Sats rrrite, ju will!

If you want to listen to proper English you better watch this one. And from now on you have to read my posts with that nice young guy in mind

Prieni

Good work, mera!
The example does look very bad indeed and goes to show that the problem is not purely academic.
Your example looks a bit like the first time I encountered this oddity. (See this thread)

John, that's a very good question. mera, more work for you (give us the little finger...)

Prieni

I am doing both as well. Most of the time I try to recreate my impression at the moment. This means not faithful recording only (though that usually is a prerequisite) but trying in post processing to create an image that, when viewed by me, makes me think "Yes, this was the feeling when I viewed this." (Of course I know that this is not a faithful recording of the scene.)

To say it with Don, here is an example.
This is a shot of Waimea canyon, RAW developed with SilkyPix Standard settings:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816aswas.jpg[/IMG]
So this would most probably pass as faithful recording.
But as a viewer of the scene my brain does some clever image processing of the scene and it looks more like this:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP2816.jpg[/IMG]
So for me this is the more truthful recording of the scene.

And then there are scenes where I imagine what the image potentially could look like with some kind of processing. Here is an example (though I have to admit that I didn't envisage the post processed version at the time of taking).

This is a shot of gondolas in Venice. It already is a bit of "enhanced" reality of the scene at the time I would say:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/IMGP5548.jpg[/IMG]

While that captured the scene as I saw it pretty good, this is what ended up on the wall:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/IMGP5548PU.jpg[/IMG]
And I think it is a better representation of the scene and mood. (Of course this is true for me and might not be true for others.)

So, this is over 4000 words now (4 pics plus my ramblings), I better end it here.

Prieni

Sex and Dick Cheney, that's a connection not easily made
Alas, sex sells...

3 ducks?

Steve,

I don't contest that. In fact the first post of this thread does show an example where I could see it at 100%.

Not only does the banding occurr irregular (so far we weren't able to tie certain settings or conditions to it) it also does occurr with varying intensity...

Prieni

Did you review the pics at 400%? In the first example (i.e. first post of this thread) it was noticeable at 100% (if only just).

For the last series it is different: If I look at 100% I cannot see it, even if I know it's there. At 200% I can see it, but only if I know it's there. It's only at 400% that I see it.
(I'm using the 400% magnification to correct for CA in SilkyPix, not to specifically screen for the banding).

This fact, of course, does also put things in proportion. Yes, the banding shouldn't be there in the first place. But even if it does occurr it doesn't usually ruin your shot.

Prieni

P.S. Since there are many Brits in this forum you should state the fuel consumption in MPG as well...

Edit: Grammar

I did a series of long exposures today. In total 16 shots, 4 of those show the banding again.
The exposure times were 3, 6 and 15 s when it showed (one shot each at 3 and 6 s, 2 at 15 s). All clean shots showed different exposure times (between 2 and 30 s).
Does the exposure time play a role? I don't know and one argument against it is that in the starting post of this thread I had two pics taken with the same settings, one showing banding and the other not...

Maybe time I contact Pentax Germany...

Prieni

What was the topic?