JPEG banding? What is it? how do I fix it?

gifthorse · 01-31-2017, 05:35 PM

Horizontal "stripes" (for lack of a better description). The usually appear after being processed in Adobe and appear where a large portion of the image is similar but graduated color i.e. the sky. I've gotten the problem in Elements 11 and Lightroom.

Adam · 01-31-2017, 05:48 PM

Strong JPEG compression/low quality, most likely.

PDL · 01-31-2017, 06:06 PM - **2 Likes**

Go here - read this:
Bit Depth

**mattt** · 01-31-2017, 06:22 PM - **1 Like**

The problem is not the software, it is how much information/data is in your file.

JPG is a lossy format meaning data is eliminated in lieu of compression or small file size.
RAW files are not lossy - it makes them more "flexible" in post but much larger files sizes.

**jpzk** · 01-31-2017, 06:22 PM

Not trying to invade this thread but I would also like to know what they are and what to do to avoid them (bands).

I've had those (horizontal) bands in some pictures in the past, especially with landscapes with lots of contrasts: a very clear blue sky, clear waters in front and some mountains in the background/horizon.
The bands would appear only in the sky.

Is this also what one would see on some TV programs ?

I browse the link above ... no idea what this is all about ... too nerdy for me !

mee · 01-31-2017, 06:30 PM

Could it also be an issue of having a monitor not capable of displaying the full spectrum? Usually in TN panel based displays and cheaper IPS panels..

**dms** · 01-31-2017, 07:07 PM

There are not enough data to represent all the shades of colors and light levels--thus they appear as jumps in exposure in this case. Typically this is because the processing in software always involves throwing out data--so even though the original file likely did have enough data, the processing you did threw out data. Best approach is to use 16 bit (not 8 bit)--so camera raw. The other option is to take care in processing the image--some methods are better than others.

dave2k · 01-31-2017, 07:08 PM

I'm no expert, but I'll give this a try. Think about all tiny variations in color throughout the sky area shown in the picture. At full file size there is enough information in the file to show enough color variation to appear totally natural. JPEGs reduce the amount of information in the file based upon algorithms that reduce the amount of information stored for areas that are virtually the same. So as you reduce the file size, the information no longer captures all of the tiny variations in color. Eventually enough information is lost that the color transition is no longer smooth. As far as I know, the only solution is to keep more information in the file, i.e. do not allow the file size reduction to go so far. You can actually experiment in your post-processing to demonstrate this phenomenon. For example, reduce to various JPEG file sizes, 4 MB, 2 MB, 1 MB, etc. and you should be able to detect the file size where the problem appears.

**jpzk** · 01-31-2017, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by dms

There are not enough data to represent all the shades of colors and light levels--thus they appear as jumps in exposure in this case. Typically this is because the processing in software always involves throwing out data--so even though the original file likely did have enough data, the processing you did threw out data. Best approach is to use 16 bit (not 8 bit)--so camera raw. The other option is to take care in processing the image--some methods are better than others.

That makes a lot more sense.
So, if the RAW image doesn't show banding ... What's next to be able to process in PP:
it would be better to save it as a TIFF file ... then PP as needed ... would it still be possible to get banding again ?
Another question: is it possible to get banding in a RAW image (not processed)?

Again, my apologies to the OP: I wasn't trying to steal the show!

**dms** · 01-31-2017, 07:23 PM

The main thing is not camera raw per see but 16 bits vs 8 bits. a bit is either on or off (1 or 0)--so 8 bit can hold 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=256 pieces of information (e.g., 256 colors for a pixel), while 16 bit can hold (2x2 ... 16 times) or 256x256--so 256 times more information in 16 bit vs 8 bit. Actually photoshop is closer to 15 bits--but still much more than the 256.

So banding is not likely w/ 16 bit (whatever file type it is) and you have far more headroom in pp--but still certain actions in pp are very damaging in this regard.** And you cannot (should not) convert the file to 8 bit (jpg) before or during the processing--or anyway not till the very end.

___________
** And many actions in pp (e.g., photoshop) involve choices--all doing the same thing (or rather achieving the same or similar results) but some w/ much less loss of information.

**interested_observer** · 01-31-2017, 07:29 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by jpzk

Not trying to invade this thread but I would also like to know what they are and what to do to avoid them (bands).

I've had those (horizontal) bands in some pictures in the past, especially with landscapes with lots of contrasts: a very clear blue sky, clear waters in front and some mountains in the background/horizon.
The bands would appear only in the sky.

Is this also what one would see on some TV programs ?

I browse the link above ... no idea what this is all about ... too nerdy for me !

It has to do with the number of colors you can compress within JPGs. JPGs are essentially what is called 8 bit color - which provides 256 colors/ shades.

Within JPGs there are only so many shades of blue available so you get this banding of blue...... Similar to this representation of red.

You can get this condition in a few ways. Take images in JPG for one. You can also take your images in RAW and then process them, and then export them into JPG. When you export into JPG, it need to represent all the colors and that's where you can also pickup color banding.

**clackers** · 01-31-2017, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

That makes a lot more sense.
So, if the RAW image doesn't show banding ... What's next to be able to process in PP:
it would be better to save it as a TIFF file ... then PP as needed ... would it still be possible to get banding again ?
Another question: is it possible to get banding in a RAW image (not processed)?

Again, my apologies to the OP: I wasn't trying to steal the show!

Keep it 16 bit as long as you can during your processing.

Turn into JPG only when you've 'finished'.

mee · 01-31-2017, 07:36 PM

Do you see banding on these images? Gradient (banding) - Lagom LCD test

rrstuff · 01-31-2017, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by gifthorse

Horizontal "stripes" (for lack of a better description). The usually appear after being processed in Adobe and appear where a large portion of the image is similar but graduated color i.e. the sky. I've gotten the problem in Elements 11 and Lightroom.

It's posterization. Banding is a sensor artifact that appears as parallel vertical or horizontal lines in the darker areas of the image.
Posterization will happen if you edit a JPG and will be readily visible in a histogram, which will be made of separate vertical strips as opposed to a continuous spectrum.
Posterization

gifthorse · 01-31-2017, 08:13 PM

Better?

My normal processing is to open the DNG in Lightroom and then develop the image in Lightoom, export the processed image as a JPG and then open the image in Elements 11 for sizing. I've just started using Lightroom and have been having trouble with resizing images in Lightroom. For this image I increase the resolution in the export menu and resized it in Lightroom instead of Elements. These were the first night sky images I have taken since I started with Lightroom and resizing in Elements was easier. I do appreciate the replies. The PF is a priceless wealth of knowledge!

01-31-2017, 05:35 PM	#1
gifthorse Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Nevada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,949	JPEG banding? What is it? how do I fix it? Horizontal "stripes" (for lack of a better description). The usually appear after being processed in Adobe and appear where a large portion of the image is similar but graduated color i.e. the sky. I've gotten the problem in Elements 11 and Lightroom.

01-31-2017, 05:48 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	Strong JPEG compression/low quality, most likely. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

01-31-2017, 07:23 PM	#10
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	The main thing is not camera raw per see but 16 bits vs 8 bits. a bit is either on or off (1 or 0)--so 8 bit can hold 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2=256 pieces of information (e.g., 256 colors for a pixel), while 16 bit can hold (2x2 ... 16 times) or 256x256--so 256 times more information in 16 bit vs 8 bit. Actually photoshop is closer to 15 bits--but still much more than the 256. So banding is not likely w/ 16 bit (whatever file type it is) and you have far more headroom in pp--but still certain actions in pp are very damaging in this regard. And you cannot (should not) convert the file to 8 bit (jpg) before or during the processing--or anyway not till the very end. ___________ And many actions in pp (e.g., photoshop) involve choices--all doing the same thing (or rather achieving the same or similar results) but some w/ much less loss of information. Last edited by dms; 01-31-2017 at 07:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do I have aperture block failure (and where do I fix it)?	redridinghood	Repairs and Warranty Service	5	03-29-2017 08:25 AM
Abstract What can I do to improve this? How could I have taken it better?	Zephos	Photo Critique	9	11-27-2016 08:03 AM
Question Names appearing with ampersand and bold - does it do anything, and how do I do it?	pathdoc	Site Suggestions and Help	15	03-24-2016 06:12 PM
Ok, so what is this and how do I fix it?	RickL	Pentax DSLR Discussion	31	05-23-2009 08:27 PM
what did I do wrong, and how to fix it?	momof4	Photographic Technique	15	11-27-2007 10:15 AM

01-31-2017, 06:06 PM - 2 Likes	#3
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,128	Go here - read this: Bit Depth

01-31-2017, 06:22 PM - 1 Like	#4
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	The problem is not the software, it is how much information/data is in your file. JPG is a lossy format meaning data is eliminated in lieu of compression or small file size. RAW files are not lossy - it makes them more "flexible" in post but much larger files sizes.

01-31-2017, 06:22 PM	#5
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Not trying to invade this thread but I would also like to know what they are and what to do to avoid them (bands). I've had those (horizontal) bands in some pictures in the past, especially with landscapes with lots of contrasts: a very clear blue sky, clear waters in front and some mountains in the background/horizon. The bands would appear only in the sky. Is this also what one would see on some TV programs ? I browse the link above ... no idea what this is all about ... too nerdy for me !

01-31-2017, 06:30 PM	#6
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Could it also be an issue of having a monitor not capable of displaying the full spectrum? Usually in TN panel based displays and cheaper IPS panels..

01-31-2017, 07:07 PM	#7
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	There are not enough data to represent all the shades of colors and light levels--thus they appear as jumps in exposure in this case. Typically this is because the processing in software always involves throwing out data--so even though the original file likely did have enough data, the processing you did threw out data. Best approach is to use 16 bit (not 8 bit)--so camera raw. The other option is to take care in processing the image--some methods are better than others.

01-31-2017, 07:08 PM	#8
dave2k Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 419	I'm no expert, but I'll give this a try. Think about all tiny variations in color throughout the sky area shown in the picture. At full file size there is enough information in the file to show enough color variation to appear totally natural. JPEGs reduce the amount of information in the file based upon algorithms that reduce the amount of information stored for areas that are virtually the same. So as you reduce the file size, the information no longer captures all of the tiny variations in color. Eventually enough information is lost that the color transition is no longer smooth. As far as I know, the only solution is to keep more information in the file, i.e. do not allow the file size reduction to go so far. You can actually experiment in your post-processing to demonstrate this phenomenon. For example, reduce to various JPEG file sizes, 4 MB, 2 MB, 1 MB, etc. and you should be able to detect the file size where the problem appears.

01-31-2017, 07:12 PM	#9
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by dms There are not enough data to represent all the shades of colors and light levels--thus they appear as jumps in exposure in this case. Typically this is because the processing in software always involves throwing out data--so even though the original file likely did have enough data, the processing you did threw out data. Best approach is to use 16 bit (not 8 bit)--so camera raw. The other option is to take care in processing the image--some methods are better than others. That makes a lot more sense. So, if the RAW image doesn't show banding ... What's next to be able to process in PP: it would be better to save it as a TIFF file ... then PP as needed ... would it still be possible to get banding again ? Another question: is it possible to get banding in a RAW image (not processed)? Again, my apologies to the OP: I wasn't trying to steal the show!

01-31-2017, 07:29 PM - 2 Likes	#11
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by jpzk Not trying to invade this thread but I would also like to know what they are and what to do to avoid them (bands). I've had those (horizontal) bands in some pictures in the past, especially with landscapes with lots of contrasts: a very clear blue sky, clear waters in front and some mountains in the background/horizon. The bands would appear only in the sky. Is this also what one would see on some TV programs ? I browse the link above ... no idea what this is all about ... too nerdy for me ! It has to do with the number of colors you can compress within JPGs. JPGs are essentially what is called 8 bit color - which provides 256 colors/ shades. Within JPGs there are only so many shades of blue available so you get this banding of blue...... Similar to this representation of red. You can get this condition in a few ways. Take images in JPG for one. You can also take your images in RAW and then process them, and then export them into JPG. When you export into JPG, it need to represent all the colors and that's where you can also pickup color banding.

01-31-2017, 07:33 PM	#12
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by jpzk That makes a lot more sense. So, if the RAW image doesn't show banding ... What's next to be able to process in PP: it would be better to save it as a TIFF file ... then PP as needed ... would it still be possible to get banding again ? Another question: is it possible to get banding in a RAW image (not processed)? Again, my apologies to the OP: I wasn't trying to steal the show! Keep it 16 bit as long as you can during your processing. Turn into JPG only when you've 'finished'.

01-31-2017, 07:36 PM	#13
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Do you see banding on these images? Gradient (banding) - Lagom LCD test

01-31-2017, 07:42 PM	#14
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126	Originally posted by gifthorse Horizontal "stripes" (for lack of a better description). The usually appear after being processed in Adobe and appear where a large portion of the image is similar but graduated color i.e. the sky. I've gotten the problem in Elements 11 and Lightroom. It's posterization. Banding is a sensor artifact that appears as parallel vertical or horizontal lines in the darker areas of the image. Posterization will happen if you edit a JPG and will be readily visible in a histogram, which will be made of separate vertical strips as opposed to a continuous spectrum. Posterization

01-31-2017, 08:13 PM	#15
gifthorse Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Nevada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,949 Original Poster	Better? My normal processing is to open the DNG in Lightroom and then develop the image in Lightoom, export the processed image as a JPG and then open the image in Elements 11 for sizing. I've just started using Lightroom and have been having trouble with resizing images in Lightroom. For this image I increase the resolution in the export menu and resized it in Lightroom instead of Elements. These were the first night sky images I have taken since I started with Lightroom and resizing in Elements was easier. I do appreciate the replies. The PF is a priceless wealth of knowledge!