The TIFF came first and the JPEG was made from it.

Unless you have a 10-bit display, both should look the same on the screen but different in a print.

If it couldn’t handle 16-bit TIFF it wouldn’t let you print it.

Windows can do 16 also (Epson).

It is just an objective appraisal of those images.

If you can’t handle critique, post something better.

I can see it on a 2k and 4k monitor because both are calibrated 8-bit displays when I look closely.

It’s not as likely to be an issue with a color image.

I can export a B&W 24MP image at 137mb RGB and convert it from 48-bit to 16-bit TIFF at 46mb.

That makes no sense. The export from C1 does it very quickly.

The colors aren't the issue. It's the banding, even when developed from a raw file. It's more noticeable when the image has no colors at all.

As I said in the first post, we very rarely need to export to 16-bit TIFF but it's an option if you are making your own prints and can print them large.

I don't necessarily need an enormous TIFF. If I downsize it to 6000x4000 the file is big but not excessive and 24MP is more than enough to make an image at any size.

Another option is to convert the B&W 48-bit TIFF to a 16-bit TIFF. That reduces the file size to about 1/3 of the original.

Your expectations are low, even by UHH standards.

Here are some examples from the gallery, taken with an iPhone. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-806030-1.html

They are better than yours. You need to up your game.

A larger print viewed at an appropriate distance would not make a blurred image look better.

Since this is a discussion of DOF, maybe you should not have offered them as examples on this thread.

Neither image appears to show that you really know how DOF works.

You might talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk.

At f/7.1 and 30mm, your hyperfocal distance was about 6.5 meters. Your selected point of focus was pretty close to that. That could be easily considered an intermediate focal distance since the hyperfocal distance puts the near limit at about 4 meters.

The pitfall of relying on hyperfocal distance (or close to it) is that, as you move away from the plane of focus, the image gets more out of focus in each direction until it becomes clearly out of focus to the viewer. The consequences are worse beyond the plane of focus than they are nearer to the camera because stuff like the reeds are much larger in the foreground than in the background where the reeds and trees need to be sharper.

If you look at the trees and the reeds in the background, they are not sharp. The look OK in the thumbnail but the image would not hold up as a larger print.

If you had selected a focus point further out, you could have mitigated some of these problems. And f/8 would have worked better.

Your smartphone would not have made the same mistake. It's smarter than you.

And there is something wrong with the second image. Nice colors and composition but just about everything looks blurred.

You focused just like every else does. You aimed the camera's focus at something at an intermediate distance and pressed the shutter.

You could not judge the DOF as you took the image any more than anyone could looking at the result.

BS alarm is going off.

Anyone can see how you focused those images. DOF had nothing to do with it.

I doubt it since you didn’t post the full size image.

You should have left out the insult, "keep-it-simple" is not stupid. Just as well you are out of here.

Here is a nice big image:

I didn't worry about DOF.