quality problems :(

jamiebonline

jamiebonline

Suspended / Banned
Messages
194
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
hi everyone,

so i am getting quite annoyed by the fact that when i save my edited RAW files as jpegs to put on the internet, there is such a loss of quality that the pictures are virtually unusable. I have an example from the weekend. Lingerie pic. Not sure if it's ok to post that here :) Could someone let me know? Anyway, the point is that in low light pictures, once I save them to jpeg, dark areas show terrible pixelation (?). I am not lightening them much and in some cases I am darkening them. Seems like major loss of information in parts of the image. Clearly I am doing something wrong. I save from photoshop and set quality at around 10 (out of 12). So these are fairly big files. I think the images are 16 Bit. My camera is a nikon d7000 and the lens a 50mm 1.8G, by the way.

thanks for the help

J
 
post a raw file up so we can see to alter on ours and you put yours up and we can see if there is a problem your end, the image, or what not :)
 
Without seeing what your seeing it's hard to give any real answers, but I'd check the way your converting or saving the jpeg, your not saving a small low res pics by any chance?
 
What is clear is something is set wrong.
What program are you using to deal with the RAWs?
 
OK I'd like you to look at these two please. These are not portolio pics. They have issues. :) They are quite large jpegs. I didn't alter it much in post-process. I cropped maximum 10 per cent. Lens is 50mm. Nikon d7000. There are 'chunks of noise'. I know these are low light but just because it is dark, should it really look so bad? In colour they were worse I think. I was asked about resolution. Sorry if this sounds idiotic, but what do you mean? :D Do you mean, quality/size when saving in photoshop or is it related to 16 or 32 Bit? I use Photoshop 6.
Thanks :)

View attachment 24299

View attachment 24297
 
Last edited:
Your pics should certainly look better than this.

What you have is called pixelation and usually means the photos have been saved to a small size and then enlarged.

I don't use PS but there definitely seems to be something wrong with the size you are saving them to unless you are somehow starting with a small JPEG image and then enlarging it to save it.

Are you sure you are actually working on the RAW file when you edit and not the embedded JPEG image which is much smaller and may be causing the problem.

I don't think it's because they are being saved to low quality because there don't seem to be any JPEG artefacts which are usually present when you reduce the quality of JPEGs too much.
.
 
Last edited:
Can you upload a raw somewhere so we can try converting it? Something doesn't look right gere.
 
When you say you are editing the raw image on photoshop, is the image being opened in camera raw or are you only ever editing in PS.

If you are never taken to camera raw, then you are more than likely editing the embedded jpg preview file and not the raw image.
 
Hi again guys, How do I upload a RAW file? I don't seem to be able to do it here.
Also I am not sure what you mean by opened in camera raw? I take the NEF file off the camera and put it in a folder. I then open PS6 and go to file and select open. The file opens (and I think it says reading raw camera format). I am then in essentials. I usually, as I did with these two pics, open the file fully for full edit in PS. When I am done, I save the file as jpeg from the list of options. I am asked about quality and I choose 10 or so from 12. I don't know how much 16 or 32 Bit matters, as I said.
 
When you open your raw file you should get a window similar to the one shown here in my pic, at the bottom are blue letters (shown here with a red box drawn around them) click that, this opens the small window shown in the middle of my pic, what setting does yours have?
 
This looks like a very interesting problem and something that certainly shouldn't be happening.
I would call it "posterisation" and "Jpeg artifacts" and they shouldn't really occur to that extent in a single conversion step from RAW to quality10 Jpegs in Photoshop.
Upload a RAW of that first one to some internet host, post the link and let folk download it to convert with their own setups.
 
swanseamale47 said:
When you open your raw file you should get a window similar to the one shown here in my pic, at the bottom are blue letters (shown here with a red box drawn around them) click that, this opens the small window shown in the middle of my pic, what setting does yours have?
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a difference. My one only says 8 Bit. Would this be the problem?
 
Not the problem your having, 8 bit is smaller file size but not a smaller image pixel size, the rest of the details are correct for your camera I take it?
Your going to have to upload a raw somewhere.

Out of couriousity if you open the image from the raw into photoshop proper (rather than saving) and go to image/image size what does it say for the size and resolution?
 
I could only get rid of the posterisation by lifting the exposure, which isn't what you wanted.
Still trying ...
 
Had a look at the RAW image. The only thing I can see is some noise in the image. It's probably not surprising as its a very low key shot. I ran the image through Lightroom and used the noise filter to smooth this out. An alternative is to expose for a normal (Lighter) image and then reduce the exposure in post. This means that the shadow area has less noise in it due to the increased exposure.

You are shooting at ISO 200 which should not be a "noisy" setting. The general rule , when shooting RAW is to "Expose to the right" this means keeping the histogram well to the right on the screen. Giving the shadow area more detail and less noise. In the days of B&W film this was also known as exposing for the shadows. In other words put detail in the shadows so they were just not solid blacks
 
I don't think noise is the issue in this case.
I see the issue being the way Jpegs deal with fine colour & shade gradation in very dark areas... something I'd never even looked hard at until this thread.
 
i dont personally think noise is the issue, I think the first image is either a very harsh size export or its missed foucs as the shot is very soft.

The second image that you put up to download agai noise isn't too much of a problem, I pulled the raw file up 1.76 applied a bit of noise redution and brought up the white balance a little and its fine noise wise, again it just appears a little soft unfortunately to me.
No noticable noise on my conversion so must be some problem in the processing area?

 
Dale you've brought up the exposure/shadows : the jpeg artifacts disappear when that area isn't really dark.
 
The image is slightly noisy because it's underexposed by over a stop, I've left the exposure alone and exported at 8 bit and I get an image 4928 x 3264 and is 5.62 mb (saved at jpeg 12)
The noise isn't too bad, nothing you can't fix fairly well in photoshop. I'd be nterested to know if the sizes match your sizes.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The image is slightly noisy because it's underexposed by over a stop, I've left the exposure alone and exported at 8 bit and I get an image 4928 x 3264 and is 5.62 mb (saved at jpeg 12)
The noise isn't too bad, nothing you can't fix fairly well in photoshop. I'd be nterested to know if the sizes match your sizes.
Click to expand...

Hi Wayne,
So basically your jpeg looks better than mine?
 
ah I see what you mean we are talking noise in the shadows at the exposure set?
 
The RAW image isn't the same one as the posted one, but I think they are similar enough to use for comparison.

Here on the left is the posted one. On the right is the RAW, cropped like the posted one and exported from Lightroom with no adjustments as JPEG Quality 12 (max).


NOT MY IMAGE - jamiebonline as posted vs NEF export by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Both of these are 1024 x 689. The posted version is 36KB. The exported version is 306KB. The tonality of the exported version is very different.

Here is the composite bumped up by two stops in CS2 so we can get a better look at what is going on.


NOT MY IMAGE - jamiebonline as posted vs NEF export Exposure +2 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The exported version looks to be of much better quality. There appears to be posterisation, or something quite close to posterisation, beneath the eye and beside the nose in the posted version but not in the exported version. There is a strongish line/boundary in the exported version running across perhaps an inch or so below the lady's eye, with a much lighter tone above the line, but looking at the full size image it looks to me like that is a real-world boundary at the top edge of blusher on her cheek. Insufficient real-world feathering of her make-up perhaps, with an unfortunate effect on a low quality version of the scene.
 
Last edited:
Silly question. Could it be that an embedded jpeg is being edited in PS? Instead of the raw.
 
to which internet site are these being uploaded? typically some sites resave in a lower format, and if you're looking for subtlety in the black areas, any compression would perhaps cause an issue
 
interesting, I thought I'd have a look at the NEF file, I hope that's okay.
I think the issue here is that it's underexposed and even at ISO200, then as you underexpose I find that you get more noise and are recovering from darker tones.
So these are hosted on my website, so no 3rd party compression, 1600px on the long side, 90% ish JPG.
I think they look fine, but I think they're underexposed.

sample1.jpg

or a darker version, as I'm not sure of your concept
sample2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Regardless of people claiming there is noise, on my monitor (a 40" Samsung LED TV) pixellation is still very evident especially in the last picture (the darker version) on the tones on the left hand side and to some degree in the face, especially in the mid tones on the right hand side before and after the ear.

As I have already said this is definitely not usual unless editing and re-editing a small JPEG.
.
 
Even Nick's exported dark version shows a lot of posterisation.
(ALL of the light versions, from anyone, are missing the point : the problem mostly goes away as the image gets lighter)
 
Hi again,

Yes I know it is underexposed. I took a few shots and liked the underexposed one. Something bordering silhouette but not quite. I think it doesn't matter about lightening the image either. It is not about noise, I feel. The point is, and the lingerie pic I posted at the beginning really shows it: Dark areas have some kind of artefacts or posterization. I don't know why. :(
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Even Nick's exported dark version shows a lot of posterisation.
(ALL of the light versions, from anyone, are missing the point : the problem mostly goes away as the image gets lighter)
Click to expand...

jamiebonline said:
Dark areas have some kind of artefacts or posterization. I don't know why. :(
Click to expand...

I think perhaps I've lost the plot! I was thinking of this area looking as if it is posterised in the originally posted version. I'm thinking of "posterised" as in multiple hue/brightnesses going to a single value, or very few values. ("Posterization of an image entails conversion of a continuous gradation of tone to several regions of fewer tones, with abrupt changes from one tone to another." Wikipedia.)

My hypothesis was that the originally posted version, which was very small at 35KB, was presumably highly compressed, with the compression causing posteristation in areas with only slight/subtle variations in brightness and hue.


NOT MY IMAGE - jamiebonline as posted posterisation outlined by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

But this is not a dark area (well, not relative to the rest of the lady's face, hair and dress). Can you indicate exactly where you are seeing this posterisation/artefacts, and/or give a magnified view of some of it?

As to the area I have outlined, to me it does look posterised in the originally posted version. However, on looking closely at the original, I don't think it is. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am working on a hardware calibrated screen that shows all levels in the Lagom black level and white saturation diagrams and has gamma very close to 2.2 on all three of the gamma diagrams.)

Here is a pair of screenshots, on the left, at 100%, is the NEF file as imported into Lightroom with the only adjustment being default colour noise reduction. On the right is the same 100% view, this time of the JPEG version which was exported from Lightroom, with no other adjustments, and reimported to Lightroom. As suggested by Ulfric, these have not been lightened at all. (You might need to click through to Flickr to see the full size version of this composite image, which is 2652 pixels wide.)


NOT MY IMAGE - jamiebonline NEF Default Colour NR 100pc screenshot composite by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Here is the same pair, but at 200%.


NOT MY IMAGE - jamiebonline NEF Default Colour NR 200pc screenshot composite by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I think what we are seeing in this area is the impact of the lady's makeup, which was somewhat confirmed when I asked my wife (not a photographer) to tell me what she saw (without telling her why). She explained all the colour and texture variations, at length and in considerable detail, in terms of what makeup she thought had been applied, and how.

Now you tell me I'm looking at the wrong things, and I'll go back to lurking. (Maybe :))
 
Last edited:
It would be great to see someone else's photo of skin in shadow and see if it looks similar or if there are gentle gradients without much artefactiness...
 
OK so I am not actually noticing her face at all in this pic. I am thinking about the reflection of her in the pillar she is next to. I see artefacts. If that is what they are. Blotchy areas as though this is a very small file enlarged. Kind of rectangles if you look closely.
I am attaching a pic I posted at the beginning so you can see the back wall.... and how bad it looks... to my eyes. Again, not about noise in terms of fuzz or dots :) blotches. Sorry I am not up on the terminology. Please overlook the fact that the model Gabi is not in sharp focus. I failed to catch that particular move.



View attachment 24563
 
OK OK guys, this thread has maybe lost its interest to you. I appreciate all the help. I just discovered something and perhaps I need a new thread to solve it. :) The horrible patchy shadow areas show up when I post on Facebook. When I open the jpeg and examine it on my pc, it is noisy but really not bad and those chunks are not present. I assumed what I was seeing online must be the same as the jpeg I made.

So the new question is, why is Facebook doing this to the pictures? Am I putting them online at too high a resolution? Or?

Thanks so much!
 
Last edited:
Have you tried them on, say Flikr, to see if they look better than Facebook?
 
Last edited:
Facebook does all sorts of horrible things to photos - resizes, resharpens, strips the EXIF. I've found that uploading the images with a longest edge of 960 pixels does the least damage. (I forget where I got that figure from, but it's one of the "native" sizes Facebook uses so it doesn't resize/resharpen, I believe)
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Whoa ... why didn't you say this at the start?
Click to expand...

Hi again, Yes I didn't say it in the beginning because I didn't know. But it's interesting because a lot of people saw fault in the picture nonetheless and tried fixing them and I learned something separate from that. So it helped me. So not entirely a wild goose chase. And thanks for your help Ulfric

About the Facebook issue, it seems that using PS and saving the file at 10 or 12 quality produces files too big and that can be troublesome? Or I wonder if Facebook is resizing and how? Flikr might well be better but I need to use my Facebook page for promotional reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top