…same here. I tried a few things and cannot see any “layers” in exported TIFFs and JPEGs.
20220602063.CR3.dop (50.2 KB)
The sidecar contains the unaltered image, a reproduction of what you did and two variants. Goal was to see, if I was able to recreate the layers…but I couldn’t
Well, all I see in the sky (near the top right corner) is a darkish stripe from an out of focus blade of grass
– better recognizable in your dark pic. I was just wondering about it’s somewhat ‘clearer’ edges.
Going back to recheck, I remembered to play with the settings for chromatic abberations and realized some effect on the otherwise harsh edges in the grass, where it’s reflecting strong light. But that’s nothing to worry about seriously. I was scrutinizing at 100 and 200%, which is NO normal use.
Reading your text again – two more things 
have fun
Just another go with in super dreamy style, done Q&D in Lightroom Classic.
Note: I removed the grass that sat near the RH edge.
Here’s a link to flickr where I posted my original processing of the shot. Click anywhere on the sky to enlarge (you should be able to do this twice, with the second click making it 100%) and you can see what I’m talking about.
In my reply to rrblint I’ve posted a link to a version of the shot that I posted on flickr. This is the first version I did and the artifacts are worst on that one. You should have no trouble seeing them - or understanding why I posted this question in the first place!
I’ve been gradually using SmartLighting less, I can certainly see why this isn’t an image that would particularly benefit from it.
I note that you can only access those jpeg export options if you check the Enable resizing box - and in normal circumstances I don’t resize images, certainly not under the Standard Output option - if I want a smaller image I use JPEG for email So will changing the setting in Standard Output - I’ve now changed it to Bilinear - make any difference? I’ve never used Bicubic Sharper - it defaults to Bicubic and I’ve never changed it before.
See my reply to rrblint with link to a flickr post of this shot.
Sorry Frankie but I see nothing.
neither can I…
Yes, thank you for the link – had a really good look and could see some remains of the clouds (edges as well a slight colour shift), but then only when enlarged and while moving around (after doubleclick)
→ nothing alarming
About the sharpening method please have a look here … → Resampling options | Photoshop
Personally, I never used “bilinear”, only “bicubic” – and in case of downsizing “bicubic sharper”
… or at the time, when I was running a photoclub’s homepage, I used to call an action to
But I don’t know, what they are doing with the files when uploading to Facebook & Cie.
Most obvious near the top right, just left of the out of focus grass stem.
Well I can’t speak for Facebook, but these artifacts that are visible on flickr are the same as if I open the jpeg at home; some people on flickr sometimes complain about the reproduction but I’m not one of them.
It does seem like the worst effects are caused by a synergy between a strong contrast setting and the jpeg conversion (with structure inevitably making things even worse). I tried a few more variations and without added contrast (either from PL5 or Viveza) there were no artifacts.
thank you for your feedback
All I see is remnants of blue sky peeking through the out-of-focus clouds and OOF landscape objects in the distance. No artefacts.
Looking at the examples and comments above, and knowing that I don’t seem to get these issues myself, I’m wondering whether this is a display issue rather than actual posterisation in the image file. Does this effect show in a print of the affected image, or are you only looking at it on screen?
I had wondered if it might be. But that doesn’t really explain why it would be much worse in the jpegs than in the RAW or TIFF files I’m exporting them from. I think I’d also see it frequently in other people’s images e.g. on flickr.
For me, no real surprise going from 16 bit tiff to JPG (8 bit itself affected by compression algorithms and this in proportion to the compression rate)
We have posterization so binerization!
Local contrast enhancement (local contrast, clarity, smartlighting) LCE requires correct quantization of the data at least locally.
In this case 16 bit is therefore significantly better than 8 bit!
In jpg, i have to determine how far I can degrade while avoiding at all costs to compress too much.
The 8 bit is prehistoric, it is therefore a question of going towards its intrinsic limit.
Same problem with the display, okay solutions exist, 10 bit
