Perhaps not so much for color images and particularly when you don't know what in the framed scene will trigger such banding.
Indeed
jfriend00
Forum Pro
When no banding is present, you get a relatively similar result with a Z7 as you do with a D850. It's possible there's some compromise due to the cells within the sensor that are used for AF on the Z7 even when the larger effect banding isn't triggered - I haven't really studied that, but the theory suggests there are some pixels that can be compromised a bit. So, you can do whatever you want with the Z7.
OK, that's your opinion and apparently this particular issue is really important to you. That's fine.
I know from the 6 months of discussion here about this topic that there are plenty of users who don't care one lick about it because they don't push shadows like this, ever.
I'm not going to represent how many people are in each camp (as I don't know precisely), but there certainly are plenty who don't care at all about the issue which just means that Nikon needs to prioritize this issue vs. everything else they can work on (like improving AF performance, doing CF Express support, eye focus, fixing other bugs, improving battery life, delivering more Z-mount lenses, working on a D860, D760, D6, Z9, Z5, etc...).
I've seen no Sony examples of PDAF banding. PDAF striping, sure, but that's a different thing, presents differently, and affects a different part of the tone curve. PDAF banding is a Nikon Z thing, and is caused by Nikon's attempt to fix PDAF striping. In my opinion, the cure is worse than the disease.
Your earlier statement that "yes you will see banding on any camera with on sensor PDAF" is incorrect, based upon my experience and fairly intensive testing. It's even difficult sometimes to get the Zx to exhibit PDAF banding when you're trying to get it to band.
Jim
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
Guess I am done trying to help around here. Just was trying to show the OP the DxO may have been doing a better job than CapOne cleaning the pics.
Thx for admitting they both have issues. That is why I see both Z's and Sony's have "lines in the pictures..." As I noted above, they do look different.
Last edited:
James Stirling
Forum Pro
There is nothing reasonable about that level of pushing, if you need to push 5 or more stops I am afraid you are doing it wrong. When a quick burst of bracketed shots would give you far more information to play with. Sometimes the photographer has to put a little thought into it. I believe that there is also a way to fix the banding in post using certain software.
J
JJoyce4699
Guest
Nice to see this is really a non-issue with the correct tool.
No normal person would see any issues, unless...
Credit: Mark Denney
--
- JJ
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
Not in the images posted. You can even use RAW digger to see there is no banding noise in the Sony file when pushed +5EV
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum