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.

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.

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)

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)

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 ?

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 ?

I use Alamy. Never had an image rejected. I always submit them with the default sharpening that Lightroom adds on import plus that which it adds "for screen" on exporting to a Tiff.

I use Alamy.

Never had an image rejected.

I always submit them with the default sharpening that Lightroom adds on import plus that which it adds "for screen" on exporting to a Tiff.

[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 ?[/quote]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.

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.

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 was me thinking that optically sharp and software sharpened where two completely different animals.....:D Oh! Hang on a minute....:) They are .....;) Heck! That means my Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens is not that bad after all.....:P Awesome as its my favourite too....!!!

There was me thinking that optically sharp and software sharpened where two completely different animals.....

Oh! Hang on a minute....

They are .....

Heck! That means my Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens is not that bad after all.....

Awesome as its my favourite too....!!!

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. [link=http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow]This[/link] is a much linked-to web page on sharpening. The [link=http://www.updig.org/]UPDIG[/link] 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.

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.

Interesting post Glenn. To the OP it's unlikely images will be rejected by a library if you apply a minimum sharpening in raw. Samples I've seen of images that have been rejected, the sharpening was completely obvious and overdone.

Interesting post Glenn. To the OP it's unlikely images will be rejected by a library if you apply a minimum sharpening in raw. Samples I've seen of images that have been rejected, the sharpening was completely obvious and overdone.

saturns, what camera and software do you use? I'm intrigued by your earlier post in which you suggest most of your raw files don't need any sharpening. Would love to see such a file too.

saturns, what camera and software do you use? I'm intrigued by your earlier post in which you suggest most of your raw files don't need any sharpening. Would love to see such a file too.