Strange noise on the background, appears after processing raw images

[Peter Vit]

Hi. Can anybody explain to me what are the geometric shapes in the background an how to avid them Thanks

--
**********

 

[Phil and Karen]

Hi. Can anybody explain to me what are the geometric shapes in the background an how to avid them Thanks

Hi Peter,

No idea. Were they present in the original shot? What processing software are you using?

There seems to be a lot of what appears to be luminance noise - as though the shadows have been pushed hard (and then processed using a spirograph - it's very odd patterning).

Could you make the original/ unedited file available - either jpeg upload to here, or a link to the raw file via Dropbox (or similar) if possible?

Phil

 

[Peter Vit]

Hi. Can anybody explain to me what are the geometric shapes in the background an how to avid them Thanks

Hi Peter,

No idea. Were they present in the original shot? What processing software are you using?

There seems to be a lot of what appears to be luminance noise - as though the shadows have been pushed hard (and then processed using a spirograph - it's very odd patterning).

Could you make the original/ unedited file available - either jpeg upload to here, or a link to the raw file via Dropbox (or similar) if possible?

Phil

Thanks Phil,

I have attached the jpg converted without any manipulation from raw by lightroom.

You are right I pushed the shadows to hard, that's all but it created this pattern.

--
**********

 

[Phil and Karen]

Thanks Phil,

I have attached the jpg converted without any manipulation from raw by lightroom.

You are right I pushed the shadows to hard, that's all but it created this pattern.

Hi Peter,

I've had a play with Lightroom Classic and Topaz DeNoise AI - the latter dealt with the noise first which allowed me to push the shadows fairly hard without as much resultant angst. (I also had a quick play in Sharpen AI using a mask to slightly de-blur the saxophonist).

I think the result could probably be improved further using the raw (and taking more time).

So, without getting too technical (as I wouldn't know what I was talking about ), I think it may simply be a case of the shadows being pushed too hard - with the patterns probably being some kind of underlying sensor/ lens thingy.

(Someone with more technical knowledge than I will hopefully give a better explanation).

I'm not sure where this takes you, but there you go.

Phil



Take II

 

[Mike Engles]

That looks like Moire, there must have been a pattern in the background that is interfering with the camera sensor.

I see you were using a 100-400 MK1 zoom?. It does show that the lens is very sharp, contrary to local opinion. If the lens was not sharp, that moire would not occur. It basically proves that the lens has enough resolution for a R5.

It shows up more often and inconveniently on the bridegroom's suit. Usually fine grids are involved. The sensor is also a fine grid, the moire occurs when the fine grids interfere. The R5 has a filter to deal with that, luckily it seems that it is not strong enough. The filter causes a blur to the image.

Lightroom has a slider that might help

PS some people might pay a lot of moneyfor effect like that

 

[Peter Vit]

Thanks Phil,

I have attached the jpg converted without any manipulation from raw by lightroom.

You are right I pushed the shadows to hard, that's all but it created this pattern.

Hi Peter,

I've had a play with Lightroom Classic and Topaz DeNoise AI - the latter dealt with the noise first which allowed me to push the shadows fairly hard without as much resultant angst. (I also had a quick play in Sharpen AI using a mask to slightly de-blur the saxophonist).

I think the result could probably be improved further using the raw (and taking more time).

So, without getting too technical (as I wouldn't know what I was talking about ), I think it may simply be a case of the shadows being pushed too hard - with the patterns probably being some kind of underlying sensor/ lens thingy.

(Someone with more technical knowledge than I will hopefully give a better explanation).

I'm not sure where this takes you, but there you go.

Phil



Take II

--Thanks. How much do you charge for post processing


**********

 

[Peter Vit]

That looks like Moire, there must have been a pattern in the background that is interfering with the camera sensor.

I see you were using a 100-400 MK1 zoom?. It does show that the lens is very sharp, contrary to local opinion. If the lens was not sharp, that moire would not occur. It basically proves that the lens has enough resolution for a R5.

It shows up more often and inconveniently on the bridegroom's suit. Usually fine grids are involved. The sensor is also a fine grid, the moire occurs when the fine grids interfere. The R5 has a filter to deal with that, luckily it seems that it is not strong enough. The filter causes a blur to the image.

Lightroom has a slider that might help

PS some people might pay a lot of moneyfor effect like that

--

Thanks... the 100-400 is one of my sharpest lenses even better than te 70-200 2.8 just love it.
**********

 

[Mike Engles]

That looks like Moire, there must have been a pattern in the background that is interfering with the camera sensor.

I see you were using a 100-400 MK1 zoom?. It does show that the lens is very sharp, contrary to local opinion. If the lens was not sharp, that moire would not occur. It basically proves that the lens has enough resolution for a R5.

It shows up more often and inconveniently on the bridegroom's suit. Usually fine grids are involved. The sensor is also a fine grid, the moire occurs when the fine grids interfere. The R5 has a filter to deal with that, luckily it seems that it is not strong enough. The filter causes a blur to the image.

Lightroom has a slider that might help

PS some people might pay a lot of moneyfor effect like that

Yes there was a discussion not long a go if it had enough resolution for a R5. It seems it has. It is really a good lens, even for its age.I find my R5 to be soft and the lens was blamed. If a lens causes moire, then it has a resolution equal to or greater than the sensor.

I was intrigued why the sitting Baritone? was more in focus.

PS there is a possibility that the moire pattern is caused by the lights.

 

[pdqgp]

Hi. Can anybody explain to me what are the geometric shapes in the background an how to avid them Thanks

Is there a .raw file of this shot to play with out there? Happy to process it and see what my results will be. IMO the pattern noise looks to be something created in the .raw conversion or processing of the image. I push shadows too but have never seen that.

 

[Mike Engles]

If you equalise it, you get this.

 

[Tristimulus]

This kind of pattern appear on cameras with back illuminated image sensors.

This is not a software problem.

Typical for severely under exposed images (or backgrounds) when stretched byond reasonable limits. Have seen the patterns in inages taken with Sony and Nikon cameras and even my measly Canon EOS R.

Am into astro photography so I know this kind of artefact too well. :-D

The best explanation so far is that the patterns are caused by interference in the back illuminated image sensor. That would explain how the colored areas are circles or ellipses in most images and get out of shape when there is an gradient.

This happens in the deep shadows where images are supposed to be nearly completely black (where the eye see no detail anyway). So for real life photography this should be an non issue - unless stretching under exposed too hard.

 

[birdbrain]

Hi. Can anybody explain to me what are the geometric shapes in the background an how to avid them Thanks

Hi Peter,

No idea. Were they present in the original shot? What processing software are you using?

There seems to be a lot of what appears to be luminance noise - as though the shadows have been pushed hard (and then processed using a spirograph - it's very odd patterning).

Could you make the original/ unedited file available - either jpeg upload to here, or a link to the raw file via Dropbox (or similar) if possible?

Phil

Thanks Phil,

I have attached the jpg converted without any manipulation from raw by lightroom.

You are right I pushed the shadows to hard, that's all but it created this pattern.

--
**********

This is sort of reminiscent of a low ISO banding effect that people got with the original EOS 7D.

Using Adobe and pushing the shadows revealed banding.

But if you opened the file first in DPP and do nothing else but export it as a TIFF. Opening that in Adobe and pushing the shadows the banding didn’t appear.

Eventually Adobe acknowledged the problem and produced a version of ACR that didn’t give the banding.

If you have DPP it might pay you to convert the RAW file to TIFF and see if that pattern appears.

--
Phil
I wondered why the ball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.

philthebirdbrain’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[pdqgp]

This kind of pattern appear on cameras with back illuminated image sensors.

This is not a software problem.

Typical for severely under exposed images (or backgrounds) when stretched byond reasonable limits. Have seen the patterns in inages taken with Sony and Nikon cameras and even my measly Canon EOS R.

Am into astro photography so I know this kind of artefact too well. :-D

The best explanation so far is that the patterns are caused by interference in the back illuminated image sensor. That would explain how the colored areas are circles or ellipses in most images and get out of shape when there is an gradient.

This happens in the deep shadows where images are supposed to be nearly completely black (where the eye see no detail anyway). So for real life photography this should be an non issue - unless stretching under exposed too hard.

Perhaps with the R but on my R6 with the 24-70L, it doesn't have any pattern noise. I just did a test shot in a dark room pushing it extensively in Adobe RAW and there's zero pattern noise like what is shown in this image.

Again, I'd like to have the original image in .raw format to see and play with.

 

[Tim Kamppinen]

I have noticed this in the background of a few images now where I had to push the shadows. What I discovered just the other day was that if I turn off lens corrections in Lightroom, the pattern disappeared. Strangely it seems to just be the distortion correction that does it; I would have thought it had something to do with vignette correction.

 

[Bigger]

I have noticed this in the background of a few images now where I had to push the shadows. What I discovered just the other day was that if I turn off lens corrections in Lightroom, the pattern disappeared. Strangely it seems to just be the distortion correction that does it; I would have thought it had something to do with vignette correction.

Note that the pattern is not in the background, because it appears in front of the woman on the lower right as well.

I think you may be on to something with the lens corrections. There seems to be a barrel/pincusion distortion component to the pattern. My guess would be that the debayering algorithm isn't playing nice with the lens correction algorithm.

As stated above with the case of the 7D, you could try debayering in DPP first, and possibly applying lens correction there first too.

 

[Mike Engles]

"It is moire Jim, but not as we know it"

 

[John Sheehy]

I have noticed this in the background of a few images now where I had to push the shadows. What I discovered just the other day was that if I turn off lens corrections in Lightroom, the pattern disappeared. Strangely it seems to just be the distortion correction that does it; I would have thought it had something to do with vignette correction.

If moiré happens with a combination of very low exposure and lens correction, but not with better exposure, then it is probably a RAW artifact where the two green channels in the RAW data have significantly different blackpoint averages.

 

[Mike Engles]

It seems most noticeable in the Green then Red and almost not in the Blue Channels

 

[CatchingTime]

It is not moire, that pattern is from the lens profile that was applied. De-select it, and you'll see the pattern go away.

I don't think that the lens profile correction is critical for images like this, as any peripheral shading correction can be applied using the generic slider, and it is not an architectural-type image where distortion needs to be corrected. It always reveals itself in opened shadows.

--
My $0.02 in a world where pennies are obsolete.

 

[Mike Engles]

It is not moire, that pattern is from the lens profile that was applied. De-select it, and you'll see the pattern go away.

I don't think that the lens profile correction is critical for images like this, as any peripheral shading correction can be applied using the generic slider, and it is not an architectural-type image where distortion needs to be corrected.

I assume the profile in Lightroom. What is it interfering with to cause the 'fringing'. The original pixels I assume were totally replaced by the remapping of the correction.