White fringe "halo"

DxO PhotoLab
13

with a decently saturated ( good exposure ) shots and with moderation in terms what you dial slider-values-wise in the NR tool DPXD does not produce a lot of artefacts that are objectionable for many people … of course when the situation (exposure, sliders) is opposite DPXD can/will produce much more artefacts that are objectionable for many people … I use DPXD as a default setting with NR amount dialed down ( not “40” ) and if I happen to have poorly exposed shots then I can/will switch if needed to plain DP … also DxO code pays certain attention to a nominal ISO value recorded in raw when applying its NR ( can be illustrated by changing ISO values in the same raw file ), so same exposure with higher nominal ISO values might result in a different strength of NR applied

in any case the moral is that every user shall test pronoun use cases before deciding between DPXD vs DP and decide for proun-self

1 Like
14

Right. I have received your NEF file, along with a second DOP.

The problem is definitely way too much ClearView Plus and Microcontrast, along with a completely wrong use of Smart Lighting.

Here is the DOP you posted here, which now contains three versions - the untouched original, your edit and my edit.

DSC_6653.NEF.dop (40,9 Ko)

And here is a screenshot of the same portion of the original heavily cropped image that you posted, magnified from PL7…

Capture d’écran 2024-01-20 à 22.01.29
Capture d’écran 2024-01-20 à 22.01.291748×1264 158 KB

But I took things a little further and ran a TIFF export through Topaz PhotoAI, to give a finished image of 4704px x 5880px. Then took a screenshot of the same area from Topaz PhotoAI.

Capture d’écran 2024-01-20 à 22.00.06
Capture d’écran 2024-01-20 à 22.00.061748×1264 97.9 KB

I am sending you the resulting TIFF by WeTransfer, so you can see it for yourself.

Absolutely agreed

1 Like
15

Topaz PhotoAI – I have used Topaz essentially since the beginning of the application suite, now being merged into PhotoAI. For aesthetic purposes. Gigapixel often can be satisfactory; however, the interpolated and extrapolated pixels that were NOT in the actual raw image invalidate the use for any actual measurement purposes (eg, an image of a bird for some types of ornithological research). At one time, technical support from Topaz indicated that the Topaz denoising/sharpening AI training/algorithms/implementation did not do well on feather detail. That evidently has been improved. The experimental evidence that DxO PL DeepPrime XD produces unwanted artifacts (such as the white fringing I observed) means DxO has more work to do on XD or the successor thereto. However, to the best of my knowledge, the DxO optics modules (as available – the Sigma 60-600 Sport plus Sigma TC-1401 or Sigma TC-2001 is NOT supported) provide image improvements/corrections not readily available in “competitor” applications.

16

not sure that really affect the bird picture showing above from your original post, sure there can be some improvement but to a certain degree. I think @Joanna did a nice work, but not seeing the original picture doesn’t really show the starting point.

17

The original was a backlit (dark) image of a bird of interest in which the bird occupied roughly 5 percent of the image area. I append a screenshot of the image from FastRawViewer that provides minimal “misrepresentation” of the NEF.

Screenshot at 2024-01-21 14-20-52
Screenshot at 2024-01-21 14-20-52701×471 428 KB

Note that I used the Sigma 60-600 Sport with a Sigma TC-1401 because there is no DxO optics module for the TC with the primary. Without an optics module, the details slider evidently does not appear in PL7 Elite Complete. The details slider often enhances an image for a client – but unlike Topaz “increased resolution” does not seem to invent pixels, but rather functions like DxO dark recovery that effectively does the digital equivalent of burning when making an emulsion print on an enlarger – “recovery” not “addition”. I could get no closer to my subject without risking the subject immediately flying under the assumption that I was a threat (“predator”).

18

If I may restate something I said to @Caradoc in this message.

The part of the image that you were trying to improve only amounts to less than a 2Mpx image. At least, Peter managed just under 4 Mpx.

Is it any wonder that you are getting processing artefacts? Where is the detail going to be recorded? A lot of the “lines” that represent feather parts are only 1 pixel wide, so you are never going to get true texture.

In my work as a professional printer, I often come across photographers who want me to make large prints of small parts of images and, sometimes, I have to tell them that it is simply not possible - at least at the kind of size and quality that they are hoping for.

And the vast majority of such images are of birds, photographed on a 5-600mm lens that, in the photographer’s mind has a focal length of around 2metres or longer. Whereas, in fact, it is only the photographer’s eye that has zoomed in to that kind of focal length.

Maybe some of the latest software can “invent” texture, rather than just “making pixels larger” but, at the moment, your best bet is Topaz PhotoAI for “adding zoom” when you just can’t approach any closer.

As for the fringing that is the original subject of this thread, I can assure you that is nothing to do with DeepPRIME XD. In fact, with a Nikon sensor like yours at 500 ISO, you really don’t need to use the XD - the regular DeepPRIME will be fine. I have used it up to 10,000 ISO on my D850 with no problems.

The cause of the problem was simply using ClearView Plus, which should only ever be used on images of fog or mist, along with Microcontrast, which is far too aggressive for this kind of subject. As soon as you push local contrast like this, you will get fringing. I hope you have FilmPack installed in PL7, because judicious use of its four fine contrast sliders is by far the best way to bring out such detail without these kind of problems.

By the way, you never said what you thought of the large TIFF I sent you. What do you think?

1 Like
20

Imaging with DX (APS-C) format on a FX (“standard” 35 mm) format sensor is a crop of the full FX image number of pixels and possibly the number of images per unit time that can be done (in the high imaging rate modes), nothing more. I “waste” some storage by not cropping in the FX body rather than cropping in post. I still prefer to crop in post, as on an enlarger with film. The issue with using a TC is that DxO does not support the TC-1401 or TC-2001 with this lens, whereas, eg, Nikon Z 800mm F6.3 S With Z TC-2.0x does have a DxO optics module. Note that this Nikon is “slow” as is the Sigma, and at an equivalent of F12 with the 2x, often will have AF issues even with a Z9. I have read on this forum that the optics modules do not make much difference but having looked at images submitted to clients, I respectfully disagree. DxO optics modules are one of the strong points of the DxO approach.

21

The problem is, if you’re using tele-converters and you still have to crop, in camera or in post, you’re never going to get good image detail, for the simple reason there are simply not enough pixels.

22

You absolutely are correct. The pixel count increase applications (such as Topaz Gigapixel AI now part of the Topaz Photo AI “all in one”) increase the aesthetic pixel count but install synthetic information (evidently, now good enough for bird feathers). This is not the same as duplicating, modifying, and then inserting the sub-image into the total image (the Art Wolfe “animals as art” approach in which individuals not present in the actual scene being viewed were inserted for aesthetic and marketing/sales purposes), but adding bogus detail. My understanding is that the DxO optics modules do not add bogus detail per se, but attempt to correct In computation (software) optical “defects” in the imaging system, restoring closer to what an “ideal” optical system would have displayed with the same sensor resolution (“pixel count”). I have compared until difficult imaging conditions the Sigma 60-600 at 600 post-PL7 Elite Complete with the same lens at 600 with the Sigma TC-1401 (under difficult conditions) that does not have a DxO optics module, and although there are fewer pixels, the DxO optics module does make enough of a difference that the 600 without the TC is the “better” image. Obviously, unlike in the world of fiction, when one runs out of pixels, nothing can be done. As for the use of Sigma over Nikon, etc, the current Sigma lenses I use produce images as good or better than Nikon at significantly less cost with a build quality (field durability) as good as Nikon. Sigma does not make all of the lenses that I need, and the Nikon restriction on the Z mount further reduces what Sigma is allowed by Nikon to produce for Z mount. For example, I retired my F mount Nikon 24-120 4 VR lens from my kit with the advent of the D850, and used a Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art as my “travel” lens. I recently acquired a Z mount Nikon 24-120 4 S that is “much sharper” than the F mount lens, and is in fact satisfactory on a Z8/Z9 as a travel lens in FX format. Thus, I use more than one marque of lens.

24

Just be aware, tho, that the Fine Contrast slider “adds or subtracts” to each of its subordinate Advanced Settings sliders - - such that, in the example below, the net result is no change.

image

  • The negative setting for Fine Contrast overrides ALL (equivalent) positive settings for subordinate sliders.
2 Likes
25

Yes - I, too, find that the image quality produced by PhotoLab with optics modules tends to be outstanding. There are a few exceptions, some of which are lens-dependent (e.g., the correction of strong chromatic aberrations or blooming leads to halos).

Lately, I find that I have to be very careful with local adjustments if I want to avoid halos. DxO needs to improve this IMO. I went looking for an example I posted not long ago during testing, but it seems the EA part of the forum is gone (or has become inaccessible even to recent beta testers). Someone else please confirm that.

26

I do not understand what you mean by “optimized for Z series”. The main difference from F to Z is the mount, including the “throat diameter”, so that optical designs that were not feasible with the F mount were feasible with Z. This is similar to what happened between Canon FD to EF, and now R mount. I did take some images with the Sigma 60-600 Sport and Sigma 100-400 C, FTZII, Nikon Z9, and a demo Nikon 180-600 Z (that is not a S lens, but a “consumer” lens). I did this at 100, 200, 400, 600 in so far as possible, on the same subject, natural lighting, perhaps 30 m to one subject, and 10 m to a second, manual exposure, VR on, auto ISO, hand held. My subjective judgement was first with Fast Raw Viewer (FRV) and then PL. In FRV, I would rate image “quality” (“sharpness”, “contrasty”, etc) as Sigma 60-600 and then the Nikon and Sigma 100-400 were very close. After PL with optics modules, the results were nearly indistinguishable, although I had a slight preference for the Sigma 60-600. Note that as a Sport lens, the 60-600 has better sealing, etc, than the Nikon non-S or the Sigma C.

28

I assume it has his own internal focussing engine. Unless the Z-camera uses another currency this seems impossible to me. Or the FTZ has a to big resitance.

George

29

correct, sigma use Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM)

30

Sigma is not producing many Z mount lenses because Nikon has a very restrictive contract to Sigma as to what lenses Sigma may produce for Z mount. Tamron is in fact producing some Z mount lenses with Nikon badging – but again, Tamron and Sigma which have each licensed the Z mount (and electronic and communications protocols) from Nikon JP are not allowed directly to compete with the Nikon lens offerings. In flashes, Profoto has (and charges $1000 USD for the shoe mount flash) but Godox has not but has reverse engineered the iTTL protocols (the V1n flash on Deal of the Day from BH was $179 USD – my tests and current use show that the V1n is as useful as the Profoto and works iTTL on both my Z9 and Z8 – and it is cheaper to get a Godox replacement than a repair of a Profoto). It is unclear how much the FTZII “slows down” AF for AFS VR F mount lenses – some of my AFS VR F mount lenses actually AF “faster” on my Z9 than on my D850. Unfortuately, Sigma is not allowed to put the 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | S SKU: #732 for Sony mirrorless as a Z mount model. The MEGADAP Sony E to Nikon Z Autofocus Adapter (ETZ21 Pro) has problems as well.

31

Yes - that’s true for me too, Greg … Presumably, in preparation for DxO’s planned “new beta testing approach”.

Absolutely: the OMs are a key part of PL’s worthwhile features - - You only need to use the Compare button - with reference image set to “No corrections (without geometry)” - to see this for one’s self.

32

And thus, Sigma lenses with a Sigma TC on a Z8 or Z9 cannot get such results from PL.

33

i checked some nikon z180-600mm images again today and they do have some improvement.

34

The mirrorless 35 mm (FX, full frame, etc) 60-600 Sport is available from Sigma, and is NOT an “old” lens, but Nikon will not allow Sigma to produce this in Z mount. “Old” typically means not offered for sale new from the manufacturer. The Sigma 60-600 Sport still is current in F mount.

36

I stated “mirrorless” and I meant the 60-600 Sport DN full frame 35 mm format. Nikon will not allow Sigma as a condition of the Z mount license from Nikon to produce the 60-600 Sport DN in Z mount. The Z mount lenses that Tamron and Sigma produce are under Z mount license from Nikon. The Tamron Z mount lenses rebadged as Nikon are serviced and guaranteed by Nikon USA in the USA, but none are S line lenses. Some call these Tamronikon lenses – the badge is Nikon.