RAW sharpening and image libraries

Some image libraries request that images have no sharpening added otherwise they will reject, but RAW files leave images flat and soft if there is no sharpness done at conversion, left like this they then get rejected for sharpness (eg not having any)
Can anyone shed some light on this for me, thanks.
Can anyone shed some light on this for me, thanks.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Some image libraries don't know what they are talking about and need to update their rules. The rules were probably written when people were scanning transparencies and some would sharpen in Photoshop.
Digital cameras sharpen and people now shoot digitally but the libraries haven't bothered to update the rules. Along with their mainly nonsense rules about 300dpi the sharpening rule remains.
Ignore it and be sensible with your sharpening. (eg 7 in DPP on a full size raw)
Digital cameras sharpen and people now shoot digitally but the libraries haven't bothered to update the rules. Along with their mainly nonsense rules about 300dpi the sharpening rule remains.
Ignore it and be sensible with your sharpening. (eg 7 in DPP on a full size raw)

Quote:Occasionally I do a small sharpen in raw, but mostly I don't. I wouldn't sharpen a jpeg for library submission. Generally I use primes so images are mostly sharp, possibly you are having a lens issue if images are overly soft ?
that must mean that I have a lens issue with every raw picture I take then.... the camera does not process a raw image and the result is a soft looking picture.... jpegs are all processed in camera by varied amounts, including sharpening so you wouldn't/shouldn't need to re sharpen it.

I agree Rick. I think Saturns is forgetting that depending on the camera and raw file and depending on the software you may find some default sharpening is turned on as soon as you load the image. I've never seen a raw file from any camera and lens that is sharp at 100 per cent when the sharpening is turned down to zero.

There are still two schools of thought regarding sharpening for libraries. One is that the sharpening should be done in a single pass for a specific output size, and therefore contributors to libraries shouldn't sharpen at all. You'll find people like Guy Gowan saying the equivalent of that, and try looking up the website of Dave Pattison - former leader of Alamy QC.
The other popular theory, championed a few years back by Bruce Fraser, suggests three possible stages of sharpening - capture, creative, and output. So if you morphed this theory into library submission you'd apply some capture sharpening, and maybe creative sharpening if appropriate. This is a much linked-to web page on sharpening. The UPDIG website also provides some solid image prep guidance.
Default sharpening in Lightroom 3 noticeably accentuates noise unless it's tempered with some luminance noise reduction. This is because older versions of ACR and LR used plenty of noise reduction during demosaicing, but latter versions don't.
The other popular theory, championed a few years back by Bruce Fraser, suggests three possible stages of sharpening - capture, creative, and output. So if you morphed this theory into library submission you'd apply some capture sharpening, and maybe creative sharpening if appropriate. This is a much linked-to web page on sharpening. The UPDIG website also provides some solid image prep guidance.
Default sharpening in Lightroom 3 noticeably accentuates noise unless it's tempered with some luminance noise reduction. This is because older versions of ACR and LR used plenty of noise reduction during demosaicing, but latter versions don't.