I'm not sensing any more posterization in that image than would be expected on a 24 bit display.

I assume you're seeing some multiple level jumps between adjacent colors?

Does the following PNG look anything but smooth to you when shown at 100% full size?

How about this one?

Do you normally work in 16 bits/channel or 8?

-Noel

Davy, have you made progress? Did you understand the relevance of the thread which I linked? That person had banding in a mask because they painted the mask in the same way as you created your image - overlapping low-opacity soft brush strokes.

If your display is 8-bit per channel, a 16-bit per channel image will appear to have banding that's similar to an 8-bit per channel image. Banding is highly evident in dark smooth gradients because our eyes are increasingly sensitive to a given step in brightness as the brightness decreases. Dither helps reduce a banded appearance by adding very low-level noise to break up regions of solid colour.

Photoshop will apply dither by default when converting images from 16-bit to 8-bit with Image > Mode > 8 Bits/Channel. But it will simply truncate values to 8-bit and not apply dither when saving a 16-bit image to JPEG which only supports 8 bits per channel.

A 10-bit per channel output graphics card and monitor is required to make banding imperceptible in dark smooth gradients in 16-bit images.

It occurs to me that we are struggling with terminology to such an extent that Davy-Art is not able to communicate what he's really seeing to those who aren't sitting there with him.

The image he provided is clearly painted with overlapping brush strokes in such a way that there are (fuzzy) areas of similar color.

We haven't even established that he's seeing posterization yet.

I've prepared another image, using your colors, but with an absolutely smooth gradient (as smooth as can be with 8 bits/channel data).

Do you see posterization in this?

-Noel

Davy described seeing even worse banding/posterization while working on the 16-bit image than in the distinctly banded JPEG (8-bits, of course) he posted.

Here's the JPEG with boosted exposure to make the banding extremely obvious.

Noel Carboni wrote:

 

That's nothing more than the normal, typical limits of using 8 bits/channel color as far as I can see.  On a well-calibrated high quality display system 256 luminance levels of a given color is *just* noticeable, but isn't at all distracting.

Not only is Davy's image using only about 100 luminance levels, these levels are low, right where our vision is very sensitive to quantization steps.

I can make out rings in Noel's image, too, but your vision may be exceptionally sensitive to the steps in low-level brightness. Nevertheless, I think a software problem is likely to be largely responsible for your finding the rings to be very obvious.

Have you compared displaying your particular problem document at home and at work?

If you feel that the problem appeared only at home after installing CS6, then there's a strong probability that there's a profiles problem in your home setup.

You've posted a JPEG saved from Photoshop, but it might provide a clue if you also post a screenshot of the original document being displayed in Photoshop. I think it would greatly help if you additionally provide (e.g. in Dropbox) the PSD file or one created as an example of the problem.

Davy-Art wrote:

 

It's sounding to me like maybe it's normal that there is banding in images created in photoshop, however not normal for me to be able to see it to the extent that I am.

 

Yes, that sounds correct to me.

Your PSD is only 8-bit, but I see nothing unusual in that file, so if that one looks very obviously banded to you then I expect there is a problem with your system setup.

There is something to be aware of when working in 16-bit mode. If "Cache Levels" in Preferences > Performance is geater than 1 (default is 4, I believe), when the document window zoom is less than about 64%, the calculation of the displayed image is performed with less precision and that can introduce displayed banding which is not really in the document.

I want to show you a distinct benefit of working in 16-bit mode. The following screenshots show 10 applications of a 50% opaque soft brush.

First, done in 8-bit - the banding is horrendous. Second image done in 16-bit (but an 8-bit screenshot, of course) - no obvious banding. Third image is the 16-bit converted to 8-bit by Image > Mode - still looks smooth.

Davy-Art wrote:

 

Also, I've tried switching to basic mode and I've even tried turning the graphics processor funtion off all together and it still appear to be the same.

Doesn't sound like a Photoshop issue then...

Are you seeing it in other apps - e.g., a color-managed browser such as Firefox or Safari?

What happens if you temporarily associate the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color profile with your monitor?

-Noel

Hi, Davy_Art,

I just looked at the psd and I see very slight variations in tonality which could be construed as banding but given they are brush strokes, I would not conclude here and now on my screen it is banding of the type caused by jumps in digital levels.

I have experienced these jumps myself, especially when digitizing a negative which contained a sky reflection with very subtle changes in values. The banding was obvious and uncontrollable which makes the analog print unique as I cannot print the digital without the banding!

I am seeing this using Win7 64, CS6 on a Dell u2412, ATi 7750 video card.

Is the laptop under warranty?

Without being able to see precisely what you're seeing it's impossible to tell whether you're seeing egregious banding or just the normal amount, but happen to be particularly sensitive to it in these colors.  The very first gradient I posted up above should look really, really smooth.  I can spot the level changes, but only *just barely* and only if I'm looking for them.

I have a gamma calibration check chart...  If you view the first chart at 100% full size (click on it), does it look like the small one below to you?

-Noel

Assuming you looked at the first image at 100% original size, then it not looking like the bottom one says your monitor is egregiously out of calibration.

Here's a photo of how it looks on a well-calibrated monitor:

-Noel

Could be a totally bogus calibration, where your calibrator hardware has somehow failed?  That test chart really does need to look right (as displayed through a color-managed application), or you're just not properly calibrated and profiled.

-Noel

did a new computer fix it for you?
getting a new computer didnt budge the problem for me :/