Beginner Colour Banding.........

Phil-D

Phil-D

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,553
Edit My Images
Yes
Can any body please tell me what's causing this colour banding in low light :banghead: I've noticed it more and more over the last few weeks. There was a small amount of cloud just down the right in the sky but the rest of the sky was clear . Taken with a D7000 and tamron 17-50 2.8 lens. This is jpeg sooc, no NR

Also, frickr seems to be making images darker:thinking:....anyone else noticed it?

Cheers


colour banding 2 by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
Phil-D said:
Can any body please tell me what's causing this colour banding in low lightr
Click to expand...

Lack of bits.

With 8 bits per channel you have 255 levels. Any gradual increase in luminance allows you to see the step changes.
 
st599 said:
Lack of bits.

With 8 bits per channel you have 255 levels. Any gradual increase in luminance allows you to see the step changes.
Click to expand...

I didn't used to get the banding, I don't think I've altered any setting? cheers

also it seems to be getting worse :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
I didn't used to get the banding, I don't think I've altered any setting? cheers

also it seems to be getting worse :thinking:
Click to expand...
Can you post some old examples where the banding hasn't shown?

It's a very common problem (indeed, innate) in photos with gradual changes in tone (like clear evening skies) when displayed at 8 bits per channel.
 
Yar, that's down to JPG compression - try setting at a higher quality or using raw.

edit: oh, it could also be caused by your image host compressing the images although Flickr doesn't normally do this I think.
 
Last edited:
michael23 said:
I wonder if it could be diffraction causing it? The exif says f22 was used @ iso 100, is the effect still there at other aperture settings?
Click to expand...

No, it's the lack of bits. Technically, the quantisation step is larger than the Weber fraction, so the step is noticeable.

Diffraction issues usually don't have sharp edges. It reduces resolution.
 
Nawty said:
Yar, that's down to JPG compression - try setting at a higher quality or using raw.

edit: oh, it could also be caused by your image host compressing the images although Flickr doesn't normally do this I think.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It could be the number of bits per channel in the display causing it
 
Thanks for the replies, firstly, which I'm quite confused about, the image sooc is a lot brighter :confused: flickr seems to have darken it off, something I've not noticed when uploading to flickr before.

ghoti said:
Can you post some old examples where the banding hasn't shown?

It's a very common problem (indeed, innate) in photos with gradual changes in tone (like clear evening skies) when displayed at 8 bits per channel.
Click to expand...

The sky in this image was very similar to last night, clear with a few stars just starting to show, the only difference here, the moon was up to the right and behind me.


Light trails over moonlight Ladybower by Phil D 245, on Flickr

Nawty said:
Yar, that's down to JPG compression - try setting at a higher quality or using raw.

edit: oh, it could also be caused by your image host compressing the images although Flickr doesn't normally do this I think.
Click to expand...

Ned, jpeg is set to large fine and jpeg compression is set to optimal quality. The banding is still visible on the raw file, raw in camera is set to lossless compressed, 14 bit depth :confused:

michael23 said:
I wonder if it could be diffraction causing it? The exif says f22 was used @ iso 100, is the effect still there at other aperture settings?
Click to expand...

Hiya Michael, the settings were down to the fact I took this in the 'blue hour'. I've took similar images @f22 (like my avatar) and not experienced the banding
shrug2.gif


st599 said:
No, it's the lack of bits. Technically, the quantisation step is larger than the Weber fraction, so the step is noticeable.

Diffraction issues usually don't have sharp edges. It reduces resolution.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to confess I'm easily lost with the technical jargon, but as above, its noticeable on the raw file, raw set to 14 bit depth in camera and I've tried before to process at 16 bit in ACR without success.

Another example is this image which was took the other week when I was out with a couple of chaps from off the forum. This image has had a little work in ACR at 16 bit, the banding is clearly visible :banghead: I'm at a loss as to whether its user fault :banghead:


The 20.50 to Harrogate by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
I'm happy to confess I'm easily lost with the technical jargon, but as above, its noticeable on the raw file, raw set to 14 bit depth in camera and I've tried before to process at 16 bit in ACR without success.

Another example is this image which was took the other week when I was out with a couple of chaps from off the forum. This image has had a little work in ACR at 16 bit, the banding is clearly visible :banghead: I'm at a loss as to whether its user fault :banghead:
Click to expand...

You've shot it 14 bits, you've edited at 16 bits but you're viewing on a monitor that has significantly less than that.

Some monitors trade off bit depth for speed of image change. If you have a 6 bit monitor, each colour only has 64 possible levels so the step size is large.
 
st599 said:
You've shot it 14 bits, you've edited at 16 bits but you're viewing on a monitor that has significantly less than that.

Some monitors trade off bit depth for speed of image change. If you have a 6 bit monitor, each colour only has 64 possible levels so the step size is large.
Click to expand...

But the banding is visible on the jpeg image when viewing it on the rear screen of the camera as soon as the image has been took,shooting in 14 bits won't alter the jpeg,will it? :confused:

Am I missing something?

Tim @randomwindows has seen it too so I'm not going mad :D
 
Last edited:
Hi Phil, to be honest I'm not all that up on what could be happening in editing to cause banding, that said on this file it's quite dark and I'm struggling to see it...I'm wondering if maybe you've changed or a setting has changed on your computer that is affecting your actual display? I'm going to suggest that @Pookeyhead will be far better placed to offer any advice that I could on the technicalities and editing preferences that I would
 
MWHCVT said:
Hi Phil, to be honest I'm not all that up on what could be happening in editing to cause banding, that said on this file it's quite dark and I'm struggling to see it...I'm wondering if maybe you've changed or a setting has changed on your computer that is affecting your actual display? I'm going to suggest that @Pookeyhead will be far better placed to offer any advice that I could on the technicalities and editing preferences that I would
Click to expand...

Thanks Matt, its not the processing that's causing the banding, its already there in the jpeg and on the raw file.

If its not something you've seen before in lowlight/ night shooting could it be possibly the camera its self?
 
michael23 said:
Only other thing I can think of is the exposure, under exposed areas may well be showing this up?
Click to expand...

Michael, you sir, I think are correct (y) :clap:

I've been trying to avoid star trails the last few times out and have become obsessed with a 15 second exposure. Thing is, I know I've needed to be around 800 ISO and a fairly wide aperture, what I've been thinking lately I've no idea
3f82d.gif


I've just re-opened a couple of the images with the banding in ACR, as soon as I push the exposure slider up, the banding disappears ........what a t*t I am :oops: :$, thank you :)
 
I've had a quick edit with this image, just upped the exposure slightly, it looks a lot better, well to me anyway.


No banding_edited-1 by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
michael23 said:
I wonder if it could be diffraction causing it? The exif says f22 was used @ iso 100, is the effect still there at other aperture settings?
Click to expand...

Nope... 'nowt to do with that.

MWHCVT said:
Hi Phil, to be honest I'm not all that up on what could be happening in editing to cause banding, that said on this file it's quite dark and I'm struggling to see it...I'm wondering if maybe you've changed or a setting has changed on your computer that is affecting your actual display? I'm going to suggest that @Pookeyhead will be far better placed to offer any advice that I could on the technicalities and editing preferences that I would
Click to expand...

As others have rightly said, it's JPEG compression. The reason you see less of it in the brighter images you have posted is because the reduced bit depth makes it harder to differentiate between similar continuous tones. However, while everyone is correct, it's not really the 8bit aspect of JPEG that's causing the problem in your first image, but compression itself. This is just the kind of image that is very hard to compress properly.

If you shot in raw and are STILL getting banding that IS strange.

Is there any chance you could post up the raw file for that first image? Use a file hosting service like this....

http://www.tinyupload.com/

I reckon it's not the raw file that has banding, but your processing of it that is causing it.
I can see no "banding" in the image though... just JPEG compression. Here's a version of that first image with the levels stretched.

8lkryWJ.jpg


That blocky, squared off appearance is classic JPEG compression.
 
@Phil-D

Absolutely no sign on banding here in LR. There are ripples in the water... but no banding.

Full size screen grab...

Untitled-1.jpg



I've also processed it as well. Clean as a whistle

Banding.jpg
 
Thanks for looking at this for me David but there was no ripples, it was like glass. I can definitely see banding in ACR and can make it a lot worse just by altering the exposure slider. I can also still see it in your processed image, the banding is like arches from one corner to the other.
 
This is the sooc jpeg of the raw image, when I open the raw into ACR I get exactly the same banding in the lower half of the image


D7K_4926 by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
@Phil-D

Yours has banding artefacts, yes, but your JPEG compression seems a whole lot higher than mine... or rather Flickr's does.

You may think it was mirror flat, but it won't be. If it was mirror flat then the reflections of the sky would have been absolutely perfect... and they're not. There is zero banding on that raw file... I promise you. You sure it's not your monitor? Is it a cheap 6bit panel?
 
Just to throw another spanner in the works, this was took by mi missus with a D3100 but with slightly different exposure settings + 1.33 stops. I don't have a raw file for this but this is the jpeg sooc with absolutely no 'banding' in either the water or the sky :confused:


no banding D3100 by Phil D 245, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I think I'm going to have to get someone else to see what ever it is I'm seeing, there is definitely something in both the jpegs and raw files in images that are shot in low light from the D7000, when viewed on my laptop. thanks for the replies and help.
 
@Phil-D

What laptop do you have? A lot of cheaper TN panel screens make a real mess of separating darker tones. I can genuinely see no banding here. I see gentle ripples on the water.. nothing more. I can't see the larger version of your wife's image, but she is zoomed in further, at a patch of water that is much further away, with different light falling on it. The same area of water in your shot has no visible ripples either. Hers is nowhere near as sharp as yours either. If it was a camera issue, the same results would be evident in the tonal gradations in the darker areas of the sky too. There are areas of water that have the "ripples" in it, that is the same tonal range as the sky, with none.

I'm viewing your 14bit raw file on a very high end screen here.. and see nothing that I can conclusively say is banding, but instead appear to be undulations of the water surface. If you want to be super certain, a link to a raw file that doesn't contain anything debatable... such as water ripples would be the way to do it. Go take a shot if you don't already have one. Shoot in raw. I'm not seeing anything so far that worries me though. All your previous images were the result of JPEG compression.
 
Last edited:
@Pookeyhead Morning David, yes I am viewing on a cheap laptop, its a Fujitsu AH530, but feel the irregularity in when I see this 'banding' doesn't add up.

When I get this 'banding' on a jpeg image, its viewable on the rear camera screen. Then I see exactly the same banding on the raw file when viewed later on my laptop. Surely its got to be more than a simple coincidence that its there on the jpeg in camera and its the cheap lappy that's causing it on the raw file
 
@Phil-D

All I can suggest... is if it's a clear evening... take a shot of the sky facing west tonight, about 30 mins after sunset.... under expose it, so you get a gradient from horizon to top of the frame, spreading from mid tones to dark... make the exposure be dark enough to capture the range of tones you feel is problematic (based on past experience). Shoot in 14bit raw (if compressed, ensure lossless compressed is used). If your camera is banding, it will show up in the darker gradations.

Drop box the raw, and I'll take a look.

I DO see artefacts in that raw you posted, but it doesn't have the look of banding to me. I'm seeing shorter bands of tones that seem to be the undulating surface of the water. The water was certainly not mirror flat, as can be seen here...

View attachment 33170

I can think of no reason why your D7000 should be creating banding... it would be a very strange "fault" to have, and I used to own a D7000 myself and never noticed any banding in raw files.
 
Thanks for bearing with me on this :) I've been having a look through my photos but can't find any that I've saved both jpeg and raw, I usually delete all the raws when I've edited the ones I want to keep to save on storage space

Forecast looks poor for this evening but promising for tomorrow, I'll give it a go then, cheers
 
Phil-D said:
Thanks for bearing with me on this :) I've been having a look through my photos but can't find any that I've saved both jpeg and raw, I usually delete all the raws when I've edited the ones I want to keep to save on storage space

Forecast looks poor for this evening but promising for tomorrow, I'll give it a go then, cheers
Click to expand...
I'll not add to the technical advice (David is bang on btw), but just buy a cheap external drive and stop throwing your RAW files away.
 
I can only agree with this. Deleting raw files after processing is like a film photographer throwing away his negatives after printing. Besides, even if you have to, saving your final, processed version as a JPEG is madness. If you need to save a final archive version of yoru processed images, then TIFF or PSD would be a better choice as there is no destructive compression.

Hard drives are cheap these days. Around £40 for 1TB. There's no reason to throw away raw files.

If you're so stuck for space that you are forced to delete your raw files, I can only assume you also have no back up, which is equally as problematic.
 
Agree with David PH, but just one point maybe worth mentioning when you say you can see things, or not, in the Raw image. You're not looking at the Raw image, you can't actually see that - it needs converting into a viewable format first. Even the camera's LCD image is a JPEG derived from the Raw and it will have all the in-camera processing stuff applied too, eg picture styles, sharpening, contrast etc.

Suggest go through and check every link in the processing and viewing chain, starting with camera set up.
 
@Pookeyhead David, I'm at a loss, just been out for an hour, took a few photos, none seem to be suffering from (what I call) 'banding'
shrug2.gif


But it can be bit intermittent. The only thing in my defence is that when I was out with a couple of other toggers from off the forum, they could also clearly see the banding on the camera screen.

I'll take some more tomorrow evening, if it appears I'll post back, thanks
 
Phil-D said:
@Pookeyhead David, I'm at a loss, just been out for an hour, took a few photos, none seem to be suffering from (what I call) 'banding'
shrug2.gif


But it can be bit intermittent. The only thing in my defence is that when I was out with a couple of other toggers from off the forum, they could also clearly see the banding on the camera screen.

I'll take some more tomorrow evening, if it appears I'll post back, thanks
Click to expand...


Forget the camera screen. You're looking at a compressed JPEG preview even if you shoot in raw. The camera screen is FAR from a good reference for image quality.

It's just too improbable that your camera has an intermittent fault that periodically results in banding some times, not at others. No such fault could possibly exist. I think you're reliance on JPEG images has coloured your perceptions of your camera's capabilities if you ask me, but please feel free to post up raw files you suspect of displaying the problem.
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
I think I'm going to have to get someone else to see what ever it is I'm seeing, there is definitely something in both the jpegs and raw files in images that are shot in low light from the D7000, when viewed on my laptop. thanks for the replies and help.
Click to expand...
There won't be banding in the RAW. The banding is being caused by a low bit depth monitor.
 
st599 said:
There won't be banding in the RAW. The banding is being caused by a low bit depth monitor.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, somewhere in the technical data on my laptop, it will tell me what bit depth the monitor is, where do I find it?

What bit depth would be low/high?
 
Phil-D said:
Just to throw another spanner in the works, this was took by mi missus with a D3100 but with slightly different exposure settings + 1.33 stops. I don't have a raw file for this but this is the jpeg sooc with absolutely no 'banding' in either the water or the sky :confused:


no banding D3100 by Phil D 245, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Banding occurs when the step between adjacent levels is large enough to be noticed (a property of all digital sampling known as quantisation steps).

A just noticeable difference occurs with a step change of about 1%, so if you have a dark area at say 1 nit it's much easier to accidentally get a 1% change than in a bright area. (This is called the Weber fraction)

The more bits per pixel you have, the smaller the step change, the less likely banding will occur. JPEG is 8 bits so has 255 possible levels. But if you display it on a 6 bit monitor, you only have 64 so the step size is 4 times larger and more likely to be visible. Finally, it also depends on how bright you've set your display.
 
Phil-D said:
I'm guessing, somewhere in the technical data on my laptop, it will tell me what bit depth the monitor is, where do I find it?

What bit depth would be low/high?
Click to expand...

I've had a look and found this data, is this what I was looking for? It appears to be set at true colour 32 bit :confused: the other option in the drop down box is 16 bit


Screen shot by Phil D 245, on Flickr

I also always use this before doing any editing to make sure the laptop screen viewing angle is correct



laptop screen angle by Phil D 245, on Flickr

Now whether you (st599), David or anyone else disagrees with me or not, when this 'banding' occurs the fact is I can see it on the raw file when viewed on this laptop, fact!

I was out again last night and took a few shots, no 'banding'

I'm definitely thinking that Michael @michael23 was correct with his theory of underexposure, the 'banding' always appears in the darker areas, longer exposures or exposures with a higher ISO its not there. Again, thanks for all the input, but I think its just down to user error.

The mystery here seems to be why I see the 'banding' in the raw file.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top