Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I suspect that some of those that say they apply no sharpening are referring to output sharpening.  But they are quite likely using the default RAW conversion settings in LR / ACR which may apply a touch of sharpening to overcome the effects of any anti-aliasing filter (if present). Adobe to do a pretty good job with their defaults. I've heard they also apply some hidden (behind the scenes) adjustments so that the results from each camera sensor are broadly the same when using the default settings. I don't know if this is true, but I do find the results from each of my cameras raw files are broadly similar when using the default settings. Adobe have however recently increased the default sharpening from 25 to 40 which I find is more than needed.

 

All my presets still use the old LR default of 25 to my images during RAW conversion. If the converted image isn't sharp enough I will downsize in PS (using resize bilinear to keep edges smooth and halo free) to 24MB or 17MB. I use this trick a lot with my my 14-140mm zoom as it's not as sharp as my other lenses. I very rarely apply any other sharpening beyond that.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

I suspect that some of those that say they apply no sharpening are referring to output sharpening.  But they are quite likely using the default RAW conversion settings in LR / ACR which may apply a touch of sharpening to overcome the effects of any anti-aliasing filter (if present). Adobe to do a pretty good job with their defaults. I've heard they also apply some hidden (behind the scenes) adjustments so that the results from each camera sensor are broadly the same when using the default settings. I don't know if this is true, but I do find the results from each of my cameras raw files are broadly similar when using the default settings. Adobe have however recently increased the default sharpening from 25 to 40 which I find is more than needed.

 

 

Mark

 

 

yeah, and as i Fuji user the move to 40 as default was horrible, and creates a mess, of something that was already problematic.   it actually made me lose trust that Adobe cared about me.

 

i have since moved to C1, and default sharpening seems to match in camera. 

 

(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

i have since moved to C1, and default sharpening seems to match in camera. 

This article by Martin Evening compares sharpening between Capture One & Lightroom, it dates from when the default for LR was 25% but surprisingly refers to the Capture One sharpening as 'aggressive'. Martin Evening is very closely associated with Adobe software but he goes into a lot of detail. I always imagined that the default in Lightroom was raised to 40% because images in LR were looking softer than Capture One, a major competitor. Of course it is perfectly possible to create an import setup that sets the default in LR back to 25% if required. 

 

Article on Scott Kelby site

 

He also confirms that Adobe add different degrees of sharpening according to the specific camera, in order to create a level playing field as it were.

Edited by Harry Harrison
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for that. I agree with that comment, very well put and fair. The texture of the building((sharpened) may have given an appearance of grain as well because if you look at the sky at 100% you can't hardly see any noise. 

 

Fortunately, I haven't had any QC problems for a long time (touch wood). However, I can remember sometimes  being more frustrated with the reasons QC gave for a failure than with the failure itself -- i.e. the reasons didn't always "fit the crime" well, so to speak. This appears to be the case with your image. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Article on Scott Kelby site

 

He also confirms that Adobe add different degrees of sharpening according to the specific camera, in order to create a level playing field as it were.

 

Knew I'd read it somewhere before. Thanks for the link.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

This article by Martin Evening compares sharpening between Capture One & Lightroom, it dates from when the default for LR was 25% but surprisingly refers to the Capture One sharpening as 'aggressive'. Martin Evening is very closely associated with Adobe software but he goes into a lot of detail. I always imagined that the default in Lightroom was raised to 40% because images in LR were looking softer than Capture One, a major competitor. Of course it is perfectly possible to create an import setup that sets the default in LR back to 25% if required. 

 

Article on Scott Kelby site

 

He also confirms that Adobe add different degrees of sharpening according to the specific camera, in order to create a level playing field as it were.

 

I think Martin Evening is very fair and honest even though he is very closely connected to Adobe. He presents evidence not just biased opinion. I think the shift to 40 from 25 was around the same time as Lightroom became Lightroom Classic when Adobe were trying to capture a wider market. 

 

There is no need to create an import preset in Lightroom or ACR to change the sharpening or other develop settings. The default can be changed very easily by holding down the option or alt  key in the Develop module when the Reset button changes to Set Default... This can then be set for different ISO and camera serial numbers in the prefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MDM said:

The default can be changed very easily by holding down the option or alt  key in the Develop module when the Reset button changes to Set Default... This can then be set for different ISO and camera serial numbers in the prefs.

Thanks, never realised that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MDM said:

There is no need to create an import preset in Lightroom or ACR to change the sharpening or other develop settings. The default can be changed very easily by holding down the option or alt  key in the Develop module when the Reset button changes to Set Default... This can then be set for different ISO and camera serial numbers in the prefs.

 

Also applies to ACR in PS CC although the method of setting is a little different. It's great that LR's and PS ACR's develop defaults and presets are now shared. Saves a lot of confusion as I use PS most of the time (without LR) but sometimes revert to LR.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Fortunately, I haven't had any QC problems for a long time (touch wood). However, I can remember sometimes  being more frustrated with the reasons QC gave for a failure than with the failure itself -- i.e. the reasons didn't always "fit the crime" well, so to speak. This appears to be the case with your image. 

Yes, very true. That's how I felt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/09/2019 at 22:11, liverpix said:

That doesn't look bad, I see a lot of detail there.

Sure, there's "detail", it's just not image detail. Until you accept that this image is a country mile away from being technically suitable, and accept that there is something very wrong with your processing, I don't think we can help you.

You clearly can produce acceptable images- you have in the past- you just need to figure out what's gone wrong here.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Sure, there's "detail", it's just not image detail. Until you accept that this image is a country mile away from being technically suitable, and accept that there is something very wrong with your processing, I don't think we can help you.

You clearly can produce acceptable images- you have in the past- you just need to figure out what's gone wrong here.

I have accepted the photo is over sharpened; haven't you followed the thread/posts ? If it's not image detail, what kind of detail is it ? You are always one of the first to attack me whenever I post on here, very annoying. The photo has been approved by another stock agency in the last day or two so can't be that bad.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liverpix said:

I have accepted the photo is over sharpened; haven't you followed the thread/posts ? If it's not image detail, what kind of detail is it ? You are always one of the first to attack me whenever I post on here, very annoying. The photo has been approved by another stock agency in the last day or two so can't be that bad.

 

They obviously didn't inspect it closely, or have low standards, or want landscape photos that look like engravings.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, liverpix said:

I have accepted the photo is over sharpened; haven't you followed the thread/posts ? If it's not image detail, what kind of detail is it ? You are always one of the first to attack me whenever I post on here, very annoying. The photo has been approved by another stock agency in the last day or two so can't be that bad.

The other agency may be happy.  Their customers may not.  Why set yourself up to fail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Richmond said:

The other agency may be happy.  Their customers may not.  Why set yourself up to fail?

It's on sale, how can I be setting myself up to fail ? Sure, it's up to the customer to decide but that applies to all photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, liverpix said:

It's on sale, how can I be setting myself up to fail ? Sure, it's up to the customer to decide but that applies to all photos.

 

I know of one very popular and very large stock agency that now appears to have automated QC. All their "QC" seems to do is scan captions and keywords to see if there are any subjects that they don't want. I don't think that a human actually looks at submitted images.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, liverpix said:

It's on sale, how can I be setting myself up to fail ? Sure, it's up to the customer to decide but that applies to all photos.

 

I'm not sure what happens with other agencies, but on Alamy, if a customer buys an image (based on the low res preview), and then finds the full resolution downloaded image doesn't have the quality they need, they will ask for (and be given) a refund and the sale is therefore lost. That would count as a failure in my books, especially as the customer may get frustrated and go elsewhere (which then affects all of us).

 

Alternatively, if the customer can see a high resolution section of the image before downloading (e.g. Fine Art America allow this) they are likely to decide not to buy. Again, a failure.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, liverpix said:

 

deleted. no point.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, liverpix said:

 The photo has been approved by another stock agency in the last day or two so can't be that bad.

Alamy's only criterion is technical. Other agencies may select for content, or whatever. But it remains perfectly possible to convert an image to that sort of contrasty b/w style and pass QC- some of the contributors here could probably help you achieve that.

Most of us have b/w conversions here, if not quite that style. Even I have a couple, but no sales yet.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 pages on this thread and as always some excellent advice given.  As others have stated, shoot in RAW and do minimal post processing as I also do.    Why not just accept that it's unsuitable for Alamy and move on....

 

All the best

 

Carol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, liverpix said:

Yes, very true. That's how I felt.

 

Not sure, but I think that's the reason I posted here _last week_ that you should " stop thinking "noise", think instead "overall image quality". Your tenacity sticking to how lovely and noise free the sky is, while ignoring the terrible quality of the rest of the image, indicates nothing anyone has said has made the slightest impression.

 

I repeat, this is the worst 100% crop I've ever seen here, and it is now obvious the problem isn't your processing or your eyesight, it's your opinion of what is acceptable.

 

I'm out of here . . .

 

DD

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2019 at 16:31, MDM said:

 

These are totally subjective quantities and very loosely defined - it would not be possible to distinguish at what stage the sharpening occurred either without examining the raw conversion metadata and/or history log which are not required by Alamy. As I said above, there was and probably still is an unwritten rule that a small amount of sharpening (e.g. Lightroom default) is acceptable but that is a very generalised thing. We can discuss over lunch in Ely if you like. 

 

See you there.

 

Allan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

See you there.

 

Allan

 

I will prepare my speech 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dustydingo said:

 

Not sure, but I think that's the reason I posted here _last week_ that you should " stop thinking "noise", think instead "overall image quality". Your tenacity sticking to how lovely and noise free the sky is, while ignoring the terrible quality of the rest of the image, indicates nothing anyone has said has made the slightest impression.

 

I repeat, this is the worst 100% crop I've ever seen here, and it is now obvious the problem isn't your processing or your eyesight, it's your opinion of what is acceptable.

 

I'm out of here . . .

 

DD

And I repeat Alamy put up a 200% crop of my photo, not 100%.

  • Sad 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liverpix said:

And I repeat Alamy put up a 200% crop of my photo, not 100%.

 

 Nonsense. You are living in a world of alternative facts. I have checked the crop Alamy put up against the the image you uploaded and they are identical at 100%. As I said before, you need to save the Alamy crop to disk, not take a screenshot. The evidence is there. It is sad indeed - this whole thread. 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.