Weird blurry patterns when exporting

[fritzunruh]

To help narrow down the issue a question and a suggestion

 

You said the version of LR was 3.2.1 I am confused as that would be Lightroom 3. Are you using the most recent version of Lightroom Classic or something else?

 

Though I am skeptical that it is related, you incoming image is in Adobe RGB color space and exporting you change to sRGB color space. This should not cause a problem yet who knows.

 

Also, there is PS and LR vs exporting vs using Save and Save As

 

To narrow down the issue I suggest a couple steps.

 

- In Photohosp, go to Preferences and turn off all GPU acceleration

- Also make sure that the Preferences are set to go directly into Photoshop and not through ACR

- Bring your original image into Photoshop and verify at 100% magnification (or 200 or 400%) that there is not fuzzy areas

- Note - make sure you keep the file in Adobe RGB and don't change to sRGB

- Use the File > Save As command and save as a PNG file (so no lossy compression)

- Bring that PNG file back into Photoshop and verify that the is no fuzzy areas

 

I will assume that it will come back just as the original with no fuzzy areas yet if wrong, just report back the problem and don't follow steps below

 

If you are at this point you have a baseline where you save the file and did not have a change. Each step below should be taken individually and not in combination by making the change in the steps above to test it out

 

1) Do the above yet first make sure that GPU acceleration is turned on in Photoshop

2) Do the above steps with the only change use the Save for Web legacy function (do not change to sRGB and leave that unchecked) (do not change image size)

3) Do the above steps with the only change being using the Export function in PS (with and without changing to sRGB)

 

4,5) Add GPU acceleration with #2 and #3

 

6-9) Change Preferences to go through ACR before entering into Photoshop and do the prior combinations.

 

I think one of the above combinations finally ends up with the problem occurring the way you said in Photoshop and this should help isolate which area is the root cause.

 

It is just the divide and conquer approach.

 

You could use using LR or not as a variable and which format you save in as a variable yet not sure that would be necessary.

 

Hope this helps track it down.

 

Thanks for staying with me in these hard times, John.

 

You're right, disabling ACR helped photoshop being able to save as a png without issues.

 

1) Turning on GPU works, too.

2) Web-legacy export to png works (although with reduced contrast)

3) PS export works with and without sRGB (the latter with reduced contrast)

4,5) Works with GPU as well

6-9) When just the GPU for ACR is deactivated, the issue appears within ACR preview as well as in PS as well as in all exports.

When GPU for ACR preview is activated but processing GPU is deactivated the issue doesnt appear in ACR preview but in PS as well as in all exports.

When GPU for ACR is completely activated the issue doesnt appear in ACR preview but in PS as well as in all exports.

 

In conclusion, it seems that a GPU acceleration is needed for the whole process but fails when the data is handed over from ACR to PS - exporting directly from ACR produces the error as well.

[fritzunruh]

For the sake of completeness:

 

I tried to work with the flawlessly exported png-files, to see if it might be an issue of the original tif itself - it isnt. Even the pngs created by PS show the issue as soon as LR or ACR touches them.

[john_wheeler6]

Looks as if you now have it narrowed down which is good. Apparently ACR engine or Graphics card related. Note that it is not uncommon to have bugs in the software for graphics cards that can create issues. Sometimes they are specific to the OS, ACR version, and or Graphics Card (and its driver version).

 

So this is now a bit beyond what I can help as I do not have your combination of hardware/software.

 

I do suggest a couple more things in your debug process

- When viewing previews in LR, make sure you use just the Develop Module and only at 100% (1:1) viewing.

- Make sure you are viewing the original image and not a Smart Preview

 

To further the narrowing down of the problem, the Camera Raw Preferences (in Photoshop and Lightroom) allow custom settings for use of GPU separating out vewiing and image processing.

 

After that, seeking help on the Adobe/Apple/AMD Radeon help sites or product support to narrow down the issue. If narrowed down enough to an unresolved issue, if you can find someone that can duplicate it on their system (I cannot) then you could submit a bug report to Adobe.

 

Thanks for sharing your information as when I do upgrade to Catalina and a more recent MacBook Pro eventually, I will know to watch out for the potential of the issue you came across.

[digitaldog]

I too downloaded the TIFF and looked in Photoshop (kind of pointless to view in ACR/LR), I see no banding on that TIFF.

[fritzunruh]

I too downloaded the TIFF and looked in Photoshop (kind of pointless to view in ACR/LR), I see no banding on that TIFF.

 

But did you send it through ACR when opening it in PS? When I turn off the automatic ACR for tiffs I don’t get the banding as well.

[digitaldog]

But did you send it through ACR when opening it in PS? When I turn off the automatic ACR for tiffs I don’t get the banding as well.

Why on earth would I do that? It's a TIFF. It is rendered.

I also didn't save it as a JPEG with loads of compression and then looked at it, why would I?

[fritzunruh]

Looks as if you now have it narrowed down which is good. Apparently ACR engine or Graphics card related. Note that it is not uncommon to have bugs in the software for graphics cards that can create issues. Sometimes they are specific to the OS, ACR version, and or Graphics Card (and its driver version).

 

So this is now a bit beyond what I can help as I do not have your combination of hardware/software.

 

I do suggest a couple more things in your debug process

- When viewing previews in LR, make sure you use just the Develop Module and only at 100% (1:1) viewing.

- Make sure you are viewing the original image and not a Smart Preview

 

To further the narrowing down of the problem, the Camera Raw Preferences (in Photoshop and Lightroom) allow custom settings for use of GPU separating out vewiing and image processing.

 

After that, seeking help on the Adobe/Apple/AMD Radeon help sites or product support to narrow down the issue. If narrowed down enough to an unresolved issue, if you can find someone that can duplicate it on their system (I cannot) then you could submit a bug report to Adobe.

 

Thanks for sharing your information as when I do upgrade to Catalina and a more recent MacBook Pro eventually, I will know to watch out for the potential of the issue you came across.

 

Tried the custom settings already, unfortunately no change.

 

Thanks for trying to help, it really is an odd problem, just glad that I‘m not just too stupid.

 

I just got in touch with Adobe, something I should have done earlier, they offered they check the file and try to replicate the problem on several systems - I‘ll let you know how my odyssey ends.

[fritzunruh]

Why on earth would I do that? It's a TIFF. It is rendered.

I also didn't save it as a JPEG with loads of compression and then looked at it, why would I?

 

Because that is where the problem is! Lightroom and ACR seem to run a similar engine that both cause this problem, I‘m aware that the file itself isn’t the issue but the processing through LR/ACR, that’s why it would be interesting to see how it goes on other systems.

 

How is exporting a compressed jpeg and opening a TIF with LR or ACR the same?

[digitaldog]

Because that is where the problem is! Lightroom and ACR seem to run a similar engine that both cause this problem,

It's a problem because you're further globally editing the data (and for what reason?). And yes, their processing engine is the same. So what edits did you apply to the data in either and why? How did you export them? Again, I can take the data and save it as a JPEG at quality level 3 and introduce data loss; why would I and should I be surprised to see data loss? No.

Was the original high bit data? What I downloaded isn't. It's 8-bits per color.

[john_wheeler6]

Tried the custom settings already, unfortunately no change.

 

Thanks for trying to help, it really is an odd problem, just glad that I‘m not just too stupid.

 

I just got in touch with Adobe, something I should have done earlier, they offered they check the file and try to replicate the problem on several systems - I‘ll let you know how my odyssey ends.

 

Thanks Fritz. I hope they help you figure it out and it would be great to hear any updates.

[fritzunruh]

It's a problem because you're further globally editing the data (and for what reason?)

 

I‘d like to be able to edit the picture without introducing artifacts. The reason I‘d like to do so is to apply creative edits such as crop, contrast and color. Is that impossible in your professional opinion?

 

 

So what edits did you apply to the data in either and why? How did you export them?

 

None, the artifacts appear without any further edits whatsoever. I exported them in any way I could imagine, see above. Exporting is not necessary to get the artifacts either, they appear as soon as the image is processed by ACR and opened within photoshop.

 

 

Again, I can take the data and save it as a JPEG at quality level 3 and introduce data loss; why would I and should I be surprised to see data loss? No.

Was the original high bit data? What I downloaded isn't. It's 8-bits per color.

 

I’m still not sure in what way exporting a quality level 3 jpeg is practically comparable to opening the image through ACR. Theoretically I understand that I might be inducing a step of processing the image, that has an effect on it, but I can’t believe it has such a massive destructive impact and that’s just the way it’s supposed to be.

[digitaldog]

I‘d like to be able to edit the picture without introducing artifacts.

Start with and edit high bit data.

http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

None, the artifacts appear without any further edits whatsoever. I exported them in any way I could imagine, see above.

IF you opened then saved through ACR/LR, the data was reprocessed. With no edits makes even less sense.

I’m still not sure in what way exporting a quality level 3 jpeg is practically comparable to opening the image through ACR.

Think about this a bit; you've got an original 8-bit per color TIFF and you're running it through the ACR engine again, exporting it somehow and now you see data loss. Don't do that on 8-bit per color data; you're losing image quality for a reason I'm as yet still not sure why.

[fritzunruh]

Start with and edit high bit data.

http://digitaldog.net/files/TheHighBitdepthDebate.pdf

 

IF you opened then saved through ACR/LR, the data was reprocessed. With no edits makes even less sense.

 

Think about this a bit; you've got an original 8-bit per color TIFF and you're running it through the ACR engine again, exporting it somehow and now you see data loss. Don't do that on 8-bit per color data; you're losing image quality for a reason I'm as yet still not sure why.

 

It makes a lot of sense to test where the issue is and eliminate the edit as the root of the problem.

 

So your theory is that there is no problem at all and it’s just because it’s 8-bit?

 

That would mean that if you were to open the tif in ps through ACR (like I asked before and you asked why on earth you would do that) then exporting a lossless png you could replicate my compression artifacts exactly, right? That’s a way of tackling a problem and finding out if it’s just you, the software, the hardware or no real issue.

[kmac]

scanned using silverfast into a tif with 2903 × 1943 pixels, not sure about the model of the scanner but a rather advanced type, no sub 1k $ consumer model afaik

 

The info I'm getting from your scan is that a Nikon LS 8000 was the scanner.

 

It says ...

Device make: Nikon

Device model: LS8000 Filmstrip

 

These scanners are known for banding, perhaps horizontal banding, I'm not sure which, but I think most users check "Fine" mode to eliminate the banding. Also the mirror and lens needs cleaning regularly if used every day and if not in a pollution free environment.

 

I picked up two bands in your original scan, they are very faint but are in the same position as the two same bands in the other pics that show the bands more prominently. The pic needed de-sharpening to see the bands better and by following them down into the sea, there's vertical lines. There should be no vertical lines in the waves.

 

[fritzunruh]

The info I'm getting from your scan is that a Nikon LS 8000 was the scanner.

 

It says ...

Device make: Nikon

Device model: LS8000 Filmstrip

 

These scanners are known for banding, perhaps horizontal banding, I'm not sure which, but I think most users check "Fine" mode to eliminate the banding. Also the mirror and lens needs cleaning regularly if used every day and if not in a pollution free environment.

 

I picked up two bands in your original scan, they are very faint but are in the same position as the two same bands in the other pics that show the bands more prominently. The pic needed de-sharpening to see the bands better and by following them down into the sea, there's vertical lines. There should be no vertical lines in the waves.

 

[ATTACH=full]1338024[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks, I know that there’s a little issue with this banding in the original file, my main problem is the way it looks after leaving LR or ACR as a lossless tif or png, because it looks way different from the source data.

[digitaldog]

It's not a theory that some edits of 8 bit per color data can introduce banding. It's WHY high bit data exists.

Why not scan in high bit?

[Ed_Ingold]

I would add that if you don't need ACR (not processing a RAW image), why use it at all? If you don't need to use the PNG format (e.g., for web display or email), which is only one notch better than a BMP or GIF, why use it? If your scanner (LS8000) is capable of 14 bit color depth (rounded up to 16 bit), why scan in 8 bit mode.

 

The LS8000 has three parallel rows of sensors for faster scanning. If you get horizontal banding, as in wide areas of neutral density with little detal, it is painfully obvious. Should it occur, use the "Fine" scanning mode. It is not present in any of the images shown so far.

 

Cleaning of an LS8000 should be left to a professional, if you can still find one. The optics, particularly the sensor, can only be reached with major disassembly of a complex mechanism. Only dust near or on the sensor will produce any visible effect. Vertical banding of the sort somewhat visible in the examples is too broad to be due to dust bunnies. More likely, it is caused by irregular development. Since ithe image is lighter in the center, I would suspect vignetting or diffuse ghosting.

 

8 bit images have very little tolerance for digital processing, and easily leads to banding and posterization. I have no problem sending 8 bit JPEG images out for printing, but only after they are exported from 16 bit masters.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

[fritzunruh]

I would add that if you don't need ACR (not processing a RAW image), why use it at all? If you don't need to use the PNG format (e.g., for web display or email), which is only one notch better than a BMP or GIF, why use it? If your scanner (LS8000) is capable of 14 bit color depth (rounded up to 16 bit), why scan in 8 bit mode.

 

The LS8000 has three parallel rows of sensors for faster scanning. If you get horizontal banding, as in wide areas of neutral density with little detal, it is painfully obvious. Should it occur, use the "Fine" scanning mode. It is not present in any of the images shown so far.

 

Cleaning of an LS8000 should be left to a professional, if you can still find one. The optics, particularly the sensor, can only be reached with major disassembly of a complex mechanism. Only dust near or on the sensor will produce any visible effect. Vertical banding of the sort somewhat visible in the examples is too broad to be due to dust bunnies. More likely, it is caused by irregular development. Since ithe image is lighter in the center, I would suspect vignetting or diffuse ghosting.

 

8 bit images have very little tolerance for digital processing, and easily leads to banding and posterization. I have no problem sending 8 bit JPEG images out for printing, but only after they are exported from 16 bit masters.

 

I see, unfortunately I don’t have access to the scanner easily to try again in 16bit.

 

I do eventually want to use ACR or LR for edits, I just left out the editing part for testing what might cause the artifacts.

 

My problem and question is why it looks the compressed way it does after leaving LR or ACR as a lossless tif or png export. The problem doesn’t exist before, shouldn’t a lossless export no matter what bitsize look just like that - lossless? Or at least not create heavy compression artifacts I’d expect from a low quality jpeg? Because thats what’s happening and I have no idea what could cause the issue or if it just happens on my system for some reason.

[Ed_Ingold]

ACR affects the original, so re-edits are cumulative. LR works by reference, leaving the original file untouched. Compression is not the only thing that affects files. To be truly lossless, you make a copy, not a rendering.

[kmac]

All the programs may not be totally compatible with each other, but if they are compatible, then I believe the artifacts you are concerned about are already in the original scan, and they are getting "shape shifted" by the various programs, compressions, and re-sizing. Software development and computer operating systems have moved on significantly from the early 2000s and are probably designed specifically for digital camera images these days. If I'm not mistaken, banding isn't a problem with digital camera images.

 

In any case, I think you should get the negative re-scanned at a high resolution, no less than 6,000x4,000dpi, and with multi-sampling, set at "2" or "3", from a newer scanner that runs with it's native software, and hope that your ACR and LR can deal with it better.

Edited April 18, 2020 by kmac

[Ed_Ingold]

In a pinch, you can use a screwdriver as a chisel, but not very well. In the world of image processing, ACR is a screwdriver, but Photoshop is a sharp chisel. Lightroom is nearly as capable as Photoshop, and better than Bridge for organizing image storage. At worst Lightroom does no harm.