Not Sure How To Fix This

[smoke665]

This is an extreme crop of a shadow, for example. In the normal size image it isn't so noticeable but I know it's there. I've tried numerous things but nothing quite gets the gradual blending I'm looking for. Any suggestions???

 

[Derrel]

Not sure what,exactly, you wish to see differently rendered...

JPEG images are made up of color block arrays...and when blown up HUGELY, one can literally "see" behind the magic trick! As I said, not sure what you want to see rendered differently.

 

[smoke665]

Not sure what,exactly, you wish to see differently rendered...

JPEG images are made up of color block arrays...and when blown up HUGELY, one can literally "see" behind the magic trick! As I said, not sure what you want to see rendered differently.

So should this also be this visible when viewing the raw file in LR or a 16 bit TIFF in PS.? It almost resembles color banding in the shadows and gets worse as the image is edited.

 

[nerwin]

That's odd, looks like Jpeg artifacts.

That should not be present when viewing a raw file. Are you positivity looking at a raw file or a smart preview?

 

[480sparky]

If this is a JPEG, what quality level was it saved at? If less than 100%, then banding like this is to be expected.

Otherwise, you may be enlarging the image so much (over 100%) that your monitor is starting to display the image at pixel level. IE, one pixel in the image is rendered across 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 pixels on the monitor.

 

[Ysarex]

This is an extreme crop of a shadow, for example. In the normal size image it isn't so noticeable but I know it's there. I've tried numerous things but nothing quite gets the gradual blending I'm looking for. Any suggestions???

Responding to your post title, you don't want to try and fix it you want to make sure it doesn't happen. I suspect you've been trying that.

Got to determine what it is and where it's occurring. It looks like what happens when a JPEG is edited. It also looks like what happens when not enough tonal data is spread over too wide a tonal space. It also looks like what happens when the math in the processing algorithms is short cut for speed (whole number instead of floating point -- rounding errors).

Back up! Does it really matter. That looks like more than a 100% crop -- maybe 200%? So if it's not going to show when the image is used can we be happy and live with it. That's the founding principle of JPEG after all and we're all pretty happy with JPEG. If you can't see it in use....

So back to the problem -- where in the processing sequence is this happening -- we have to catch it there and prevent it. Fundamentally it's data loss and that's always a bear to try and fix; it can't really be fixed -- all you can do is try and hide its symptoms. Be happy to look at your raw file if you want.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

That looks like more than a 100% crop -- maybe 200%? So if it's not going to show when the image is used can we be happy and live with it. That's the founding principle of JPEG after all and we're all pretty happy with JPEG. If you can't see it in use....

This is a screen clip from 16 bit TIFF file that was being edited in PS that was enlarged to 200%. Yes the clip itself was saved as a JPEG, but it's a close representation of what I was seeing on the TIFF, which was created in LR from the DNG file.

It also looks like what happens when not enough tonal data is spread over too wide a tonal space.

I think this may be the answer. This image had a tight crop to begin with, followed by some heavy handed processing in PS Levels. Maybe a cumulative effect taking place?

 

[Ysarex]

That looks like more than a 100% crop -- maybe 200%? So if it's not going to show when the image is used can we be happy and live with it. That's the founding principle of JPEG after all and we're all pretty happy with JPEG. If you can't see it in use....

This is a screen clip from 16 bit TIFF file that was being edited in PS that was enlarged to 200%. Yes the clip itself was saved as a JPEG, but it's a close representation of what I was seeing on the TIFF, which was created in LR from the DNG file.

It also looks like what happens when not enough tonal data is spread over too wide a tonal space.

I think this may be the answer. This image had a tight crop to begin with, followed by some heavy handed processing in PS Levels. Maybe a cumulative effect taking place?

OK, so JPEG is not guilty. Then we look to LR and PS. The move from LR to 16 bit TIFF is the right way to do it. If you're heavily processing the image then yes, you may be trying to spread what data you have too thin -- need to do it if you need to do. If the data is at the low end of what the sensor recorded then LR may bear some guilt for skipping math precision in exchange for quicker processing. Given it's a shadow on a face I would think not unless it's a very underexposed shot.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

You are reallllly pixel-peeping here...this is a child's eyeball area that is four inches across on this computer screen...yeah, it's not perfect, but again, it's four inches across...

 

[smoke665]

You are reallllly pixel-peeping here...this is a child's eyeball area that is four inches across on this computer screen...yeah, it's not perfect, but again, it's four inches across...

What can I say I'm a very "detail oriented" person.

 

[Derrel]

You are reallllly pixel-peeping here...this is a child's eyeball area that is four inches across on this computer screen...yeah, it's not perfect, but again, it's four inches across...

What can I say I'm a very "detail oriented" person.

You can add the smiley emoticon, but it doesn't change the fact that you're reacting to basically a non-issue by looking at a 200 to 400 percent blow-up of a small area of an already extreme crop and trying to "fix" a basic image characteristic that's not even a problem. Might as well be cutting your front lawn with manicurist's scissors.

Oh...I almost forgot to add the emoticon!

 

[smoke665]

Might as well be cutting your front lawn with manicurist's scissors.

Nah I'd never stay ahead of it!

All kidding aside, I understand what you're saying, the clip was merely to exaggerate the problem for clarity and on the full size print, it isn't visible to most.

I first started noticing this in PS during editing, when the shadows weren't reacting to dodging like they should have. The tonal gradient in LR was much smoother than this in the shadows. When the file is converted to the 16 bit TIFF, it seems like it starts to show up. Then I suspect that the levels adjustment I incorporated into my workflow, might be exaggerating the problem more.