Artefacts on Nef/Raw file import from Nikon Z cameras.

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • (Edited)
I dont know why they still dont fix a bug with processing nef/raw file from Nikon Z cameras.
On some bright edges we get artefacts. This happen few seconds after import image, because Camera Raw just apply some kind of a random "filters" Why there is no pure raw processing and left the image with default settings without applying some random filters with no chance to disable them.. And let me to decide what I want on my default image?

I think editing raw files with lightroom is useless for users with Nikon Z cameras. Better to use OEM software then. Where is no problems with processing NEF/RAW files.

Take a look on zippers. One photo taken with Z6 and another with Z50



Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • I am feeling to unsubscribe soon if this will not be fixed

Posted 2 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
What version of Camera Raw do you have installed?  For the Z50 Adobe's site for compatibilty for support for RAW says the minimum Plugin version has to be 12.1, the minimum Lightroom Version has to be 3.1, the minimum LR Classic has to be 9.1.

Likewise the Z6 has minimum camera raw plugin version 11, minimum Lightroom version2.0, and minimum LR Classic has to be 8.0
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have all up to date. The funny thing is that I wrote to them on support and they have the same problem on their side. They tested that pictures and answer me that:

Reason for no Fringing in Nikon Software: It uses different calculations for color displacement and camera raw works on different calculations, and hence fringes can occur depending on the raw image.
And get another message like
 Please click on the link below to submit a feedback to the Developer team about the issue that you are facing with Lightroom:
And then they closed my case. 
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Makes one want to yell and pound the desk a bit!  I have had that sort of dismissive behavior before but not from Adobe! I think it might be a function of so many support people working from home


Raven is a corvid, as are crows and jays.
(Edited)
Photo of Just Shot Me

Just Shot Me

  • 521 Posts
  • 142 Reply Likes
I'm of the opinion it is more of a Lighting problem. The picture of the Boot is lit from the front right causing a very dark shadow to the left.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
They both are pretty poor photographs. I wonder whether what was perceived as  "artefacts" [sic] were in fact reflections from a light or flash hitting the metal parts of the zipper.
(Edited)
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
The point is. On Nikon oem software this doesnt happen. Only in Adobe software this 'artefacts' become visible.
Even on JPG is all perfect. 
Only when I import file in Adobe software ( bridge, lightroom, photoshop) This artefacts are visible.

Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
They both are pretty poor photographs. I wonder whether what was perceived as  "artefacts" [sic] were in fact reflections from a light or flash hitting the metal parts of the zipper. Further evidence is that the boot shadow is so sharply defined, meaning that the light source was very close. That was possibly an on camera flash..
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
There was no flash. Both taken with natural light. 
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
What produced the shadow?
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
By any chance, have these images been through a third party filter such as Topaz Sharpen AI?
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
On first image the boot from the sun. And second one the tree from the right side.
No. They are straight of the camera nef file imported in Adobe Lightroom
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Would you mind if I copied the image into my machine to take a closer look at it?
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Ok... Give me a little while, and I will see if I can make some "intelligent" observations.... It is, however, getting close to Clink Clink time, so I may not get back to you until tomorrow!
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Nice evening and nice glass of..

Here are my thoughts and observations:

I downloaded both images, the one from your Z6 and the one from the Z50.


First, I took a look at the Z6 image, found that your shot was at 1/3,200th second, f/1.8 using ISO 100. I took a measurement of the boot portion in that image, the portion that has a thin vertical bright band, which I believe is what you are calling artifacts. I did an area calculation of that boot (not just the bright stripe) and then a calculation of the area of the entire image. Using the fabric part of the boot not including the shadow, the result is that the entire boot comprises 0.44% percent of the entire image. The bright pixels comprise 0.0064% of the total image.


Unless you enlarge that portion of this otherwise excellent image a great deal, no one will ever notice this.


I then did a similar analysis on the shot from the Z50. The bright pixels comprise 0.0074% of total image area; unfortunately they are much more visible to the eye. I suggest a Healing Brush fix for that.


The Z50 image was shot 1/200th second, f/4.5 and ISO 100. You were using aperture priority as do I.


What you are probably seeing is noise. That is most likely caused by the high shutter speed and low ISO used when making the Z6 image. I do not believe that it is a Photoshop or Camera Raw issue as regards either image. You were pushing the envelope a bit with unnecessarily high shutter and low ISO in the Z6 case and the reverse with the lighting conditions on the Z50 image: pilot error!


Also, the reason that you see it using Adobe Camera Raw but not with the Nikon software is, I believe, the more sophisticated / capable software from Adobe is revealing those “pixel warts.”


In the real world, if one enlarges ANY image sufficiently, one will see this sort of thing.


I often use high shutter speed along with high ISO to capture birds in flight; it is not unusual for me to use ISO 2,500 and a shutter speed of a 2,500 th of a second on hummingbirds, often push higher than that. My D-850 can do that without noticeable noise; however, when I scrunch right down to the pixel level during “post” I will frequently find aberrant pixels, including some bright like these. I have also noticed that when I use low ISO by mistake and try to fix a photo, the noise problem is much greater. The D850 does a far better job with this subject than it's predecessor.


BTW: that scene with the tree is very nice! (The one with your wife and the baby...)

Photo of Robert Somrak

Robert Somrak, Champion

  • 713 Posts
  • 223 Reply Likes
Your analysis doesn't make sense.  Why would a 100 ISO have more noise.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
The AP priority caused his camera to go too high on shutter speed....  exceeded ability to minimize noise for that camera
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
I was editing comment and the edit froze, so here is the revised version
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Here are my thoughts and observations:

I downloaded both images, the one from your Z6 and the one from the Z50.


First, I took a look at the Z6 image, found that your shot was at 1/3,200th second, f/1.8 using ISO 100. I took a measurement of the boot portion in that image, the portion that has a thin vertical bright band, which I believe is what you are calling artifacts. I did an area calculation of that boot (not just the bright stripe) and then a calculation of the area of the entire image. Using the fabric part of the boot not including the shadow, the result is that the entire boot comprises 0.44% percent of the entire image. The bright pixels comprise 0.0064% of the total image.


Unless you enlarge that portion of this otherwise excellent image a great deal, no one will ever notice this.


I then did a similar analysis on the shot from the Z50. The bright pixels comprise 0.0074% of total image area; unfortunately they are much more visible to the eye. I suggest a Healing Brush fix for that.


The Z50 image was shot 1/200th second, f/4.5 and ISO 100. You were using aperture priority which caused your camera to change the shutter speed in both cases. I use Shutter Priority shooting birds...


What you are probably seeing is noise. That is most likely caused by the high shutter speed and low ISO used when making the Z6 image. I do not believe that it is a Photoshop or Camera Raw issue as regards either image. You were pushing the envelope a bit with unnecessarily high shutter and low ISO in the Z6 case and the reverse with the lighting conditions on the Z50 image: pilot error!


Also, the reason that you see it using Adobe Camera Raw but not with the Nikon software is, I believe, the more sophisticated / capable software from Adobe is revealing those “pixel warts.” That would explain the one comment that Tech Support at Adobe made to you; Nikon and Adobe are calculating this differently....


In the real world, if one enlarges ANY image sufficiently, one will see this sort of thing.


I often use high shutter speed along with high ISO to capture birds in flight; it is not unusual for me to use ISO 2,500 and a shutter speed of a 2,500 th of a second on hummingbirds, often push higher than that. My D-850 can do that without noticeable noise; however, when I scrunch right down to the pixel level during “post” I will frequently find aberrant pixels, including some bright like these. I have also noticed that when I use low ISO by mistake and try to fix a photo, the noise problem is much greater. The D850 does a far better job with this subject than it's predecessor.


BTW: that scene with the tree is very nice! (The one with your wife and the baby...)

Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1935 Posts
  • 648 Reply Likes
Those are moire false color artifacts. Apparently the Nikon Z series sensors have a fairly weak optical low pass filter (OLPF), which is used to prevent moire in the fine detail areas. The Z7 model has no OLPF so even more prone to moire in fine detail image areas.

http://blog.falklumo.com/2020/01/the-conundrum-of-nikon-z6-prores-raw.html
At the above link: "As you can see, even the still image shows artifacts, the green/magenta rings at the crossings of the red lines! This is a "standard" color moiré pattern as expected from any sensor without an AA anti-alias low-pass filter and a Bayer color filter. The pattern is strongest at a 45° diagonal angle (1:1 slope). Actually and unlike the Z7, the Z6 does have an AA filter. But it isn't strong enough to completely suppress color moiré and my testing methodology can still measure it."
Not sure if this is an issue with the raw image conversion in LR/ACR, but it can be removed using the Adjustment Brush with the Moire control set to about 50.


Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1935 Posts
  • 648 Reply Likes
You can get better results using the Photo> Enhance Details tool (CTRL + ALT + I) in the Develop module. It removes the moire without affecting the image detail. The penalty is that it creates a rather large DNG file copy and takes some time (5-10 sec.). If you are only seeing this in a few image files that's probably your best solution for now.

(Edited)
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
@Todd Shaner:  Thanks!  you taught me something here!
@Robert Somrak:  This information from Todd Shaner is, I think, the explanation (you wrote Your analysis doesn't make sense.  Why would a 100 ISO have more noise.)   That would be a type of noise! I was not completely right on my thinking, but on the right track... Thanks to both of you!
  • Like
(Edited)
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you guys for your analysis. But I still dont understand why Adobe cause this?
On nikon software like ViewNX-i or Capture NX-D I dont get that. Even on JPG from camera its all great and perfect.
Only Adobe created that effect and then I need to remove that with tools because the Adobe cause that? Its no logic. For me its a waste to use Adobe software if I have that problems only with their softwares.
If you have time you can easily download a Nikon softwares and test with them and you will see how perfect result will be. 
In Adobe even enhance details function cant return that 'effect' back to normal.
Photo of Dave Grainger

Dave Grainger

  • 387 Posts
  • 67 Reply Likes
Jan:  Adobe didn't cause this. It is a design decision /  flaw for the camera maker Nikon. The Nikon software just isn't revealing the phenomenon and the Adobe software is good enough that it can. If you want to ignore the issues and use lesser software, that is your choice, but do not blame Adobe!

You can reduce the results if you stop using AP priority and also be willing to do touch up when it appears.
(Edited)
Photo of Jan

Jan

  • 9 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ah ok then :) Thank you for answer
Photo of Todd Shaner

Todd Shaner, Champion

  • 1935 Posts
  • 648 Reply Likes
"But I still dont understand why Adobe cause this? On nikon software like ViewNX-i or Capture NX-D I dont get that."

You probably have the Nikon ViewNX software setting for Color Moire Reduction turned on (Low, Medium, High). LR and ACR 'Enhance Detail' tool provides the same function AND enhances the overall image detail. So in fact both apps have the same capabilities with LR/ACR providing additional image enhancement capability.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/enhance-details.html

Here's an example using a Canon 5D MKII CR2 file that exhibits similar color moire.

https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/enhance-details-broken-all-black-...

How many images in a typical shoot are exhibiting moire?