Strange Pattern in RAW Files

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160 iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

1:1 clipping from the pixture...



If I use photoshop to convert the RAW format I get the same lines, but not so shap.

Whole picture (a bit cropped)...



Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Thanks,
Gucky.

Cute squirrel. I think that's pattern noise from the sharpening algorhythms, which is enhanced because that particular area is underexposed shadow detail. This is where the S3 would help out, I hope.

At any rate, I don't think it would show up in a print, unless you made a huge print.

Anthony

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

1:1 clipping from the pixture...



If I use photoshop to convert the RAW format I get the same lines,
but not so shap.

Whole picture (a bit cropped)...



Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Thanks,
Gucky.

Click to expand...

The ISO160 setting has a tendency to give odd artifacts at times - reason I totally stopped using it (I did so in the beginning when I swapped over from the s602 with it's base iso of 160)

A friend of mine also uses ISO160 and after an initial observation of mine we decided to test the exposure - and it seems like photos in ISO160 expose quite differently at times from these taken at ISO100 and 200 - the camera is somewhat limited by it's 1/2th stop metering..while ISO160 is 1/6th a stop difference with ISO200.

Anyways, I noticed that ISO160 also has more noise than the 200 setting,and have witnessed oddish artifacts in the past that were usually to vague to be seen unless 100 or 200% zoomed in.

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

1:1 clipping from the pixture...



If I use photoshop to convert the RAW format I get the same lines,
but not so shap.

Whole picture (a bit cropped)...



Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Thanks,
Gucky.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the whisker movement?

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Steve,

mm no I was talking about the hmm..."odd streaking rainbowish banding" in the darker sections of the squirrel . It's difficult to quantify, but I have my share of experiences with ISO160 that make me reluctant to use it (prefer 200). Never something I can easely point out, but most images I shot with ISO160 have some kind of artifacting/banding/exposure problem, seemingly. I stopped using it alltogether almost a year ago.

Perhaps something of specific cameras? I know a friend of mine in the UK who has the same easely reproduceable results as I have - ISO160 generates more noise when compared to ISO200...(Just regular noise, not talking about the banding issue).

Steve Bingham said:

Are you talking about the whisker movement?

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Click to expand...

It looks like you got the old jaggies. I would try to convert using a different raw converter driver/program. Which are you using? I use Photoshop CS and it works fine.

A

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

1:1 clipping from the pixture...



If I use photoshop to convert the RAW format I get the same lines,
but not so shap.

Whole picture (a bit cropped)...



Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Thanks,
Gucky.

Click to expand...

--
SNAP1

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this has had a levels or brightness/contrast adjustment done to it. Also, you don't tell if this is converted using the camera settings or if you've converted with some custom settings in the converter program.

So...........I'm going to guess that this has been lightened from the original exposure to open some of the darker levels and that is where the pattern will usually show up such as you have here. I don't use ISO 160 just because but I've seen this in varying degrees with ISO 100 depending on how much detail I'm trying to bring out of a darker area. The key to avoid this seems to be to NOT under-expose in RAW. Low-light/high-ISO stuff seems to do better in JPEG as far as my experience goes. Watch those histograms to avoid under exposure. As you may already know the LCD screen isn't very accurate for determining exposure. If it looks good it'll probably be too dark.

As already stated, it most likely won't show up in a print.

Robert

majic said:

A friend of mine also uses ISO160 and after an initial observation
of mine we decided to test the exposure - and it seems like photos
in ISO160 expose quite differently at times from these taken at
ISO100 and 200 - the camera is somewhat limited by it's 1/2th stop
metering..while ISO160 is 1/6th a stop difference with ISO200.

Click to expand...

The order is 100 ISO, 125 ISO, 160 ISO, 200 ISO.
As you can see, each is 1/3 of a stop away from the next, not 1/6.
Only a minor issue but let's be accurate.

I will however test my camera for these artifacts in the ISO 160 settings I never use. I also stick to 100 and 200 ISO.
Rinus of Calgary

majic said:

Anyways, I noticed that ISO160 also has more noise than the 200
setting,and have witnessed oddish artifacts in the past that were
usually to vague to be seen unless 100 or 200% zoomed in.

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

1:1 clipping from the pixture...



If I use photoshop to convert the RAW format I get the same lines,
but not so shap.

Whole picture (a bit cropped)...



Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Thanks,
Gucky.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The Adobe ACR2.1 converter is not as sharp as the Fuji EX utility.

I suggest that if you want sharp images, use the EX converter. These is however a problem with using that when you have an image that has noise from for one reason or another.

The comparisson is here from another post. Slide your cursor across the images to see the two different conversions and be enlightened.

http://www.majic.nl/excs/ and also http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=8024871
Have fun rediscovering your image detail.
Rinus of Calgary
p.s. I also use Adobe ACR2.1 but when I need size, I use the EX utility.

Robert Whiteman said:

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this has had a levels or brightness/contrast
adjustment done to it. Also, you don't tell if this is converted
using the camera settings or if you've converted with some custom
settings in the converter program.

So...........I'm going to guess that this has been lightened from
the original exposure to open some of the darker levels and that
is where the pattern will usually show up such as you have here. I
don't use ISO 160 just because but I've seen this in varying
degrees with ISO 100 depending on how much detail I'm trying to
bring out of a darker area. The key to avoid this seems to be to
NOT under-expose in RAW. Low-light/high-ISO stuff seems to do
better in JPEG as far as my experience goes. Watch those histograms
to avoid under exposure. As you may already know the LCD screen
isn't very accurate for determining exposure. If it looks good
it'll probably be too dark.

As already stated, it most likely won't show up in a print.

Robert

Click to expand...

Interesting. My experience is quite the opposite: Using the EX RAW Converter, I can either adjust the exposure ("Sensitization") control, or use the Curves control -- or both -- and I get much LESS noise, virtually none, unless my image is more than 4/3 stop underexposed -- than I get shooting JPEG. Your comments suggest to me that you need to experiment with the EX Converter some more. And frankly, for the best quality S2 images, don't bother using the Adobe CS converter: the colors are off (regardless of how you adjust the white balance and other controls), and a LOT of detail is lost, compared to using Fuji's EX Converter. And if you STILL have some objectionable noise in your image, there are two more things you can try: 1) Try converting the image (with appropriate controls, as referred to above) first to a 16-bit file (I would use Adobe RGB, then convert later to sRGB if you need to), then reduce it to an 8-bit file. Admittedly, I've had to do this on some terribly underexposed images, and it works like a charm, resulting in MUCH less noisy low level areas in the image. 2) Once optimally converted and opened in Photoshop, convert the image to LAB mode, then select the "a" and "b" channels and give them a Gaussian Blur, from say, 1 to 2 pixels (depending on what ISO you shot and how noisy the image is). (While you're in LAB mode, you can sharpen in the "L" [lightness, or luminance] channel, if you want.) This results in a near-perfect removal of any remaining off color artifacts.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's any way equivalently underexposed shots, recorded in-camera as JPEGS, can result in as-good images compared with shooting RAW -- IF you properly convert the files in EX. Also, I highly recommend making as much exposure adjustment -- AND white balance adjustment (use the "color temperature" control, if necessary) -- in the EX Converter as possible. These adjustments are MUCH more difficult and complicated to make in Photoshop. Don't be afraid to use the controls in the EX Converter! They're VERY good. The only major complaint I have about it is that it doesn't preview the image properly if you are converting to AdobeRGB or Fuji FinePix RGB. The preview will show you your monitor's calibrated response, which will normally be close to sRGB. In a critical adjustment of an image that you want converted to either FinePix 1.8 or Adobe RGB, I suppose you could first PREVIEW the adjustment in sRGB, make a mental or written note of your adjustments, cancel the conversion, then redo it in Adobe or FinePix 1.8. My results have been consistent converting to either color space.

Another thing: It seems a lot of S2 users compromise their images (especially for "high-key" images) by blowing out their highlights, just so they can have decently bright mid tones. Don't do this! Keep the upper end of your histogram under control, then PUSH UP THE CURVES in the EX Converter instead! Try it; it WORKS! This way, you get your bright midtones AND you preserve your highlights. (This may also be the "poor man's" solution to not affording a new S3.)

I think a lot of S2 users would be much happier if they knew how to use this software to their full advantage! If you only use the "Standard" presets, you are not getting nearly the image quality this camera and software has to offer!

My. $.02

Robert

Well said Robert. However I ran across something the other day in Teddy Bear's site (Russian) that got my attention. He showed two ISO 1600 images, one raw, one jpg. The jpg had a LOT less noise! Interesting. I have not duplicated this myself so can't varify the results. Don't know why this would be so noticable at 1600. As Teddy Bear is so methodical and scientific in all his testing I have no reason to doubt it.

Normally I either shoot 200 or 100 (99% of the time) so I have not seen the vertical contrasting lines. A second thing to test. I am guessing it might be an exposure thing where sensitation was boosted a few stops?

And you are right, ALWAYS take a close look at the highlights - or histogram. Once lost in conversion they are lost forever. If the rest of your picture than is too dark, make a second conversion and blend in Photoshop. For the new comers here is how: http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Using curves in conversion is also an excellent idea. The idea during conversion is to get AS MUCH important information as possible. Sure, you can adjust in PS later, but you won't have as much digital information to work with. Also, converting to 16 bit is a good idea but even a 16 bit PS file won't have the information of a 14 bit raw file. I know, it doesn't make sense. If in doubt, test it. With a file that is off in exposure simply convert into 16 bit tiff. Now make a second conversion that has been exposure corrected - also in 16 bit. In PS try to make the 1st slide look as good as the second. You can't! You have lsot information. Now after all major corrections 16 bit is no longer needed and saving as an 8 bit tiff is fine.

Some photographers always save their raw files for that reason. It gives you more options later should you discover a flaw in your conversion (a blown highlight for example) you can correct it.

Digital is a new field with a lot of tricks for all of us to discover. That's why this forum (and others) can be so helpful.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Steve Bingham said:

Well said Robert. However I ran across something the other day in
Teddy Bear's site (Russian) that got my attention. He showed two
ISO 1600 images, one raw, one jpg. The jpg had a LOT less noise!
Interesting. I have not duplicated this myself so can't varify the
results. Don't know why this would be so noticable at 1600. As
Teddy Bear is so methodical and scientific in all his testing I
have no reason to doubt it.

Normally I either shoot 200 or 100 (99% of the time) so I have not
seen the vertical contrasting lines. A second thing to test. I am
guessing it might be an exposure thing where sensitation was
boosted a few stops?

And you are right, ALWAYS take a close look at the highlights - or
histogram. Once lost in conversion they are lost forever. If the
rest of your picture than is too dark, make a second conversion and
blend in Photoshop. For the new comers here is how:
http://dustylens.com/extended_range.htm

Using curves in conversion is also an excellent idea. The idea
during conversion is to get AS MUCH important information as
possible. Sure, you can adjust in PS later, but you won't have as
much digital information to work with. Also, converting to 16 bit
is a good idea but even a 16 bit PS file won't have the information
of a 14 bit raw file. I know, it doesn't make sense. If in doubt,
test it. With a file that is off in exposure simply convert into 16
bit tiff. Now make a second conversion that has been exposure
corrected - also in 16 bit. In PS try to make the 1st slide look as
good as the second. You can't! You have lsot information. Now after
all major corrections 16 bit is no longer needed and saving as an 8
bit tiff is fine.

Some photographers always save their raw files for that reason. It
gives you more options later should you discover a flaw in your
conversion (a blown highlight for example) you can correct it.

Digital is a new field with a lot of tricks for all of us to
discover. That's why this forum (and others) can be so helpful.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Click to expand...

OK, I may have to stand corrected on some situations I haven't yet experienced (i.e. ISO 1600 noise, or ISO 160, for that matter). It could be that the EX software is buggy in this area. There's no LOGICAL reason that we should not be able to get consistently better results converting RAW as opposed to shooting JPEGS. My guess is there's a bug in it.

FWIW, ISO 400 converts very well in EX, without objectionable noise -- at least, in my experience.

Another small "glitch" in the EX software is that, for example, if you convert a file using a "Standard light source" setting instead of using the color temperature control, the overall exposure value is increased a little bit (both in the preview, and in the finished converted tiff). Not really a big deal, but ideally this shouldn't happen, particularly if you are using an allegedly precise curves control for your dynamic response. So, the software isn't perfect, but I still think it's very good -- and better at converting S2 raw files than CS.

Here's hoping for more software improvements!

Robert

Some good information exchanging going on here. First thanks for that link, looks really useful and I will give it my full attention.

As for the banding I do get it, and I almost always shot at 100 asa, so some of my exposures can be a bit on the long side. If, after conversion, I have to use the highlight/shadow control in CS I tend to get this banding on shadow areas. Annoying, but does not show up in prints up to 10x8 at least. Using a more complex lightening technique, the banding is not apparrent. Another point to look at, the images I have noticed this more on have all been taken with a polariser, or, and a neutral density filter on.

I'm going back to look at some dark condition images that I took and have yet to convert from last weekend.
--
gibbsy
http://www.pbase.com/gibbsy

Robert Whiteman said:

Gucky said:

Hi!

I've recogniced strange lines in my pictures at RAW format and 160
iso.

S2, nikon 35-70 2.8 at f4,8 1/90 and 43mm, iso 160 converted with EX.

Any idea, where the pattern come from?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this has had a levels or brightness/contrast
adjustment done to it. Also, you don't tell if this is converted
using the camera settings or if you've converted with some custom
settings in the converter program.

Click to expand...

You are right - the original was underexposed. But it seems, that the vertical lines show up mainly with ISO 160.

I've made some crops from two similar pictures. One with ISO 160 and one with ISO 200. Unchanged and brightend to see the vertical lines. All converted with EX. And to show the difference also one example of the 160 ISP picture converted with ACR.

ISO 160 unchanged:



ISO 200 unchanged:



ISO 160 brightend:



ISO 200 brightend:



ICO 160 converted with ACR: (same ISO 160 picture from above)



For me it seems that the vertical lines are produced directly from the ccd sensor (different sesitivity of ccd lines) - at dark parts of the picture. At ISO 200 is it by far not so visible. And ACR dosn't reproduce the ccd resolution very well, so you can't see the vertical lines as clear as you can see them in the picture converted with EX.

Greetings,
Gucky.

Looking at the specs, the S2 has diagonal "sensor lines". So why would it produce vertical pattern?

Probably it is an inherent problem of the conversion from diagonal sensor layout to resulting image data and interpolation.

When you put vertical lines over a diagonal grid that is also cut up into colored sections known as the bayer pattern, not each line gets an equal part of all colors, just guessing.

For me, it didn't show up until now when I correctly expose (looks on the display as heavily overexposed, but ok in the histogram).

Lines appear when the original picture has been "fiddled" with. Mostly if you try to push an underexposed picture.

--
...been b@nned 7.5 times and counting!

Robert Smith said:

Robert Whiteman said:

I've seen this in varying
degrees with ISO 100 depending on how much detail I'm trying to
bring out of a darker area. The key to avoid this seems to be to
NOT under-expose in RAW. Watch those histograms
to avoid under exposure.

Click to expand...

Interesting. My experience is quite the opposite: Using the EX RAW
Converter, I can either adjust the exposure ("Sensitization")
control, or use the Curves control -- or both -- and I get much
LESS noise, virtually none, unless my image is more than 4/3 stop
underexposed -- than I get shooting JPEG. Your comments suggest to
me that you need to experiment with the EX Converter some more. And
frankly, for the best quality S2 images, don't bother using the
Adobe CS converter: the colors are off (regardless of how you
adjust the white balance and other controls), and a LOT of detail
is lost, compared to using Fuji's EX Converter. And if you STILL
have some objectionable noise in your image, there are two more
things you can try: 1) Try converting the image (with appropriate
controls, as referred to above) first to a 16-bit file (I would use
Adobe RGB, then convert later to sRGB if you need to), then reduce
it to an 8-bit file. Admittedly, I've had to do this on some
terribly underexposed images, and it works like a charm, resulting
in MUCH less noisy low level areas in the image. 2)

Click to expand...

Valid points Robert but you are discussing noise while the original post and my response was concerning the low-level pattern (could be called noise I suppose but not exactly the same thing) that results from attempting to open up shadow details when editing the converted file. It's true if the conversion is accurate enough to avoid post work of this nature that there should be no problem and as I stated, don't under-expose the RAW files to help avoid this.

However, somtimes the "good" shot is the one that's slightly under-exposed and you have to try and bring up the levels to make it usable which is where this artifact usually occurs in my experience.

I don't think anyone on this forum still thinks that the RAW conversion in PS CS is worth their effort. EX is the best for the S2. Hands down.

Speaking of PS CS, I'm using PS Elements 2.0 which will not support 16 bit so..........

About color space...I saw this online article from a link in the Pro Digital Forum;

"There is a debate going on in the portrait industry about which colorspace should be used when you are capturing digital images. Some cameras will give you the choice of Adobe RGB or sRGB. The correct choice for this type of work, weddings and portraits, is sRGB. All labs that use Kodak or Fuji products and printers work in colorspaces that are sRGB or smaller. If you choose the Adobe colorspace, your lab will either have to convert the files at a cost to you of about eighty cents per image, or you will have to take the time to do the conversion yourself in Photoshop to keep image information from being clipped when printed. This will add either cost or time to your wedding workflow. Also, converting files unnecessarily is always a bad idea. It will change your file and not for the better. The only time it’s a good idea to change the colorspace is when you are trying to match the colorspace of a printer you own and use to make prints. For this you will need a custom profile, which is another subject."

I will mention also that I've been limited to converting RAW files on a laptop due to my desktop being Win 98 SE which doesn't let me run EX. Until the other day this was iffy at best due to the type of display that you get with laptops. I've attached a CRT to the laptop and now my conversions are MUCH more accurate. The CRT has been sitting behind me gathering dust for some time now too. What was I thinking??!!!

It's all good now. =)

RAW: Orig, Orig, Off



Robert

Gerwyn Gibbs said:

As for the banding I do get it, and I almost always shot at 100
asa, so some of my exposures can be a bit on the long side. If,
after conversion, I have to use the highlight/shadow control in CS
I tend to get this banding on shadow areas. Annoying, but does not
show up in prints up to 10x8 at least. Using a more complex
lightening technique, the banding is not apparrent. Another point
to look at, the images I have noticed this more on have all been
taken with a polariser, or, and a neutral density filter on.
I'm going back to look at some dark condition images that I took
and have yet to convert from last weekend.

Click to expand...

Too much "tweaking" on an 8 bit file will give you banding. Boosting the saturation and contrast seem to be the biggest culprits. I understand that editing in 16 bit will help in this area. I don't know since PS Elements does not support 16 bit AND, since all printers need 8 bit files the 16 bit option isn't that important to me as long as my base exposure setting are good from the start. I've just limited myself to the amount of "pushing" I can do in these areas.

Robert

I think you hit it on the head. If the picture as a whole is underexposed... they can come out at times... if the image was properly exposed and you are just bringing up the shadows... I rarely see them at all. Interesting huh?

Regards,
Sean

Mr. Stacey said:

Lines appear when the original picture has been "fiddled" with.
Mostly if you try to push an underexposed picture.

--
...been b@nned 7.5 times and counting!

Click to expand...