I use ON1 Photo Raw 2024 to denoise Sony raw images (arw) and export the result as DNG. Some DNG viewers show green fringes at some high-contrast edges, e.g. Darktable, digiKam, RawTherapee, or File Viewer Lite. Other DNG viewers do not, like ON1 Photo Raw, Windows 11 Photos, Google Chrome, or Microsoft Word when inserting an image. My OS is Windows 11.
How can it be that only some viewers exhibit the issue? It seems like viewers likely using an open source library exhibit the issue, while viewers likely using a proprietary library don’t.
My main use case is further developing a DNG exported by ON1 Photo Raw 2024 with Darktable. This is currently not practical because the green fringes are often too ugly. Any ideas on how I can make this use case work?
Lens correction, in particular color fringe, in ON1 Photo Raw does not help. I can’t use Darktable’s lens correction module for the opened DNG, although it correctly detects the camera and lens, saying ‘camera/lens not found’. However, Darktable can do the lens correction for the respective raw file.
ON1 Photo Raw can also export TIF. But for some reason, the dynamic range is much smaller than when exporting dngs, as shown by the histogram. Much of the highlight range is cut off.
Here is the original raw, the exported dng, and screenshot crops from viewers that show green fringes and from viewers that don’t: DNG green fringe – Google Drive
Have a look at the pixel size each program reports. It is common for some applications to trim a few pixels around the edge. Some of the Foss applications do not trim or the trim is configurable.
Same green fringe for me when using Rawtherapee. Looks like the way the DNG is made is somehow incompatible. The issue is very strange though it’s hard to imagine what would produce such a strange effect.
Why would you denoise that image though? Looks pretty good to me?
Im going to look at your file…I have ON1 and I just exported a Sony A6000 from a playraw I had on my PC …no issues in DT or Xnview… source image was 6000x4000 and the same was reported for the exports …one done just on the file as opened and one with Nonoise added…no green fringe I could see
This particular doesn’t need much denoising, that is correct. But I have the green fringe problem also with other images that really do need denoising. I found my given image a good example of the problem, since there is a clear difference between DNG viewers exhibiting the problem and viewers that don’t. Also, I really would like to understand the problem. I would like to denoise most of my images with ON1. Because when pixel peeping just a little, even this image has quite some noise in the dark areas (e.g. the black boxes in the shade on the left), because I deliberately heavily underexposed to protect the highlights.
I see now its not a green border around the image…I think the issue is you are really just getting a tiff from ON1…and it has its profile applied then you look at it in a viewer and the highlights are wonky… I will check but maybe try using the linear profile, then denoise that and export and then try to do your developing…
For me the green is there in your image… Nonoise makes it worse and also the profile that you choose to use also changes it… here I have selected the adobe standard profile…there are a collection of ON1 profiles and the Sony ones from Adobe Raw convertor if you have that installed ON1 will use them…
Pulling back the enhance details all the way helps with the stairstep edge artifact but still the green is there and if you add more to your edit it will be enhanced…
For what it is worth my Canon G16 files have a fringing in the RAW files when opened in DT, but not Canon’s own program. However, Canon’s program is cropping the image to achieve this look. I created a cropping preset for my Canon G16 files in DT when it is an issue. Not all images reveal the problem, so I don’t apply it as a style.
Look at the png files…its not a border issue as I thought the question was but from what I can see its more CA of some sort in areas of specular highlights and it gets enhanced by ON1…even looking at the image once it goes in to ON1 its not untouched and simply denoised…there is some sort of sharpening artifacts on import and that also can be further enhanced by using the nonoise in ON1… you have to tone down the details enhancement…
The surprising thing is that the artefacts are reportedly only visible in some open source viewers/editors. So it doesn’t matter if it’s CA or some artefact from processing.
I also just re did the image no edits in ON1 just nonoise… In xnview…it has the fringe because my default is to show the raw…but when I change to embedded preview I there in no fringe…I wonder if this might be what is being seen ie some viewers are defaulted or defaulting to the embedded preview…
A little nit-pick: None of these programs are DNG viewers. Some are raw editors and others are general image viewers, browsers and word processors. It just so happens they can all open DNG files in some manner.
It may seem like a minor detail, but what kind of program it is does have some importance when it comes to how it handles raw files. A DNG (or any other raw file) has inside both the raw data and a JPEG preview that was rendered by the camera or the program that generated the file. Depending on the kind of program and how advanced it is, it may then either render the raw data or show the JPEG preview.
Darktable and RawTherapee are raw editors, so they will render the raw data. digiKam can either render using LibRaw or show the embedded preview - this is marked in the upper right corner when viewing a raw file.
I see the preview JPEG, so no issues with green fringing.
No idea what it does, but sounds like it renders the raw.
None of these will render the raw data, but rather shows the embedded JPEG preview generated by ON1. No surprise then that they don’t show any issues.
So I have now looked at both the ARW and DNG, and the green fringing in the DNG is easily fixed by simply enabling the chromatic aberrations module. However, I’m not sure why you want to work this way. First of all, the denoising (if that is all you did in ON1) causes several issues besides the CA, and secondly this image doesn’t really need denoising at all.
Here is the DT render of the ARW file, with denoise (profiled) and no sharpening:
There are all sorts of artefacts, especially visible if you look at the red horn in the speaker, and enabling CA correction introduces some weird pixelation on top of the plastic look.
Maybe this work process would be best reserved for very noise issues that DT in your hands is struggling with. I shoot a Canon R7 at 32000 ISO often and am very pleased with how DT can handle denoising such challenging images. There are many threads on the topic of DT and noise in this forum that would be a good read. Also if you run into a disappointing denoising experience with DT and can post the image in the PlayRaw category you can see how different people tackle the problem.
Good luck with your photography, DT and even ON1. Also welcome to the forum. I have found the forum very helpful and is the only social media I participate in because it is full of helpful and friendly advice.
