The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with Nikon Images

Status
Not open for further replies.

markhout

Member
The artifacting in the single file is a concern. I DL'd your first file and it looks fine in LR and C1, so I suspect your issue is in your HDR merge or conversion to web jpeg. How are you doing the final jpeg output for web, specifically how are you handling color?

Sidebar question is why are you doing an HDR when the first frame you show would render an almost perfect single file to work with? I'd work with a single file until you get your workflow sorted and can produce a jpeg with no banding…
Thanks Jack. The web conversion makes the issue less visible, if anything. And you are right on that first file - I still underestimate the D800E's DR. Bracketing has been my way of life since I started shooting digital!

My end solution is probably to work from the zero-exposure raw file and layer in parts of differently exposed images if needed. That should get rid of most of the issue.

Looks like the issue is in the HDR merge to 32 bit then - still odd though... Never seen it before.

PS: Thanks for that - got it.
 

routlaw

Member
My end solution is probably to work from the zero-exposure raw file and layer in parts of differently exposed images if needed. That should get rid of most of the issue.

Looks like the issue is in the HDR merge to 32 bit then - still odd though... Never seen it before.

PS: Thanks for that - got it.
Mark from my perspective I don't think you even have to do that. I took the liberty to work up one of those raw files, #8533 and have attached as jpeg below. As I was working the image, not merging parts from the other 4 images in the set some banding in the sky was occurring but nothing like what you posted initially. Anyway this is my take on the scene with a few adjustments.

Hope it helps.

Rob
 
Last edited:

routlaw

Member
Recent trip to New Mexico

Been meaning to post a few of my own images from a recent trip to NM. I seem to be stuck in B&W mode these days, but having fun with it non the less.

Thanks for looking.

Rob
 
Last edited:

markhout

Member
Mark from my perspective I don't think you even have to do that. I took the liberty to work up one of those raw files, #8533 and have attached as jpeg below. As I was working the image, not merging parts from the other 4 images in the set some banding in the sky was occurring but nothing like what you posted initially. Anyway this is my take on the scene with a few adjustments.

Hope it helps.

Rob
Thanks Rob - this is about what I had visualized. Appreciate the work!

Mark
 
M

mjr

Guest
Evening!

I've been practicing with the 200, following Guy's advice on handling it and much happier with the shots today.

Here are a couple..



 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

Please forgive me for going back to Mark's problem with tonal banding in some files.
I guess the banding especially stems from the last capture ( _DSC8534).
That capture is overexposed (as can also be seen in the histogram).
And the concentric tonal 'banding' is visible in the sky already in the RAW file when I open it in Capture NX2.
So, Mark, a merge without that last file might give you a better result, in case you still want to experiment with a HDR merge (not necessary imo).

What I find a bit more surprising and to be honest also a tiny bit worrying is that also file _DSC8533 seems to have an ever so slight unevenness in the sky.
And this file looks ok according to the histogram, but when I process it and save it as a quality 80/100 jpeg file it seems to fall ever so slightly apart in the blue sky, or is it just me seeing ghosts ?
Jack - and Rob - what do you think about Mark's file number _DSC8533, is the file healthy in the sky rendering or is there some kind of problem with that file ?
 
Last edited:

routlaw

Member

Please forgive me for going back to Mark's problem with tonal banding in some files.
I guess the banding especially stems from the last capture ( _DSC8534).
That capture is overexposed (as can also be seen in the histogram).
And the concentric tonal 'banding' is visible in the sky already in the RAW file when I open it in Capture NX2.
So, Mark, a merge without that last file might give you a better result, in case you still want to experiment with a HDR merge (not necessary imo).

What I find a bit more surprising and to be honest also a tiny bit worrying is that also file _DSC8533 seems to have an ever so slight unevenness in the sky.
And this file looks ok according to the histogram, but when I process it and save it as a quality 80/100 jpeg file it seems to fall ever so slightly apart in the blue sky, or is it just me seeing ghosts ?
Jack - and Rob - what do you think about Mark's file number _DSC8534, is the file healthy in the sky rendering or is there some kind of problem with that file ?
Steen, using ACR you can pull back on the exposure slider about two stops ± which seemingly retains all of the necessary detail and values file #8534. To be fair however I didn't do a very close examination just a quick look and see if it was salvageable and it appears to be. The sky seemed to hold up well under this scenario too.

The advantage to this type of workflow, significant camera overexposure while pulling back on the exposure in raw conversion is that the darker or lower values move up the scale providing more bits of information. But its very image independent and in many cases delicate highlights are NOT recoverable using this method. Effectively it works best when the bulk of values are not at the extreme ends of the scale but rather more midtones such as Marks image here.

In many ways this is reminiscent of the Zone system for black and white overexposed and under developed negatives.

Hope this helps.

Rob
 

Photojazz

Member
Apparently some of my file issues was post processing it seems. LR4 Vignetting didn't help. But I am not sure it's confined to that reason. Everything that happened occurred with my 28mm 1.4d mounted. UV filter, polarizer. Or maybe it is my raw file processor, I don't know. We'll see if I have these issues with my D3X and same basic processing soon.
 
Last edited:

Lloyd

Active member
Re: Recent trip to New Mexico

Been meaning to post a few of my own images from a recent trip to NM. I seem to be stuck in B&W mode these days, but having fun with it non the less.

Thanks for looking.

Rob
These are terrific Rob. Really.

What are you shooting with these days?
 

routlaw

Member
Re: Recent trip to New Mexico

These are terrific Rob. Really.

What are you shooting with these days?
Thanks Lloyd. Still using my lowly and humble ol' D4. All of these were done with either 24 PC, 45 PC or 85 PC. The locations which I forgot to describe are either at Salinas Pueblo National Monument or Bosque Del Apache wildlife refugee. At the time there were some 3000 + sandhill cranes there but by now there should be 10 times this many at over 30,000. It was quite the scene to say the least, unfortunately I don't have a VR lens to capture wildlife, let alones big birds in the air at their best.

Oh and the first one was at Arches NP.
 

Lloyd

Active member
Still using the antique, eh? Well, I'm still using the D3s, and it's working so far. ;)

Thanks for the info, and that must have been pretty noisy with those Sandhills there? It would be fun to see and shoot that!
 

RVB

Member
RVB, I experienced that same structured sky look with some photos I took with my D800E recently. I was not sure what to attribute it too, and I am not sure I looked at it at full rez. So, is that officially "banding" or is it banding like?

Experts weigh in?

I can pull up one of mine for examination as well... 28mm 1.4D/D800E Note, i did add the vignetting top corners.

Hi.. It's banding alright,and caused by compressing the file into a small JPEG which makes it difficult for the image to contain the tonal graduations.. Adding some noise usually helps..

Rob
 

routlaw

Member
Still using the antique, eh? Well, I'm still using the D3s, and it's working so far. ;)

Thanks for the info, and that must have been pretty noisy with those Sandhills there? It would be fun to see and shoot that!
Indeed we felt as though we had taken a step back into the Pleistocene Epoch. I've been to the Everglades but this was on an entirely different level. They are there through the winter as I understand it, well worth the effort to go see. There was definitely a cacophony of sound but not too noisy really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top