When you shoot raw, the software (for the most part) waits for you to do the sharpening.Īlso, while some software includes better sharpening options than others, for the most part, this is not intended to make up for problems of technique. The reason is that when you shoot jpeg, the camera is automatically doing some postprocessing to convert the raw to jpeg, and part of that processing in some of the picture styles is sharpening. In fact, it will create the illusion that your images are LESS sharp. I shoot only raw, and I recommend it for several reasons, but it will NOT improve sharpness. To make this concrete: I'll post a photo I took with a Canon 50D, an older model that had a sensor of lower quality than yours: You posted a number of questions about sharpness in the past, and some folks explained then that the issues you were facing were mostly likely matters of technique. The quality of the lens matters somewhat, but even kit lenses can produce very good images. Very few of the bells and whistles on my most expensive body, a 5D III, help much, if at all, with landscape work. It has one of Canon's newest sensors, which is the main aspect of the body that matters for landscape work. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your camera for landscape work. I was going to write some of the same points. Some of my favourite photos were shot with a P&S. More expensive cameras don't imply better photos. Also, I can use my 7100 to drive remote flashes without any extra attachments - I would have to buy those accessories for the 3300. For example, I can set my camera to bracket images (over and underexpose) by rotating one knob while pressing one button on the 7100 - accomplishing the same task with the 3300 would require a few more button presses and navigating a menu. The reason for me to buy the more expensive body had nothing to do with image quality - it had to do with ease of operation for specialized functions. I could have bought a D3300 for about $400 - the sensor and AF are (I believe) the same as the D7100 so the image quality should be identical.
I'll offer an example from Nikon (what I shoot). Some photographers have un unhealthy fixation on their gear as opposed to their photos.
I can't comment on the Rebel T6i but, in general, don't knock your camera. I can't comment on PhotoScape since I don't use it. There are articles on this site that do a good job explaining.Įditing RAW files should be no different than editing JPEGs in my opinion. RAW images themselves look strange because they have not been processes (demosaic'd, etc.). While you can edit RAW photos, what you are seeing on the screen is not the RAW image itself but a conversion to what the RAW image would look like if you were to convert it from RAW into a normal image file. Also, is there anything I should be aware of when editing in RAW? All of my shots simply do not feel sharp or crisp enough despite how much natural light and quick shutter speeds I can take advantage of during my daylight shots. I am currently shooting mostly landscape and city photography with my Canon Rebel T6i, which I'm aware is not the ideal landscape and low light camera, thus I kinda want a good editor to more or less "fix" any issues due to my camera's limitations. Since I have NEVER used Lightroom before, is it safer to just try Photoscape to begin and do Lightroom later? Would the editing of my photos at my more beginner/ intermediate level be more appropriate with Photoscape? I'm pretty ambitious and don't mind a learning curve.
Difference being, Photoscape Pro is available for $29.99 as opposed to Lightroom 6 which I can download for $142 through Amazon. I'd like to get Lightroom 6 for editing my RAW shots, but I can also do the same with Photoscape Pro. As of now, though I have the Photoscape trial, I've been editing only my JPEG photos. I want to move up and thought big on Lightroom 6 since I am shooting in both JPEG and RAW.
I have been using the trial Photoscape for a bit for some light to moderate photo editing.