Problem with noise?

I’ve seen that bird in a.b.p.o.! The clumps you refer to is jpg compression artifacts. Either your camera is set to compress too much or you have saved it in too high a compression, or it could be that you have resaved it a few times.

—
Geoff J.

"Geoff J" wrote in message

I’ve seen that bird in a.b.p.o.! The clumps you refer to is jpg compression artifacts. Either your camera is set to compress too much or you have saved it in too high a compression, or it could be that you have resaved it a few times.

It does sort of look that way but I don’t think so. Here’s how it happens: I open the RAW image and make appropriate adjustments and at this stage none of the clumping is evident. But when I convert the image to a JPEG it appears. This is before I’ve even reduced the size of the JPEG or placed it in memory. I’m fairly experienced but self-taught on PS so maybe there’s some nuance I’m missing but I don’t think I’ve made any change from my normal workflow and I’ve never had the problem until it suddenly popped up a few days ago. And it’s not isolated on one or two shots. It’s on everything I’ve shot in the past week.

One thing I’ve noticed is that after opening the image in JPEG the phenomenon becomes worse if I attempt to burn a part of the picture.

As far as setting my camera to compress too much, I wouldn’t even know how to do that and I’m not sure if there is such an option on a Nikon D80. I just shoot in RAW — Nikon calls it NEF — and take ’em out of the camera as shot, without modification.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

I’ve seen that bird in a.b.p.o.! The clumps you refer to is jpg compression artifacts. Either your camera is set to compress too much or you have saved it in too high a compression, or it could be that you have resaved it a few times.

It does sort of look that way but I don’t think so. Here’s how it happens: I open the RAW image and make appropriate adjustments and at this stage none of the clumping is evident. But when I convert the image to a JPEG it appears. This is before I’ve even reduced the size of the JPEG or placed it in memory. I’m fairly experienced but self-taught on PS so maybe there’s some nuance I’m missing but I don’t think I’ve made any change from my normal workflow and I’ve never had the problem until it suddenly popped up a few days ago. And it’s not isolated on one or two shots. It’s on everything I’ve shot in the past week.

One thing I’ve noticed is that after opening the image in JPEG the phenomenon becomes worse if I attempt to burn a part of the picture.
As far as setting my camera to compress too much, I wouldn’t even know how to do that and I’m not sure if there is such an option on a Nikon D80. I just shoot in RAW — Nikon calls it NEF — and take ’em out of the camera as shot, without modification.

If you are using NEF files then the problem isn’t with the camera but with the way that you save the image, I gues that when you first saved it the compression was too much. Every time you save and resave as a jpg the image worsens a little. I would save the converted RAW file as a tiff (which is not compressed), then open that and crop and resample to a size for posting then save as a jpg.
What compression are you using when you save as a jpeg? If you still have the raw image, try opening it, crop and resample it then "Save for web" using a jpg quality of about 75, see if that gives a better result.

—
Geoff J.

"Geoff J" wrote in message

If you are using NEF files then the problem isn’t with the camera but with the way that you save the image, I gues that when you first saved it the compression was too much. Every time you save and resave as a jpg the image worsens a little. I would save the converted RAW file as a tiff (which is not compressed), then open that and crop and resample to a size for posting then save as a jpg.

Geoff let me repeat this: The problem occurs immediately as I convert the file as a JPEG! At that point it hasn’t even been saved once —- at ANY compression level. It does tend to get worse if I manipulate the image or modify it by burning, etc. All this happens before it’s been saved even once.

Most often I save by using Save for Web & Devices with the quality at 67. But that is an after-the-fact occurance. By then the damage is done.

This has never happened to me prior to this week. I may have inadvertently ticked some kind of option box somewhere that’s causing it but I don’t think so. And I’ve checked all my tool presets. No obvious problem there. —
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

"Paddy’s Pig" wrote in message

By the way Geoff — thanks for your interest. I just don’t think we’re going in the right direction yet.

I’m hoping somebody has experienced something like this and has a workaround.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

"Paddy’s Pig" wrote in message

By the way Geoff — thanks for your interest. I just don’t think we’re going in the right direction yet.

I’m hoping somebody has experienced something like this and has a workaround.
—
Pat Durkin

Incidentally here’s another pixentral link:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1IJY1U6RghQ93Tor2B Uu5aIYS3VSb1

Note the concentric rings on the wall behind the tree.

The appearnce of these things is almost like Newton’s Rings from my old film days — although caused by totally different reasons.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

">

By the way Geoff — thanks for your interest. I just don’t think we’re going in the right direction yet.

I’m hoping somebody has experienced something like this and has a workaround.

Pat, I have seen this lots of times, the problem is when you first save the raw file as a jpg you are saving it with a high compression. You have said it yourself twice: "But when I convert the image to a JPEG it appears." "The problem occurs immediately as I convert the file as a JPEG!". When you first save it, use quality 10, Baseline standard. Better still do your conversion from RAW to a tiff then you will not get this problem at all. Jpg was invented for posting pictures on the web, not for saving good quality pictures such as those that you take. Try it and see. Good luck, it’s long past my bedtime here in the UK.

—
Geoff J.

Incidentally here’s another pixentral link:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1IJY1U6RghQ93Tor2B Uu5aIYS3VSb1
Note the concentric rings on the wall behind the tree.

The appearnce of these things is almost like Newton’s Rings from my old film days — although caused by totally different reasons.

Pat, I’ve quickly saved a file twice, one high compression, one low. This is exagerated but it shows my point. Take a look, see how the background goes blocky in the high compression jpg? The low one is fairly smooth. http://www.gjphotographic.co.uk/test/test1_low.jpg
http://www.gjphotographic.co.uk/test/test1_high.jpg

"Geoff J" wrote in message

Incidentally here’s another pixentral link:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1IJY1U6RghQ93Tor2B Uu5aIYS3VSb1
Note the concentric rings on the wall behind the tree.

The appearnce of these things is almost like Newton’s Rings from my old film days — although caused by totally different reasons.

Pat, I’ve quickly saved a file twice, one high compression, one low. This is exagerated but it shows my point. Take a look, see how the background goes blocky in the high compression jpg? The low one is fairly smooth. http://www.gjphotographic.co.uk/test/test1_low.jpg
http://www.gjphotographic.co.uk/test/test1_high.jpg

Well I see your point. My only questions are 1) is converting from RAW/NEF a form of "saving"?, and 2) if so, how can I regulate or choose the saving compression at that stage (since I’ve never opted to do that — high or low — in my life prior to now, and 3) how come I’ve never seen the phenomonon before?

If I’ve been doing it wrong all along I should have been getting lousy results for the past several years but I haven’t. Indeed my results are generally regarded as excellent.

It still seems as though something has changed.

Nonetheless your two examples above are duly noted and somehow may figure into a solution for this.

Thanks again Geoff.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

PS – One other example to illustrate what I mean when I say by my statements that I have not had this problem before:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1yEenMlWtT4evTgLcs grhkeTWIMDd0 Please note that in this old Packard automobile there is a smooth transition from high to low tones in all the color ranges in the entire photograph. And there are no blocks or clumps of pixels. The picture was made a day or two before I began having the current problem — while using the exact same methods. If my methods were faulty, why did I get such an acceptable result? How, if I didn’t change anything, was that possible on a consistent day-after-day, month-after-month basis? I’m not without experience in PS and I am confused right now.

"Paddy’s Pig" wrote in message

PS – One other example to illustrate what I mean when I say by my statements that I have not had this problem before:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1yEenMlWtT4evTgLcs grhkeTWIMDd0 Please note that in this old Packard automobile there is a smooth transition from high to low tones in all the color ranges in the entire photograph. And there are no blocks or clumps of pixels. The picture was made a day or two before I began having the current problem — while using the exact same methods. If my methods were faulty, why did I get such an acceptable result? How, if I didn’t change anything, was that possible on a consistent day-after-day, month-after-month basis? I’m not without experience in PS and I am confused right now.

Oh crap! Now after posting the above I clicked open the link just to double-check and I see waves of color gradations in the silver paint on the car’s door. I swear they weren’t there in the original.

Maybe I’m having some kind of hardware problem that’s degrading everything I see on this monitor.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

Oh crap! Now after posting the above I clicked open the link just to double-check and I see waves of color gradations in the silver paint on the car’s door. I swear they weren’t there in the original.
Maybe I’m having some kind of hardware problem that’s degrading everything I see on this monitor.

Pat, perhaps the artifacts have always been there but you have not noticed them because you were not looking for them?

On a different note, you are posting using a newsreader and your posts do not show up on the web-based Adobe forum. I suggest that you got to the forum at www.adobeforums.com/webx/.ee6b366/ and register, then repost your original question. There are a lot of experienced clever people in there, including people from Adobe, who will be able to look at your problems. I guess that they will tell you the same as me, that you should not convert your NEF files to jpgs, but save them as tiffs, only save as jpgs when you have to put an image on the web or in a.b.p.o.

—
Geoff J.

"Geoff J" wrote in message

Oh crap! Now after posting the above I clicked open the link just to double-check and I see waves of color gradations in the silver paint on the car’s door. I swear they weren’t there in the original.
Maybe I’m having some kind of hardware problem that’s degrading everything I see on this monitor.

Pat, perhaps the artifacts have always been there but you have not noticed them because you were not looking for them?

No – I’ve got a pretty critical eye and pretty high standards.

But now I think I’ve found the root of my problem. I went to another computer and viewed some of my posts and they’re fine. The noise in the hummingbird picture was just that – noise – nothing more, and only because I shot at a high ISO speed. What really alarmed me was something I was seeing on other pictures where there was a flat surface in varying shades of light (like that door on that old Packard). Instead of a smooth transition from light to dark it was "stepping" in lines about every 1/8 or an inch. Very distracting. Also showed up as concentric circles in some scenes.

I see no evidence of that on the other monitor so I’ll conclude there’s something going wrong with the one I use. I hate to spend the money on a new one but at least I think I can rule out some kind of PhotoShop malfunction.
—
Pat Durkin

email: t o b a c c o h a t e r 1 @ y a h o o . c o m

Oh crap! Now after posting the above I clicked open the link just to double-check and I see waves of color gradations in the silver paint on the car’s door. I swear they weren’t there in the original.
Maybe I’m having some kind of hardware problem that’s degrading everything I see on this monitor.

Pat, perhaps the artifacts have always been there but you have not noticed them because you were not looking for them?

No – I’ve got a pretty critical eye and pretty high standards.
But now I think I’ve found the root of my problem. I went to another computer and viewed some of my posts and they’re fine. The noise in the hummingbird picture was just that – noise – nothing more, and only because I shot at a high ISO speed. What really alarmed me was something I was seeing on other pictures where there was a flat surface in varying shades of light (like that door on that old Packard). Instead of a smooth transition from light to dark it was "stepping" in lines about every 1/8 or an inch. Very distracting. Also showed up as concentric circles in some scenes.

I see no evidence of that on the other monitor so I’ll conclude there’s something going wrong with the one I use. I hate to spend the money on a new one but at least I think I can rule out some kind of PhotoShop malfunction.

In that case, check if your display settings have changed from 32bit to 16bit.

—
Geoff J.