[cats_five]

Check your settings in Faststone. Seems like yours is set to save the embedded low quality preview jpg and not the processed raw data - no wonder you get banding if you save the low quality preview jpg.

Yes, having reread your reply to my previous post it strikes me you got the bit about checking the quality you save as is 90, but not the bit about the RAW tab in the settings - F12. The settings you want have '(slow)' at the end of the description.

[Jewelltrail]

Check your settings in Faststone. Seems like yours is set to save the embedded low quality preview jpg and not the processed raw data - no wonder you get banding if you save the low quality preview jpg.

simico--I have checked my settings, carefully. No matter which options I go with, up to this point, the banding issue stays the same. Tx

Cats5: Yes, having reread your reply to my previous post it strikes me you got the bit about checking the quality you save as is 90, but not the bit about the RAW tab in the settings - F12. The settings you want have '(slow)' at the end of the description.

I have both quality of "90" & slow option selected from f12 settings--no effect on the banding. By "slow" I mean I select f12, then "Raw" tab, then select "high quality color interpolation--slower." Is this what you suggest? Tx

[cats_five]

I have both quality of "90" & slow option selected from f12 settings--no effect on the banding. By "slow" I mean I select f12, then "Raw" tab, then select "high quality color interpolation--slower." Is this what you suggest? Tx

Yes. The banding is because Fastone is extracting the low-quality embedded JPG, so unless you amend the F12 RAW settings fiddling with the JPG quality won't help.

I used the following settings to produce the unbanded image:

View RAW files in actual size (slow)
Batch convert RAW files in actual size (slow)

And futher down in the tick-boxes:

High quality colour interpolation (slower) is ticked
Use automatic white balance is unticked
Use camera white balance if possible is ticked

[simico]

simico--I have checked my settings, carefully. No matter which options I go with, up to this point, the banding issue stays the same. Tx

I've downloaded your DNG and the latest version of Faststone and I don't get any banding. Neither in Faststone itself, nor in the saved JPG. There's also no banding in any other raw converter/developer app and I've tried quite some of them (Bibble, Raw Therapee, Darktable, LR3, DxO Optics Pro).
It's clearly something on your end if you get banding.

[cats_five]

simico--I have checked my settings, carefully. No matter which options I go with, up to this point, the banding issue stays the same.

Are you reloading after changing the options? When I first changed them it didn't make any difference, so I closed & reloaded Fastone and there was your photo with no banding.

[Jewelltrail]

Okay guys, time to close this up--thank you all--mucho appreciate. Nothing I do in the Fast-Stone changes the banding. Yes, I have tried all your suggestions.

BTW, when I open this same DNG above, in AE Elements 8, I do not get the banding--none at all.

However, it really isn't that big a deal since it only happens once in a while. Also, I now rely on much better software to handle my processing anyway. I was just curious as to why this happens. It looks like, if I steer clear of Fast Stone, there will not be any probelms. Best to all!

[Jewelltrail]

Jewelltrail

I use the Tamron AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 SP AD Aspherical (IF) most of the time. It is an absolutely stunning piece of glass with very little (if any) faults. Except for the strange phenomenon which seems to occur with this lens as explained above. It does not bother me at all because I know it has no detrimental effect on the quality of the photos I take. The only other lens, of a total of nine I own, where I have noticed this is the SIGMA DC 18-50mm 1:2.8 EX.
Its a beautiful lens in any other respect.

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

Schraubstock: I recently bought this SP lens brand new and was knocked oer by its quality. I like it so much, I sold my Tamron 17-50 2.8, since I bought that for landscapes & have the 28-75 for shallow DOF portrait stuff. Landscapes are now done for me by the 24-135.

I do miss the great performance of the 17-24 range on the 17-50, but cover most of that with the Sigma 10-20. I can't believe how well distortions are controlled on the SP 24-135, and how sharp it is throughout its range. I have no idea how this lens flew under tha radar for so long. Best money I've spent on a lens yet.

Enjoy your SP 24-135--thanks for the help.

[Schraubstock]

ewelltrail:

I know it is off topic, but just to round off the matter re TAMRON 24-135, IMO this lens is probably one of the best TAMRON has ever produced. I too don't know why it never got greater acknowledgment and why a lens of this quality ever gets taken off production. Of course it is a FF lens but this is not altogether bad for the APS-C shooter. It is build like a tank, and IQ is simply stunning.

I like the TAMRON so much and because it is no longer available I bought a new one as a spare when the opportunity presented itself. I keep it in storage as a standby just in case something might happen the other one.

So, of all the glass I own, I now travel with the above mentioned Tammy, SIGMA 10-20 DC and the PENTAX 60-250 as well as the PENTAX -F 1.7x AF extender when I need a bit of extra reach for the 60-250 and I am covered for pretty well everything. The PENTAX extender by the way is a little beauty and used with the 60-250 produces stunning pics.

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

[Jewelltrail]

ewelltrail:

I know it is off topic, but just to round off the matter re TAMRON 24-135, IMO this lens is probably one of the best TAMRON has ever produced. I too don't know why it never got greater acknowledgment and why a lens of this quality ever gets taken off production. Of course it is a FF lens but this is not altogether bad for the APS-C shooter. It is build like a tank, and IQ is simply stunning.

I like the TAMRON so much and because it is no longer available I bought a new one as a spare when the opportunity presented itself. I keep it in storage as a standby just in case something might happen the other one.

So, of all the glass I own, I now travel with the above mentioned Tammy, SIGMA 10-20 DC and the PENTAX 60-250 as well as the PENTAX -F 1.7x AF extender when I need a bit of extra reach for the 60-250 and I am covered for pretty well everything. The PENTAX extender by the way is a little beauty and used with the 60-250 produces stunning pics.

Greetings from sunny Melbourne

The lens gets the highest scores of any Tamron zoom over @ the Fred Miranda site--check it out there. BTW, a lot of those reviews are for the lens on FF. The reason the lens has been discontinued, is mainly due to the rise of APS-c demand. 24mm is great in FF (16mm), but a little long for a walk around on APS-c. Yes, the Pentax 1.7 is highly regarded too. Post some shots in the Tammy club with your 24-135, so I can compare with mine.

Cheers!

[MikeD]

I get this quite often when I use really low quality on jpeg.