Colour space? Banding in images

wilt

wilt

Messages
1,452
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I use LR5, PS CC and Nik software. I've been getting images with gradient banding in the images, especially when up loaded to Facebook/flickr but also in PS CC before saving them. Does colour space have anything to do with it and what colour space should I be using? How can I stop this from happening.
 
Post a example for a more detailed reply but it does sound like a work flow issues.
 
I was getting this exact issue last night whilst trying to edit a photo, but it suddenly resolved itself! I installed Picasa to try and view the photos in a different application and then the banding disappeared! I have noticed on your Export settings you are using ProPhoto, i was always under the impression it had to be SRGB but if someone could clairfy?
 
The export setting you are looking at are for exporting to Photoshop, which is using the same colour space as Lightroom, to apply corrections to the image. This is internal within the Lightroom/ Photoshop system and it's in 16bit so it shouldn't give any problems. It's when you export to a printer or other system that will view the images that it's a good idea to export as Adobe RGB or sRGB
 
I work in the printing industry & while I appreciate the general consensus is to use sRGB for publishing to the web due to it not using the dynamic range contained within aRGB & also supposedly rendering the image better as it doesn't have to convert the aRGB to sRGB & therefore might get it wrong thus causing your photo to look odd, maybe.
I say maybe because I have always used aRGB for posting my images & have done some tests uploading the same image, one of each & looking at the pair side by side & am unable to see any difference.
And at my place of work we always ask for aRGB, when on the rare occasion we are sent sRGB we contact the client to see if they have an original in aRGB.
When exporting in sRGB you throw away data which is the dynamic range, so why do it when there is next to no difference when posting to the web.
Just process in aRGB & you'll keep all the data & by default the best image you can process.
ProPhoto in LR has quite possibly a better dynamic range than aRGB but until the industry changes which will take 20 years at least the best you can achieve is to not use PS & only LR & print / export from there.
Not much use if you need some serious manipulation.
I haven't upgraded my PS for some time & am still using PS 5.5 extended, does the new version 6.? have the ProPhoto available to use directly from within PS?
Each time you switch between one colour space, basically a ICC profile, you will alter the data that compiles the actual image & thus give rise to banding & fringing.
My first suggestion would be to change your PS setting to use aRGB & when saving not to convert to sRGB even if web publishing.
Unless of course someone specifically request sRGB but of course always keep the aRGB original file along with an untouched raw file.
And that leads me to ask, do you photograph in RAW?
Photographing only in jpeg will certainly cause banding/fringing due to the processing that has already occurred within the camera & then within LR & or PS.
Each new edit causes damage to the file with manipulation of the pixels, even saving a photo that in the camera is say 240ppi & then we after editing save the image at 300ppi.
This causes interference & issues with the quality of a photos appearance.
I only ever up scale the ppi of any photo if I know I have finished editing & it is going to its final destination, print or other media.
However, I always have the completely untouched RAW file I can go back to no matter how many times I have used & edited a file, I always only ever edit from a copy of the RAW file.
I won't even risk thinking I will remember to 'save as' just in case I forget as for every stroke of the edit mouse/pen you alter the data, even if you 'edit undo' the mere action of doing something & then undoing it causes the original data to alter.
One quick test you might be able to undertake if you have access to a printer, print out an unedited original photo direct from the camera & compare to see if the banding is there even if it is on the cameras screen
This test isn't to check for colour, clarity, tone, exposure but simply if the banding is there.
If it is then it is likely to be camera settings & not any editing software.
 
Last edited:
retrosi said:
I say maybe because I have always used aRGB for posting my images & have done some tests uploading the same image, one of each & looking at the pair side by side & am unable to see any difference.
Click to expand...
The problem with using anything other than sRGB for the web is you have no idea how the person at the other end is viewing your image. If they are using a non-colour managed application, the result they get may look completely different to how it looks when you view it.

I'm guessing in your job you have complete control over the print process - you do the rendering of the image to print, so it is controlled properly. With the web, it is the other person doing the rendering - you have no control over that, and someone, somewhere, will be looking at a picture of yours that is wrong from a colour point of view.
 
Until everyone that is viewing your images online is using a wide gamut monitor calibrated to full gamut and also uses a color managed browser, you still need to use sRGB for the web.
 
Hello arad85 your point is correct in some instances such as say when someone has a really out of the normal set up for viewing images. But have a go at posting some aRGB to your album here and see if the result is so far from what you originally processed. Which is why I mentioned that I have done that. I suppose what I am saying is unless it's critical to always have an exact representation regardless for whatever reason a person has. Then by working always in aRGB you may have a slightly not absolutely perfect image that someone is viewing but unless it's a customer that has a perfect eye most people don't see any problems. And you me anyone can just get on with processing and just convert to sRGB when really needed and know that we are using a better colour icc profile all the time. I mean if you're lucky enough to know that all and any work you do is destined for sRGB why work in a lesser quality profile.
 
retrosi said:
Hello arad85 your point is correct in some instances such as say when someone has a really out of the normal set up for viewing images. But have a go at posting some aRGB to your album here and see if the result is so far from what you originally processed.
Click to expand...
The point is - it depends on what application the viewer is using. Whilst this is an extreme example designed to show the differences head over to: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

In Chrome - my normal browser I can see that the bigger picture at the top looks like the middle of the 3 below - i.e. Chrome is ICC v2 compliant, whereas showing the same page on the same monitor in Internet Explorer shows the bigger image at the top to look the same as the top of the smaller 3 images (i.e. icc v2 & v4 compliant). If you have a correctly managed application displaying the image, you will see no difference between the images you export in different colour spaces. On the other hand, if you export aRGB and I look at them in something else they may look different.

Lightroom works in Pro Photo in the develop module (see: http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/color-management.html). If you have a profiled monitor (note calibration and profiling are two separate things) t then uses the monitor profile to transform that colour space into the best it can do on the monitor. The underlying image data is not changed in doing this, it transforms what it thinks the colour should be to the closest it can get on screen. If you have a wide gamut monitor, calibrated/profiled for wide gamut, the image will be more saturated to you than it will be to others. You can see this most clearly in Lightroom in the develop module by selecting a colourful image, ticking the soft proofing, whacking up Vibrance and Saturation and then switching between sRGB and Adobe RGB (or any other profile you have installed for printing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top