Jump to content

Getting Rid of Banding


Recommended Posts

Did the banding occur when you converted to black and white or when you did some post processing? Presumably, it was not in the original file unless you have your camera set to do some automatic pump ups or manipulations. I'm always on the lookout for such banding, especially in the skies, when I'm post processing. It's often simply a sign that I've gone too far and then I just pull back my levels or curves or contrast adjustment. It looks like there's some vignetting going on in that part of the sky, particularly the upper left corner, and the file may just not be able to handle what you're doing in post. It looks like a lot of highlights in the very foreground and in the background water are blown. If that's something that got done in post processing, whatever caused it could be aiding the banding effect in the sky. Best thing to do is go back to your original file, which is likely free of the banding, and go slow on the post work, noticing when the banding gets introduced.

 

Interestingly, with some banding, I've noticed even when I see it on screen, it does not always translate to prints. So, depending on your ultimate presentation format, it might not matter. Some banding, of course, does show up in print, but some flaws are more prominent in screen viewing than print viewing. The opposite is true as well, some flaws are more obvious in print than on screen.

  • Like 3
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just pull back my levels or curves or contrast adjustment

I don't mean it can be pulled back once the banding has occurred, after the fact. I mean you'd have to start over and not go so far with the levels, curves, or contrast adjustments.

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen this type of banding to occur in NR, in the smooth areas of the image, specially the sky. That’s why, I mask out the sky if I use noise reduction. Daylight sky doesn’t need much NR anyway, since noise is most visible in the dark areas.

 

If you want to repair it after the banding has occurred, you can apply Gaussian blur with a large radius only to the affected region making sure the finer details like clouds etc are not affected. However, the original gradations in tones won’t be accurately restored.

 

Also, when I look at the larger image, the NR appears heavy handed to me, so that a large amount of detail were removed by the NR. You may try reducing the NR level and see at what point you get a good compromise between detail and noise that also minimizes the banding effect.

 

BTW, if the Original image was a jpeg, manipulations can lead to artifacts or make things worse in post processing steps.

Edited by Supriyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to agree with Supriyo. NR should not be used past the point where things start to look plasticky. Yes, there is zero noise in the image, but it's not an image that's nice to look at (due to the NR, not the composition). If you want a noise-free image, you'll need a more expensive camera, I'm afraid (e.g. Sony A7III, US$2,000). Although I don't know why you applied NR - you shot this at ISO 100, right? I don't suppose you could show us the original?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Converting to 16 bit works for some reason. When you make adjustments to an 8 bit file, the interpolation between levels takes bigger jumps. Concerting to 16 bit doesn't increase the amount of real information in the image, but makes the interpolation smoother. You can see it in the histogram, by the absence of the "comb" appearance, characteristic of banking.

 

As others have mentioned, a monitor with 8 bit color may sho banding that isn't in the image itself.

 

Needless to say, the main reason to shoot RAW images is in anticipation of future adjustments.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it's an 8 bit jpeg. You can still convert that to 16 bit in Photoshop or ACR and apply edits with very little banding. It's worked for me editing quite a few sky scenes as this one shot in jpeg and edited in ACR.

 

[ATTACH=full]1246545[/ATTACH]

 

Tim, does the conversion via ACR itself eliminate or reduce the banding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, once you've introduced the banding, it's going to be hard if not impossible to get rid of it satisfactorily, especially without sacrificing something else. If you want to get rid of it, you'll need to go back to your original file, before any conversion or post processing was done, and convert and post process carefully, so as not to introduce it in the first place. If done well, no conversion or post processing needs to introduce banding. If banding is getting introduced, you need to check your settings for conversion and/or check what you do in post processing to see where it's getting introduced and change those settings or lighten up on the post processing effects. It looks to me like something was done to the entire photo, some kind of gradient, filter, vignetting, contrast adjustment, that caused the banding. It would be very helpful if you could post the original shot as it came out of the camera, if you still have it. That way, you could get some advice on what to do or not do to avoid what's happened.
  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMG_0491.thumb.jpg.d0d6d5f6c00a670706089924cc190b3f.jpg

t would be very helpful if you could post the original shot as it came out of the camera, if you still have it. That way, you could get some advice on what to do or not do to avoid what's happened.

 

Here it is.

Edited by michaellinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. So there's no reason why banding should have been introduced. If I were you, I'd simply redo your conversion to b/w. I don't know how you convert, but I'd start with the default settings of your program and slowly tweak from there if you want. As you tweak, simply notice if and when the banding begins to occur and that's when you'll know you've tweaked too much. Notice, for example, your tree area at the left of the pier. The edges of your trees are highlighted to an unnatural degree making that area of the photo look inorganic. Here's a very quick conversion to black and white. The problem with the photo, as I see it, is blown highlights in the water and the sky which, for me, would make the photo unusable. I'd consider it a nice shot but a loss for quality reasons. [i'm not presenting this black and white as a finished example of where I might go with it, just as a quick, one-step, non-banded conversion.]

 

redone.thumb.jpg.cf5b240baa7195d547b755532a92d14d.jpg

  • Like 2
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you did want to salvage the photo and the blown highlights bother you, you could consider cropping in from the right, to get rid of the troublesome whites. I did a crop and raised the lighting level a bit on the beach and under the pier, just for your consideration. The negative to cropping is that the pier gets cropped and I prefer the way it completes itself in your original. But photography is often just this kind of trade-off.

 

redone2.thumb.jpg.cd6af6f8a3c4a83b2b3a568881a3da63.jpg

  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, does the conversion via ACR itself eliminate or reduce the banding?

The 16 bit conversion isn't added directly to the jpeg image pixels once opened in ACR/LR. What a high bit conversion does in ACR/LR is create additional and more precise (closer together/discreet) software instructional mapping points on the pixel data in the Raw converter to smoothly map these instructions through an 8 bit video preview system. You can directly save as a jpeg or tiff out of ACR/LR but now the edits are cooked into the pixels. The added interpolated 16 bit data can ONLY be saved as a tiff or other file format that supports 16 bit data encoding. Jpeg encodes data only in 8 bit.

 

Also if you open the 16 bit image directly out of ACR/LR regardless of the original file format into Photoshop the edits are cooked into the image but in 16 bit WHILE EDITING IN PS & ONLY UPON SAVING. But now the more precise 16 bit discreet editing points are embedded as interpolated pixels permanently. Any additional Photoshop edits like curves/levels will be performed smoothly directly on the interpolated 16 bit data pixels through the same color managed 8 bit video preview. Once you save those additional pixel edits as a tiff or jpeg, there is some loss of pixel data especially resaving to jpeg. Any further edits reopening in Photoshop and resaving as tiff will further degrade interpolated 16 bit data but not as severe as if you applied the edits on the 8 bit jpeg. Further edits should be applied in ACR/LR as parametric instructions on the original jpeg file or previously pixel edited 16 bit tiff though editing directly on the pixels in tiff format in Photoshop won't be as destructive.

 

You can still introduce banding even on 16 bit image in Photoshop only if the edits are too extreme such as applying close together notches or oddball shaped 'S' curves using the point curve.

 

So high bit data is only useful for making more precise and smooth edits through a less precise and less discreet 8 bit video preview system.

Edited by Tim_Lookingbill
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before you ever convert a color image to B&W, it's best to apply extreme edits on the colored version first such as contrast, clarity and brightness in 16 bit before converting to B&W and applying further edits. Conversion to B&W directly reduces more discreet transitional tones and detail and so less precise and less smooth edits.

 

ACR/LR offers more tools to apply discreet and precise tonal controls like HSL panel when converting to B&W. Just reducing saturation slider doesn't deliver the most/best tonal variation when applying further edits.

Edited by Tim_Lookingbill
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred and Tim, I tried several of your suggestions yesterday. Initially, I uploaded a color image to ACR. The only settings I changed involved clarity and vibrance. Then I opened the image in Photoshop Elements 15, made a few minor tonal adjustments using levels, and then converted it to b&w in Silver Efex. Guess what? Your help really paid off! I possibly could have found the same information each of you provided by researching the Internet, especially youtube. Had you not beeb]n as generous with your suggestions, I would have tried that option. Again, I am very grateful!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles ahead of film......;)

So this is what it takes to produce a single digital photograph.....

 

Although I do recognize a hint of attempted humor in these statements, I trust you are aware some of us (like me, admittedly) are not as advanced as others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do recognize a hint of attempted humor in these statements, I trust you are aware some of us (like me, admittedly) are not as advanced as others.

Michael, good to see you research this subject on YouTube and that it along with what you've gathered from others in this thread helps you make better B&W conversions.

 

To get a quick and simple idea of the software engineering of Adobe Raw converters just play around with reducing/increasing interchangeably between the Vibrance and Saturation sliders toward negative numbers (desaturate). Note the luminance changes according to differently colored elements between the two applying these adjustments on a wide range of color images. And then apply tweaks to each individual color in HSL panel. All act differently on luminance across the entire image. What looks like a green maybe interpreted by the software as yellow and what looks blue may require slider adjusts to Purple or Aqua.

 

It does take practice on a wide range of colorful images in order to get to know the nuances applied to luminance appearances. It's a lot more refined than getting the same results shooting B&W film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do recognize a hint of attempted humor in these statements, I trust you are aware some of us (like me, admittedly) are not as advanced as others.

I’m quite sure you are far ahead of myself on the digital process. I tried to follow along and began to find the whole thing a bit tedious. That’s no discredit to anyone posting and many have been helpful.

I just found myself laughing a bit at reading it all and found the whole “Tech is easier and saves time” conventional wisdom to be yet again put to an amusing test.

Trust me I have spent many an hour trying to navigate obstacles to get what I wanted out of software or hardware.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s no discredit to anyone posting and many have been helpful.

I just found myself laughing a bit at reading it all and found the whole “Tech is easier and saves time” conventional wisdom to be yet again put to an amusing test.

 

I'm confused by your statement. Isn't laughing at someone's helpful input discrediting them as well?

 

So you don't think it's easier and quicker to get B&W conversions out of digital color images? I operated a graphics camera professionally for around 5 years shooting B&W continuous tone film photos and performing line conversions on film to burn plates and print on commercial presses. There's nothing but tedium involved with that old process and I'm glad I'm done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...