Why does this happen.

[Chris]

Buckskin, yes the second picture (jpg) shows signs of banding. There is not enough information in the file to show a smooth transition between tones in the overexposed areas.

Kind regards
Chris

[BuckSkin]

Jul 13, 2020 15:31:35 GMT whippet said:

I took some photos today. Hardly any sun

I could not find an example of an S8200, but I did see an S8600; are they fairly similar ?

In rethinking your situation, something I seen somewhere a while back came to mind.

It is hard to determine from the pictures, but I don't think your lens has filter threads; if it does, then so much the better.

However, if it does not have filter threads, they do make adhesive filter thread adapters that allow you to use standard filters.

For the tree picture, with blown-out highlights from top to bottom, a Variable Neutral Density filter would allow you to dial the background into view.
Take a set of three or more images, with the tree looking good in one, and the sky/background looking good in another, and one in between; and, then, use an HDR program to merge the three images into one good image.

Equipped with a filter thread adapter, you could then also use Circular CPL and Gradient Neutral Density filters, either alone or combined; either will help to prevent blown highlights.


Okay....., I just now found one:

   www.amazon.com/KIWIFOTOS-58SL1000-Adapter-FUJIFILM-FINEPIX/dp/B00JTMRQBG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=adhesive+filter+adapter+fujifilm+S8200&qid=1604162771&s=electronics&sr=1-1

It is a bit pricey at $49; but, if you like your camera, this will make you like it a lot more.

In my experience, contrary to what the people who like to spend other people's money will say, I have just about as good results using $6 to $12 filters as those costing lots more; so, there is no need to break the bank buying over-priced filters, especially in the smaller sizes like 58mm.

A Gradient ND, a Circular CPL, and a Variable ND would be three good filters to start with.

I like Zomei and AGFA filters.

[BuckSkin]

Oct 31, 2020 16:53:51 GMT Chris said:

Buckskin, yes the second picture (jpg) shows signs of banding. There is not enough information in the file to show a smooth transition between tones in the overexposed areas.

Kind regards
Chris

I have not yet tried to fix one; but, I wonder if that could not be somehow repaired.

I guess though, it would be easier to just replace the sky in such cases.

[michelb]

That is a very good description and example of the difference between RAW and jpeg.

The separate ridges of varying colors in the sky of the corrected jpeg, is that what is called "banding" ?

I see that myself occasionally, even in RAW conversions, when the sky has been manipulated a bit too much.

I totally agree. There is significant 'banding' or 'posterization' in the second (jpeg) picture. Raw editing is performed in 16-bits from the raw format which has wider tone range than the already processed in 8-bits jpegs. The most frequent situation is for continuous tones gradients in skies, which also tend to be overexposed. Trying to stretch the tones from the poor highlight data processed to the 8-bits jpg format brings that banding. As you can see, there is also more noise. Generally, that noise is good at hiding the 'bands' but here that is not enough to mask the posterization. Sometimes, even if you process in the raw converter and open in 16-bits in the Elements pixel editor, you may still see slight banding; then your only solution will to add a tad of noise, or to avoid too much denoising.

[whippet]

Thank you all for your help, and advice.
I shall see what I can do.

BuckSkin. I found your explanation about the trees, most interesting. Many thanks for taking the trouble to enlighten me.