Z6 banding is this normal?

Sara Valentine said:

Mako2011 said:

Sara Valentine said:

Mako2011 said:

JJoyce4699 said:

Horshack said:

JJoyce4699 said:

Horshack said:

D850 vs A7rIII vs Z7 vs Z6, -5EV Underexposed, Pushed +5EV

Click to expand...

Thx, only the D850 has no banding.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me where you see the banding in the A7rIII image?

Click to expand...

More in the A7III, but yes in the A7RIII too, It is different than the Z6, Sony has thicker bands.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Banding fragments are evident in the Sony frame. It's in the darkest tones.

Click to expand...

That's not really banding noise as it's usually defined. In the case linked... Likely just a processing artifact rather than banding noise. Especially as the "banding" is absent in other similar dark tones in the image. I think it was pointed out earlier the methodology in that setup is suspect in many ways. Always interesting though

Click to expand...

And I suspect neither was JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

James Stirling said:

Sara Valentine said:

James Stirling said:

I was responding to the image presented by the OP .

Click to expand...

No you weren't. You responded in generalities.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62817291

"That is an extreme push , perhaps try exposure bracketing if you want information in the darkest and brightest area of a subject with such a wide range"

Nothing specific about anything other than the luminance range of the scene.

Click to expand...

The tradition on forums is to discuss what the OP posts,

Click to expand...

Mako2011 said:

James Stirling said:

Sara Valentine said:

James Stirling said:

I was responding to the image presented by the OP .

Click to expand...

No you weren't. You responded in generalities.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62817291

"That is an extreme push , perhaps try exposure bracketing if you want information in the darkest and brightest area of a subject with such a wide range"

Nothing specific about anything other than the luminance range of the scene.

Click to expand...

The tradition on forums is to discuss what the OP posts,

Click to expand...

Note that DPR has a Threaded and a Flat View format. Very common here for folks to enter the discussion form a side discussion without ever ready the OP. Almost a "tradition" here to discus something other than the OP's post

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

There's a way to measure the push, but that would require shooting a step wedge and comparing raw and developed densities. I don't have time to do that today.

Jim

Click to expand...

Horshack said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

There's a way to measure the push, but that would require shooting a step wedge and comparing raw and developed densities. I don't have time to do that today.

Jim

Click to expand...

ACR's exposure slider is pretty close to linear based on testing I've done, so to measure the shadow slider adjustment you can use a marquee patch to measure the luminance effect of the shadow slider adjustment, then back off the shadow slider to zero and keep adjusting the exposure slider until it matches the luminance value you saw from the shadow slider. Open the raw as a smart object to make it easier to do the experimental adjustments in PS. I actually did all this once but can't find my results.

Note the shadow slider is non-linear with respect to the tone curve so I would measure a very deep shadow, where it has the most effect.

Click to expand...

Horshack said:

ACR's exposure slider is pretty close to linear based on testing I've done, so to measure the shadow slider adjustment you can use a marquee patch to measure the luminance effect of the shadow slider adjustment, then back off the shadow slider to zero and keep adjusting the exposure slider until it matches the luminance value you saw from the shadow slider. Open the raw as a smart object to make it easier to do the experimental adjustments in PS. I actually did all this once but can't find my results.

Note the shadow slider is non-linear with respect to the tone curve so I would measure a very deep shadow, where it has the most effect.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

I am blissfully unaware of the way that equivalence is discussed on the MF3 forum. I am all too aware of the way it's talked about on the MF forum.

Counting my blessings...

Jim

Click to expand...

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

JJoyce4699 said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

I dropped the highlights & pushed both the shadows and the exposure to get the brighter rendering.

Click to expand...

Member said:

If I just pushed the shadows, it would have looked close to Jim's version.

Click to expand...

Member said:

We are also using different RAW converters.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JJoyce4699 said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

I dropped the highlights & pushed both the shadows and the exposure to get the brighter rendering.

Click to expand...

That's what I did, too.

JimKasson said:

If I just pushed the shadows, it would have looked close to Jim's version.

Click to expand...

You just wanted the grass brighter than I did, I think. Also the tree foliage. I don't think it looks natural that bright.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

We are also using different RAW converters.

Click to expand...

I got lost. What were you using? Oh, I see: DxO.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Jim

Click to expand...

JJoyce4699 said:

JimKasson said:

JJoyce4699 said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

I dropped the highlights & pushed both the shadows and the exposure to get the brighter rendering.

Click to expand...

That's what I did, too.

Member said:

If I just pushed the shadows, it would have looked close to Jim's version.

Click to expand...

You just wanted the grass brighter than I did, I think. Also the tree foliage. I don't think it looks natural that bright.

Click to expand...

Have a Z6 and was trying to find the limit I could push before I saw an issue. If it was my pic, agree it would look closer to your version.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

JJoyce4699 said:

JimKasson said:

JJoyce4699 said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

How many effective stops were the particular regions pushed with +1.75 on the exposure slider and 100% on the shadows slider?

Click to expand...

Hard to say precisely. I'm guessing the shadows got close to a 5-stop push. The banding was visible with less of a push, but that didn't suit what I thought the image demanded, since the grass turned very dark with that push. In fact, the thing that caused the banding to disappear with a low push was the light and dark parts of the banding both getting near the black point.

I didn't print the image, but I've found that shadow detail is usually more apparent in prints viewed under bright lights than on monitors in rooms that aren't darkened (and I don't darken mine for editing).

Note: I answered this as if it were directed to me, but it was directed to the OP. Sara, if I wasn't the person you were asking the question of, I'm sorry.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting that you have rather different brightnesses for the similar 5 stop push compared to JJoyce4699.

Click to expand...

I dropped the highlights & pushed both the shadows and the exposure to get the brighter rendering.

Click to expand...

That's what I did, too.

JimKasson said:

If I just pushed the shadows, it would have looked close to Jim's version.

Click to expand...

You just wanted the grass brighter than I did, I think. Also the tree foliage. I don't think it looks natural that bright.

Click to expand...

Have a Z6 and was trying to find the limit I could push before I saw an issue. If it was my pic, agree it would look closer to your version.

Click to expand...

I guess I saw the issue sooner than you did, because it was certainly there in my less aggressive push.

Jim

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

I pulled the NEF into ACR and applied settings to taste:



I tried to capture what appeared to me to be the mood of the scene. I pushed exposure a bit, the shadows a lot, and brought down the highlights. Had it been my image, I would have cropped off the lower gray part, but I left it.

The capture, IMO, is not underexposed. A more generous exposure would have lost the color and texture in the sky.

You could argue that it should have been a multishot capture, and, with a solid tripod, that would have been preferable. But this is an image that would have developed just fine in many cameras, but not the Zx. The camera saw the sun filtering through the trees, and created the banding in a successful attempt to avoid PDAF striping.

I see no way shooting through a grad could have helped much without causing an artifact at the transition (it would have to be a sharp grad).

Here's a full size JPEG. The banding is unacceptable.



This could be fixed in Raw Therapee.

Now that I've worked with it, I quite like this image. Well seen, OP! Here's a version that's cleaned up a bit and cropped to my taste.

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

I brought the raw file into ACR, and made copies with no shadow push (for all), and 2, 3, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 stops of exposure push. I printed them out at 180ppi on an Epson P800 on Photo Glossy paper.

The bands were visible with the naked eye under desk lamp illumination in all cases. In no case were they sufficiently benign that I'd consider selling a print with that kind of artifact.

So it doesn't take heroic pushes to make the banding visible. +2 EV of exposure alone with do it, if you're printing fairly large.

Jim

Click to expand...

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

I brought the raw file into ACR, and made copies with no shadow push (for all), and 2, 3, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 stops of exposure push. I printed them out at 180ppi on an Epson P800 on Photo Glossy paper.

The bands were visible with the naked eye under desk lamp illumination in all cases. In no case were they sufficiently benign that I'd consider selling a print with that kind of artifact.

So it doesn't take heroic pushes to make the banding visible. +2 EV of exposure alone with do it, if you're printing fairly large.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. Important findings. Not such a "non-issue".

Click to expand...

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

I brought the raw file into ACR, and made copies with no shadow push (for all), and 2, 3, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 stops of exposure push. I printed them out at 180ppi on an Epson P800 on Photo Glossy paper.

The bands were visible with the naked eye under desk lamp illumination in all cases. In no case were they sufficiently benign that I'd consider selling a print with that kind of artifact.

So it doesn't take heroic pushes to make the banding visible. +2 EV of exposure alone with do it, if you're printing fairly large.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. Important findings. Not such a "non-issue".

Click to expand...

More important for some people than others. For family snaps printed on B-size paper, no big deal. For D-size pictures on which the photographer's reputation depends, something to watch out for.

Jim

Click to expand...

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

Sara Valentine said:

JimKasson said:

I brought the raw file into ACR, and made copies with no shadow push (for all), and 2, 3, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 stops of exposure push. I printed them out at 180ppi on an Epson P800 on Photo Glossy paper.

The bands were visible with the naked eye under desk lamp illumination in all cases. In no case were they sufficiently benign that I'd consider selling a print with that kind of artifact.

So it doesn't take heroic pushes to make the banding visible. +2 EV of exposure alone with do it, if you're printing fairly large.

Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks Jim. Important findings. Not such a "non-issue".

Click to expand...

More important for some people than others. For family snaps printed on B-size paper, no big deal. For D-size pictures on which the photographer's reputation depends, something to watch out for.

Jim

Click to expand...

Which particular B size exceeds such threshold? I would have considered B0 a fairly large size print compared to perhaps a typical B6 for a family snap.

Click to expand...