Unnatural blockiness?

[ZetaEpyon]

I've noticed a problem in a number of my shots, where small natural details end up looking really blocky for some reason. I've noticed this particularly on things like foliage in the distance. Leaves end up looking like smeared, small lines of relatively solid color.

Here's an example from a shot I took along the Mississippi River:

The top is cropped at 100% and the bottom is at 300%. The in this crop, you can really see the problem show up on the light-colored rocks, and it's also visible in the leaves on the trees, and even the ripples in the water.

I'm not normally a pixel-peeper, and this obviously isn't much of an issue for images that are going to be scaled down for web use. However, it's pretty obvious to me at 100%, and I could see it being an issue in prints.

Any idea where this stuff is coming from? I'm currently shooting a Nikon D70s, with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Sigma 10-20mm DG EX, and Sigma 70-300mm APO. As far as I can tell, it's not restricted to one lens, but I can't honestly say I've noticed it with the Nikkor (I don't really use it outdoors a whole ton, though).

My typical workflow is just to import the raws into Lightroom, do any lighting adjustments and color correction, and then export.

Could it be an issue of the 6MP sensor in the D70s simply reaching its limits, or is there maybe an issue with my workflow?

If you want to see the original image with EXIF data, it's here.

Any ideas are most appreciated, thanks!

 

[jpeyton]

Try to replicate it with Nikon ViewNX or Capture NX2.

ACR is a step behind them in terms of raw conversion.

 

[PurdueRy]

There can only be so much detail in a pixel. I think you are expecting too much.

 

[twistedlogic]

There can only be so much detail in a pixel. I think you are expecting too much.

Agreed.

At 300% you are looking at pixels.

Do you apply any sharpening?

 

[ZetaEpyon]

There can only be so much detail in a pixel. I think you are expecting too much.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking; possibly just detail that the 6MP sensor is not able to resolve to my satisfaction.

Agreed.

At 300% you are looking at pixels.

Do you apply any sharpening?

Yeah, obviously I'm not actually trying to use the stuff at 300%, that would be a little silly. Just included it for comparison purposes. Normally I don't even view stuff in Lightroom at 100% unless I'm trying to pick the best of a couple very similar frames.

When I did most of my processing in Photoshop itself, I used unsharp mask before saving my JPEGs. However, since I switched to Lightroom, I backed off on that to some extent and let it manage those settings on export; left most stuff at default. I guess it's possible that it's doing something here too.

Try to replicate it with Nikon ViewNX or Capture NX2.

ACR is a step behind them in terms of raw conversion.

I'll grab a demo of Capture NX2 tonight. If this does help, is there a good way to integrate one of these into a Lightroom workflow?

 

[jpeyton]

I'll grab a demo of Capture NX2 tonight. If this does help, is there a good way to integrate one of these into a Lightroom workflow?

Not that I know of. ACR is a jack of all trades, master of none. Lightroom is good for 95% of the pictures I take; whenever I feel a photo has something extra-special about it, I'll take the extra time to process it in Capture NX2 or ViewNX.

I'm sure Canon users occasionally use DPP as well, to get the absolute best quality out of particular files.

 

[PurdueRy]

Not that I know of. ACR is a jack of all trades, master of none. Lightroom is good for 95% of the pictures I take; whenever I feel a photo has something extra-special about it, I'll take the extra time to process it in Capture NX2 or ViewNX.

I'm sure Canon users occasionally use DPP as well, to get the absolute best quality out of particular files.

Some claim that DPP is better for sharpness. I've never seen this personally. I've compared results from each and the end result always comes down to individual processing in each one. Sometimes I like the DPP result better, sometimes ACR.

 

[Cattykit]

I got my deserved 1 day disconnection of Internet service right when I was done writing long reply here. Here's my cliff note of the lost reply:

That's the problem I noticed when I got 5D.

5D's nice and silky sharpness and resoution construction gets ruined in LR no matter what I try. Such silky and razor sharp lines are replaced by LR's blocky, puffy and thick lines. It's like having ugly noise reduction applied no matter what.

Though I love LightRoom, I have to stay away from it when I'm preparing images for large prints.

I always wondered why nobody complains about this issue then I realized this problem is just not evident on many cameras. For those who don't notice it due to their camera generating similar images as LR does, this talk just doesn't make sense and probably sounds like pixel-peeper gone too far.

Still, there're tons of 5D users and I didn't see a single complaints anywhere. Strange That is.

The reason why such problem is evident on 5D, I think, is due to its weak aliasing low pass filter. Though such weak aliasing comes with a cost (sometimes, straight hair-lines apeear jaggy,) I loved it for its sharpness and resolution construction.

Now, I don't know the deal about D70 but I tell you, I didn't expect this coming from a 6MP D70 user. I wish someone does some sort of benchmark of cameras based on this issue.

 

[PurdueRy]

I got my deserved 1 day disconnection of Internet service right when I was done writing long reply here. Here's my cliff note of the lost reply:

That's the problem I noticed when I got 5D.

5D's nice and silky sharpness and resoution construction gets ruined in LR no matter what I try. Such silky and razor sharp lines are replaced by LR's blocky, puffy and thick lines. It's like having ugly noise reduction applied no matter what.

Though I love LightRoom, I have to stay away from it when I'm preparing images for large prints.

I always wondered why nobody complains about this issue then I realized this problem is just not evident on many cameras. For those who don't notice it due to their camera generating similar images as LR does, this talk just doesn't make sense and probably sounds like pixel-peeper gone too far.

Still, there're tons of 5D users and I didn't see a single complaints anywhere. Strange That is.

The reason why such problem is evident on 5D, I think, is due to its weak aliasing low pass filter. Though such weak aliasing comes with a cost (sometimes, straight hair-lines apeear jaggy,) I loved it for its sharpness and resolution construction.

Now, I don't know the deal about D70 but I tell you, I didn't expect this coming from a 6MP D70 user. I wish someone does some sort of benchmark of cameras based on this issue.

Have you tried LR3 beta? It renders my 50D much better with noise much less "digital" and more film-like in nature,

Wow...that almost sounds like audiophile talk there...I better watch what I say!

 

[ElFenix]

I'll grab a demo of Capture NX2 tonight. If this does help, is there a good way to integrate one of these into a Lightroom workflow?

easiest way to do it is to make sure the output directory of capture nx is set as an auto-import directory for LR.

you could also try rawtherapee, it's free and pretty well regarded.

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone.

Seems like it's a combination of the limits of the D70s's sensor resolution, and overly strong sharpening in Lightroom during the export. When I went in and looked at the image again in Lightroom, it didn't look as bad as the original image I posted. So, I tried an export again, making sure to turn the sharpening down a bit, and that seemed to help.

I also tried both Capture NX2 and Raw Therapee, and both seemed to do a pretty decent job, although I think the Lightroom interface is more friendly.

 

[twistedlogic]

you could also try rawtherapee, it's free and pretty well regarded.

WOW!!! Thanks for the suggestion. I've never heard of rawtherapee, its pretty cool.