how do prevent these arcs appearing
Aug 27, 2012 13:02:46 #
abc1234 wrote:
What do you use then?
CaptainC wrote:
...I am not a big fan of LR (for my work)...
What do you use then?
I use Bridge and Photoshop. I thinK LR is a great program and if it fits your working style, then you should use it. In the past, I did some motorsport events and had several hundreds of images to process and post online - for that, Lightroom is perfect - a huge timesaver.
For my portrait work, it just gets in the way. I found myself going up to photoshop to do EVERYTHING as I have plug-ins and actions that only work in PS and since LR cannot do layers and layer masks, it is a waste of my time. And all this stuff about it being non-destructive - well, ANY RAW file is non destructive, so no advantage there.
Aug 27, 2012 13:34:55 #
More mega-pixels will make a smoother transition in the color. What is the mp of your camera?
Aug 27, 2012 14:14:03 #
No1Shutterbug wrote:
More mega-pixels will make a smoother transition in the color. What is the mp of your camera?
Did you read PhotoArtsLA's answer? I don't think megapixels is the answer here. It is a combination of bit-depth and processing. Could you cite a reference for your answer?
Aug 27, 2012 15:20:17 #
drydock wrote:
quote=CaptainC quote=drydock 16 bit raw file imp... (show quote)
Yes, it will help to keep the jpg as large as possible with as little compression as possible. No need to reduce to 8 bit color since that will happen automatically when the image is saved as a jpg. Save as a tiff and print from tiff. tiff's are lossless and shouldn't show banding when displayed on screen or output to printer. Of course if you want to upload to the internet, most of the time jpg is the file format most recognized and don't forget to use 'save for web' or convert color space to sRGB and then 'save as' for a jpg. Search youtube for blue sky banding and see what others have to say.
Aug 27, 2012 16:07:37 #
CaptainC wrote:
Did you read PhotoArtsLA's answer? I don't think megapixels is the answer here. It is a combination of bit-depth and processing. Could you cite a reference for your answer?
No1Shutterbug wrote:
More mega-pixels will make a smoother transition in the color. What is the mp of your camera?
Did you read PhotoArtsLA's answer? I don't think megapixels is the answer here. It is a combination of bit-depth and processing. Could you cite a reference for your answer?
I have no reference, just a thought. Why wouldn't the amount of pixels as well as the bit rate have an effect on the color blend?
Aug 27, 2012 16:22:42 #
Your eyes are better than mine because I can't see any arcs in the sky no matter how much I enlarge the download. What I do see when looking at the top of the trees is over sharpening causing the dark shadows along the tree line. Not positive it is the sharpening but the photo looks to have had a bad day in the PP dept. When I look at the photo that's the 1st thing that jumps out at me not any arc's. There are those much more knowledgable that do see the arcs so I have to believe they're there although muchless evident than the bad PP work...........
Aug 27, 2012 18:28:08 #
coco1964 wrote:
Your eyes are better than mine because I can't see... (show quote)
The banding is definitely there, looking like wide saucer shapes, lower edge to the centre. The tops of the trees look like chromatic aberration to me, giving a turquoise edging to the tops of the branches
Aug 27, 2012 21:04:48 #
No1Shutterbug wrote:
I have no reference, just a thought. Why wouldn't the amount of pixels as well as the bit rate have an effect on the color blend?
CaptainC wrote:
Did you read PhotoArtsLA's answer? I don't think megapixels is the answer here. It is a combination of bit-depth and processing. Could you cite a reference for your answer?
No1Shutterbug wrote:
More mega-pixels will make a smoother transition in the color. What is the mp of your camera?
Did you read PhotoArtsLA's answer? I don't think megapixels is the answer here. It is a combination of bit-depth and processing. Could you cite a reference for your answer?
I have no reference, just a thought. Why wouldn't the amount of pixels as well as the bit rate have an effect on the color blend?
You did not say "I think...." You stated it as a fact.
C'mon folks if you don't know the answer, don't state some "thought" as as a fact. I know people want to help, but mis-information is not helpful.
Pixels define the size of an image, but bit depth refers to how much data the pixels contain.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=bit+depth&i=38678,00.asp
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/imaging-tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html
Aug 28, 2012 15:02:38 #
CaptainC wrote:
I have added this information to Pixels define the size of an image, but bit depth refers to how much data the pixels contain.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=bit+depth&i=38678,00.asp
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/imaging-tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=bit+depth&i=38678,00.asp
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/imaging-tech/the-bit-depth-decision.html
FAQ: Common Photographic Terms & Abbreviations
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-26493-1.html
Aug 29, 2012 10:22:22 #
The arcs (posterization) appear only in the JPEG simply because the compression reduces the color information so much that there is not enough information available to represent a smooth gradient transition. If you save in an uncompressed format such as TIFF you should not have this problem. Now that is my opinion, but there could be other reasons at work...
Here is an article on how to avoid or fix this problem in Photoshop.
http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=371
Here is an article on how to avoid or fix this problem in Photoshop.
http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=371
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.