Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on November 12, 2008, 08:47:57 am
-
I've recently "converted" from a Phase P45+ to the Hasselblad H3DII-39.
Totally pleased with my new direction but seeking advice on the optimum software processing sequence for the Hasselblad 3fr files.
Note that the H3DII writes a 3FR file to the CF, then Phocus Imports it as a 3FFF.
I'm currently using Phocus to do the initial RAW conversion of 3FR to a 3fff, then Tiff, then into LR2 for fine tuning as I find Phocus lacking in features that I was used to in Capture One software, then into CS4 for final adjustments. Unfortunately, in LR I'm working with a Tiff rather than the original RAW with it's extra data.
Tried Aperture but could never get it to accept the 3fr files without crashing and displaying magenta preview images, even though Hasselblad claims it supports their RAW format!
Subjects are landscape with the occasional portrait shot.
Interested in learning hat others have found to be their best workflow.
Thanks
-
Congrads on your switch. I too am using the H3DII39. Very happy.
I do not shoot tethered. I shoot landscape to CF card.
I backup the 3FRs from CF card to DVD, then copy to hard drive and review in Phocus. Each CF card is assigned a folder with 4 sub-folders: 3FR, FFF, TIF and JPG. All the 3FRs go into the 3FR folder obviously and as I find images I consider keepers, they go into the FFF folder -- I can always go back to the original 3FR.
I am pleased with Phocus, very stable and easy to use. They are still working on the PC version and they are making improvements regularly. Hasselblad has been very responsive to needs and issues.
I select my "keepers" in Phocus, do color edits, save the versions in the FFF that Phocus creates. I like how Phocus saves different versions in one FFF. I then export to 16-bit TIF and find that I need very little color edit in PS. I find no need to use ACR, the TIFs that Phocus produces are fine for me and I do not subscribe to DNG probably because of DAC in Phocus, something you won't have in PS. I can do it faster by skipping ACR.
Once my TIFs are created, I move to PS, do spot removal for sensor dust or maybe some layer work and then I export to JPG or print.
That is my workflow. I hope it helps.
I have also discovered http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com (http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com) - a great place where other digital H shooters are very helpful. I've learned a lot over there. Good luck.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
My workflow with Phocus is essentially the same as Derek's. However, I do not use the sharpening tool in Phocus. I turn off the sharpening completely, and when I open an exported TIFF in Photoshop, I use Focus Magic with a radius of either 1 or 2, depending upon the subject matter. I have also tried Raw Developer and Aperture with the Hasselblad files. While I do appreciate the more extensive tool sets in those programs compared to Phocus(and the "stacks" feature in Aperture), I still find that the raw conversions out of Phocus are just better.
-
What is Focus Magic?
I checked in CS4 and it's not listed as one of the tools.
Thanks,
Jack
My workflow with Phocus is essentially the same as Derek's. However, I do not use the sharpening tool in Phocus. I turn off the sharpening completely, and when I open an exported TIFF in Photoshop, I use Focus Magic with a radius of either 1 or 2, depending upon the subject matter. I have also tried Raw Developer and Aperture with the Hasselblad files. While I do appreciate the more extensive tool sets in those programs compared to Phocus(and the "stacks" feature in Aperture), I still find that the raw conversions out of Phocus are just better.
-
What is Focus Magic?
I checked in CS4 and it's not listed as one of the tools.
Thanks,
Jack
Sorry, Jack. It's a third party plug-in for PS that I have come to prefer for the "capture sharpening" that I do to all my TIFFs out of Phocus immediately upon opening them in PS at the native, 16 bit file size, before any downrezzing or uprezzing for print. I do a second pass of sharpening for print at the output size using Photokit Sharpener, another plug-in. Focus Magic came highly recommended to me by Joseph Holmes, who knows way more about digital imaging than I ever will. The one drawback to it is that it not a universal binary, so I have to run PS in Rosetta when I use it.
-
i recently moved from P25 to h3dII39. very happy about it, apart from the same problems on figuring out the best workflow...
since we are talking about it, i have a couple of problems:
1- small previews on phocus do not appear to be sharp at all. i have to zoom the image to see it well. this is limiting for tethered workflow, as i cannot see it immediately if i am sharp or not. any idea on why it is like this?
2- i shoot both tethered and non, and i also use nikons. so LR2 is my best do it all. is there any way to have an automatic creation of DNG on import? export on import?? i'd loose most of phocus features, but i'd gain in workflow speed at times. i don't want to do tiff necessarily, because of size and lack of future flexibility.
3- i find phocus very nice, but also very limiting. more similar to aperture than LR2. selection of images, history of adjustments, presets. am i doing something wrong?
thanks,
alberto
-
i recently moved from P25 to h3dII39. very happy about it, apart from the same problems on figuring out the best workflow...
since we are talking about it, i have a couple of problems:
1- small previews on phocus do not appear to be sharp at all. i have to zoom the image to see it well. this is limiting for tethered workflow, as i cannot see it immediately if i am sharp or not. any idea on why it is like this?
2- i shoot both tethered and non, and i also use nikons. so LR2 is my best do it all. is there any way to have an automatic creation of DNG on import? export on import?? i'd loose most of phocus features, but i'd gain in workflow speed at times. i don't want to do tiff necessarily, because of size and lack of future flexibility.
3- i find phocus very nice, but also very limiting. more similar to aperture than LR2. selection of images, history of adjustments, presets. am i doing something wrong?
thanks,
alberto
Hi Alberto,
Check in the Phocus preferences that you have set embedded preview size to 'Large' that can help some customers.
If you do export to DNG you will lose a great deal of image quality. No lens corrections, poor performance at higher ISO and generally less accurate colours. What do you feel you are missing in Phocus?
Best,
David
-
Nice to have somebody from Hasselbald answering questions.
I am also somebody who has an array of cameras. Lightroom is my preferred work flow and what I am familiar with.
It would be great if you could put one more voice towards hasselblad transferring lens corrections when exporting DNG files.
What do I feel that i am missing when using Phocus versus Lightroom.
1.) still no pc version
2.) I sometimes shoot and sort but not work on files for weeks. Having the files in a database is a huge help finding work.
3.) I simple prefer light room controls and features. My goal is to be in one software from import to print. When I do test prints i may decide to make small changes and it is great to not have to go back trough the whole process but simple be able to make my change and go straight to print.
I am sure you have heard this before and it is not meant to offend.
My believe is that adobe simple puts more resources into its application then an other company.
I believe most camera manufacturers would be better served working in cooperation with software company's rather then locking them out.
Canon is doing the same with its digital photo professional. The software is not bad but no competitor for Lightroom. Yet if I want their lens correction I am forced into their software which i am completely unfamiliar with. The end result are images that are not as good as they could be and more time in front of the computer for me.
Hi Alberto,
Check in the Phocus preferences that you have set embedded preview size to 'Large' that can help some customers.
If you do export to DNG you will lose a great deal of image quality. No lens corrections, poor performance at higher ISO and generally less accurate colours. What do you feel you are missing in Phocus?
Best,
David
-
I would also welcome the support of Hasselblad Raw files in ACR/LR. The question what am I missing in Phocus that is in LR is assuming the 2 programs serve a common purpose which for me at least they do not.
LR is a DAM program that has some basic manipulation/editing tools. Even as a DAM program LR is lacking some stuff, eg. true network support.
Phocus is a Raw converter.
I catalogue all my Raw files (the ones I would like to keep that is) in LR. It is impossible to catalogue Hasselblad Raw files unless they are in DNG (at this moment).
-
Nice to have somebody from Hasselbald answering questions.
I am also somebody who has an array of cameras. Lightroom is my preferred work flow and what I am familiar with.
It would be great if you could put one more voice towards hasselblad transferring lens corrections when exporting DNG files.
What do I feel that i am missing when using Phocus versus Lightroom.
1.) still no pc version
2.) I sometimes shoot and sort but not work on files for weeks. Having the files in a database is a huge help finding work.
3.) I simple prefer light room controls and features. My goal is to be in one software from import to print. When I do test prints i may decide to make small changes and it is great to not have to go back trough the whole process but simple be able to make my change and go straight to print.
I am sure you have heard this before and it is not meant to offend.
My believe is that adobe simple puts more resources into its application then an other company.
I believe most camera manufacturers would be better served working in cooperation with software company's rather then locking them out.
Canon is doing the same with its digital photo professional. The software is not bad but no competitor for Lightroom. Yet if I want their lens correction I am forced into their software which i am completely unfamiliar with. The end result are images that are not as good as they could be and more time in front of the computer for me.
No problem!
I am afraid it is the DNG format that does not allow us to put in the data for the lens corrections. It is extremely important to make the point that we are not blocking anybody out! Plus Lightroom does not have a way to access the 57,000 plus lens tables for all the H lenses.
There is the ability to tag and sort files in Phocus. Have you tried this?
Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers. Only natural I guess. Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.
I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.
Best
David
-
I would also welcome the support of Hasselblad Raw files in ACR/LR. The question what am I missing in Phocus that is in LR is assuming the 2 programs serve a common purpose which for me at least they do not.
LR is a DAM program that has some basic manipulation/editing tools. Even as a DAM program LR is lacking some stuff, eg. true network support.
Phocus is a Raw converter.
I catalogue all my Raw files (the ones I would like to keep that is) in LR. It is impossible to catalogue Hasselblad Raw files unless they are in DNG (at this moment).
Excellent point there Ray. There is two different philosophies going on with the software packages.
But, I agree it would be extremely nice to catalogue 3F files in LR. This would indeed be a first step in support.
David
-
Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers. Only natural I guess. Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.
I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.
Just to clarify:
1. Is it possible for camera manufacturers to enable the corrections to be 'written into' DNG now? Are they doing so?
2. If the manufacturers are doing so, has Adobe devised Lightroom in a way that disregards these corrections?
3. Or are the camera manufacturers adding a secret sauce into the DNG, not disclosing the nature of the sauce, and then saying that Lightroom isn't good enough?
I'm not saying that the manufacturers should necessarily disclose everything to Adobe. Perhaps some proprietory stuff could be "hardcoded"? There has to be a way out of this mess of formats and compatibility!
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Thank you for your reply. I do not see DNG being the solution for everything.
My preference would be for Light room to be able to read native hasselbald raw files.
I no there is talk of plugins coming for Light room.
That would be a great solution if in some way psooible.
KAI
No problem!
I am afraid it is the DNG format that does not allow us to put in the data for the lens corrections. It is extremely important to make the point that we are not blocking anybody out! Plus Lightroom does not have a way to access the 57,000 plus lens tables for all the H lenses.
There is the ability to tag and sort files in Phocus. Have you tried this?
Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers. Only natural I guess. Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.
I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.
Best
David
-
Just to clarify:
1. Is it possible for camera manufacturers to enable the corrections to be 'written into' DNG now? Are they doing so?
2. If the manufacturers are doing so, has Adobe devised Lightroom in a way that disregards these corrections?
3. Or are the camera manufacturers adding a secret sauce into the DNG, not disclosing the nature of the sauce, and then saying that Lightroom isn't good enough?
I'm not saying that the manufacturers should necessarily disclose everything to Adobe. Perhaps some proprietory stuff could be "hardcoded"? There has to be a way out of this mess of formats and compatibility!
Cheers,
Kumar
1. I am not 100% sure. But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway. It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.
2. I don't believe so. DNG is a RAW format as is 3F. Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections. There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.
3. No!
-
Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that correcting vingjeting and distortion is something that you could apply to the file before outputting to dng.
The main reason for not doing so in camera would be due to computing power and processing time. You mentioned in your previous post that hasselbald has a large lookup table / file for all its lenses.
I do not see how this could not be applied to the dng output.
How is outputting to dng different to outputting to tiff or any other format.
It is translating one format to another. How many changes are applied in that process is up to the translation engine.
It is late here so I hope I am making sense.
1. I am not 100% sure. But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway. It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.
2. I don't believe so. DNG is a RAW format as is 3F. Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections. There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.
3. No!
-
1. I am not 100% sure. But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway. It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.
2. I don't believe so. DNG is a RAW format as is 3F. Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections. There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.
3. No!
The 'extra data' is not the secret sauce? If you gave Adobe the information about the extra data, they would/could add support in Lightroom/ACR?
Kumar
-
Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that correcting vingjeting and distortion is something that you could apply to the file before outputting to dng.
The main reason for not doing so in camera would be due to computing power and processing time. You mentioned in your previous post that hasselbald has a large lookup table / file for all its lenses.
I do not see how this could not be applied to the dng output.
How is outputting to dng different to outputting to tiff or any other format.
It is translating one format to another. How many changes are applied in that process is up to the translation engine.
It is late here so I hope I am making sense.
You could to some extent but that is heavy interpolation already combined with the de-mosaicing of the sensor. So that would need to be split. It is not as easy as it sounds I am afraid! Correct doing so in camera would be far too processor heavy.
Then applying it to the DNG output would result in processing times similar to going straight to TIFF. Therefore increasing your workflow time extensively.
Best.
David
-
The 'extra data' is not the secret sauce? If you gave Adobe the information about the extra data, they would/could add support in Lightroom/ACR?
Kumar
No. The extra data is lens type, aperture and focal distance. None of which have available tags in DNG.
-
No. The extra data is lens type, aperture and focal distance. None of which have available tags in DNG.
I believe most photographers have a difficultly grasping the difference between metadata and software. This is not a slight against them. It's just a misunderstanding.
The Phocus software alters the image using the camera and lens information (metadata) and gives the photographer control over it. The metadata does not alter the image, it does nothing but sit in the file.
Adobe does not have this software. The Hasselblad programmers invented it, not the Adobe programmers. So just including this metadata in the "secret sauce" in a DNG does nothing, because it's software that does the magic, not the metadata. As suggested above, if Hasselblad just altered the DNG so the image is "corrected" for Photoshop - I'd scream bloody murder for taking the control away from me, and so would everyone else.
Fact is, Adobe does not offer plug-ins for ACR. Perhaps the best solution would be for Adobe to offer a defined software interface for ACR so companies such as Canon and Hasselblad could create plug-ins that operate, in ACR, on the stream of image data. This would probably satisfy everyone. Perhaps this is the next step for Adobe.
Obviously, from a photographer's perspective, wanting everything in one program is the goal.
From a manufacturer's perspective, this goal is close to impossible.
I think Hasselblad has done a fantastic job going from camera company to camera/software company. Phocus is a nice product and while it's inconvenient to switch from one software to another, it's better than losing the control over the features Hasselblad has given us with Phocus, that are not available in PS or LR. Trust me, you get used to working in two or three different software products very rapidly.
There is always a learning curve. Right now I find most of my work is done in Phocus with little editing in PS; I am not alone in this. This is directly attributed to the quality of Phocus.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
Dave,
When I started this thread it was to learn how others had developed "work arounds" for the "short comings" I see in Phocus.
Seems it's going in another direction that may provide some valuable input for Hasselblad - that's good!
Well, here are a few of my thoughts starting with a bit of history:
I shoot landscapes and abstracts.
I actually worked as a "consultant" to Hassie and Nikon when they were developing their first digital cameras. From that experience I learned Nikon is craving input/feedback, Hasselblad listens then does goes back to their own thoughts. Now that was quite a few years ago but seemed rather ingrained in the culture.
It is also interesting to note that Nikon's work promptly produced a camera, Hassies did not for many years. I put that down to their NIH attitude to input (Not Invented Here).
That said, I stuck with 4x5 and 503cw film and my Howtek Hi-Resolve 8000 drums scanner until the Phase P45 plus arrived on the scene. With the advent of this back I could no longer technically justify staying with film. Thus I made the full jump to digital mating a P45 to the 503cw and CFI lenses that I owned. Upgraded to the P45+ when it came out then to the H1 and H2 bodies for my P45+.
Part of my decision to stick with the P45+ rather than go to the H-39 back on the H1/2 was based on two simple elements - P45+ was bought and paid for AND the Capture One software was far better in my opinion than the Hasselblad offering. (I feel I have some authority on what constitutes quality software as my company developed various graphics and machine control software products on the SGI platform.)
This combination of the H2 and P45+ with the Phase software was excellent. However, earlier this year it appeared as thought I was not going to get the opportunity to travel/photograph as I had planned so several months back I sold the gear rather than let it depreciate in the closet.
Through good luck, I was able to restructure my time and return to my "Mistress of Photography" just prior to the time that PhotoKina occurred this year.
In the weeks prior to PhotoKina I tested the Leaf AFi and the Phase/Mamiya P45+ offerings. My conclusions from those test were that neither company could match the camera features (Profiles and User Definable camera presets) of what I had with the H2 camera body. Additionally I found the Phase/Mamiya 28mm lens lacking in quality that I felt should be there.
Quite a dilemma for me: Liked the Leaf lenses but missed the H2 users presets and lens quality, plus had little use for the Leaf RAW developer; Had no use for the Phase camera body and felt the 28mm was lacking BUT felt their RAW developer was far better than any in the market; Hassie prices were just not in line and the concept of supporting a closed system was not to my liking.
Well, PhotoKina and Hassie's new price structure hit me right. I tested the H3DII with the 28 and 80 lenses and wrote my check for the new price structure.
Screw my concerns about closed system, I was not going to cut off my nose to spite my face!
With my photography obsession being a non-profit venture this was the path that did the least financial damage to my reserves and yet gave me what I felt was superior hardware.
The caveat is that it gave me what I feel is an inferior software RAW developer when put in comparison to Capture One.
From my experience the criteria to judge our camera choices are:
1. Quality of the lens - if the lense are not superior then you're just pissing away your money and time.
2. Camera body, it's internal processor and internal control software - must be able to push the lens to the limit in a user preferred method.
3. RAW developer - if this is not an excellent tool in taking the above two elements electron gather capabilites and generating a near perfect TIFF file to work with in PS, they why bother.
It is on issue 3 that Hassie fails to make the grade, in my opinion, and thus what is requiring the user to find "work arounds"!
Not because we want to but because we have no choice if we are going to produce the image our passion demands.
Thus, I suggest that the manager of your software development team should take an indepth look at what the winning tool is, Capture One, and get to work.
If this has already been done, then do it again and this time from a users perspective.
My strong belief is that the RAW developer must produce an excellent TIFF file, and Phocus does not. Pull out the shadow and highlight details in Phocus, not. Give me an excellently rendered Preview image in Phocus, not. Give me totally user controlled file structures, not. Etc., etc, etc.
In short, with the price adjustments made at PhotoKina, the software is the only major negative issue left for Hasselblad to conquer! You have a great marketing machine, excellent hardware/lenses, historical reputation, etc. Just a marginal RAW developer, and that enough to drive perspective buyers to the other offerings, or to be frustrated trying to find work arounds.
Jack
-
Dave,
The caveat is that it gave me what I feel is an inferior software RAW developer when put in comparison to Capture One.
From my experience the criteria to judge our camera choices are:
1. Quality of the lens - if the lense are not superior then you're just pissing away your money and time.
2. Camera body, it's internal processor and internal control software - must be able to push the lens to the limit in a user preferred method.
3. RAW developer - if this is not an excellent tool in taking the above two elements electron gather capabilites and generating a near perfect TIFF file to work with in PS, they why bother.
It is on issue 3 that Hassie fails to make the grade, in my opinion, and thus what is requiring the user to find "work arounds"!
Not because we want to but because we have no choice if we are going to produce the image our passion demands.
Thus, I suggest that the manager of your software development team should take an indepth look at what the winning tool is, Capture One, and get to work.
If this has already been done, then do it again and this time from a users perspective.
My strong belief is that the RAW developer must produce an excellent TIFF file, and Phocus does not. Pull out the shadow and highlight details in Phocus, not. Give me an excellently rendered Preview image in Phocus, not. Give me totally user controlled file structures, not. Etc., etc, etc.
Jack
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the comments and I am glad you made the switch.
Feedback is a powerful and we do have a large network of beta testers. Rest assured you are not a lone voice and we are well aware that things like shadow and highlight recovery are a very desired feature.
I am a bit concerned about your comment about the preview though. What's your specific issue? It is cropped, colour managed, lens correction applied and so on. What's missing?
Also, what do you mean by 'User controlled file structures?'
Best,
David
-
I believe most photographers have a difficultly grasping the difference between metadata and software. This is not a slight against them. It's just a misunderstanding.
The Phocus software alters the image using the camera and lens information (metadata) and gives the photographer control over it. The metadata does not alter the image, it does nothing but sit in the file.
Adobe does not have this software. The Hasselblad programmers invented it, not the Adobe programmers. So just including this metadata in the "secret sauce" in a DNG does nothing, because it's software that does the magic, not the metadata. As suggested above, if Hasselblad just altered the DNG so the image is "corrected" for Photoshop - I'd scream bloody murder for taking the control away from me, and so would everyone else.
Fact is, Adobe does not offer plug-ins for ACR. Perhaps the best solution would be for Adobe to offer a defined software interface for ACR so companies such as Canon and Hasselblad could create plug-ins that operate, in ACR, on the stream of image data. This would probably satisfy everyone. Perhaps this is the next step for Adobe.
Obviously, from a photographer's perspective, wanting everything in one program is the goal.
From a manufacturer's perspective, this goal is close to impossible.
I think Hasselblad has done a fantastic job going from camera company to camera/software company. Phocus is a nice product and while it's inconvenient to switch from one software to another, it's better than losing the control over the features Hasselblad has given us with Phocus, that are not available in PS or LR. Trust me, you get used to working in two or three different software products very rapidly.
There is always a learning curve. Right now I find most of my work is done in Phocus with little editing in PS; I am not alone in this. This is directly attributed to the quality of Phocus.
Kind regards,
Derek
Thanks Derek - well put.
It would be great if Adobe and Apple built their respective packages to perhaps allow for a plug in structure, but maybe they feel the market is too small. After all the 35mm portion will make up the majority of their sales.
Best,
David
-
I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far. This would include of course the changes made for lens correction, tilt, shift, ... You can then have it flag the metadata so that the raw processor doesn't feel it still has something to do. Having this as an option would not force anyone to use it.
This is of course not simply a Hasselblad issue. Forcing people to go to a tiff in order to save changes is something that no camera company should be doing.
-
No. The extra data is lens type, aperture and focal distance. None of which have available tags in DNG.
DNG lets you define and add your own tags....
-
I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far.
It is not impossible, Leaf Capture allows for moire and gain corrections (colour casts and vignetting) to be embedded in a new raw file that can be then taken into almost any raw converter or DAM software (or to be converted into a DNG file, using Adobe's own engine).
Yair
-
It is not impossible, Leaf Capture allows for moire and gain corrections (colour casts and vignetting) to be embedded in a new raw file that can be then taken into almost any raw converter or DAM software (or to be converted into a DNG file, using Adobe's own engine).
Yair
I wish all camera companies were as forward-thinking.
-
I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far. This would include of course the changes made for lens correction, tilt, shift, ... You can then have it flag the metadata so that the raw processor doesn't feel it still has something to do. Having this as an option would not force anyone to use it.
This is of course not simply a Hasselblad issue. Forcing people to go to a tiff in order to save changes is something that no camera company should be doing.
In Phocus an export from 3F to DNG is just that, a quick export that takes a couple of seconds.
If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else. It doesn't make sense to do a half and half approach in two different RAW converters.
Also we do not 'force people to go to a tiff' as any change you make to the RAW file is non destructive and can be saved for a later date.
Best,
David
-
I wish all camera companies were as forward-thinking.
I'd say a camera company that manufactures all parts in a system with eleven lenses, three choices of sensor including multishot and advanced technology such as metadata based lens corrections..... is pretty forward thinking.
-
If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else.
David
I would not mind having that option though. At least it would make for a Hasselblad Raw file that can be stored into LR and catalogued. You would be giving people an option. Granted there are other more elegant solutions but if it is fairly simple why not start with this until a better solution is implemented?
Naturally I would understand this will not be implemented if another solution, that ensures LR/ACR at least can read 3FR/FFF is imminent (preferably has the full ability Phocus has as well whether by plugin or native). You mentioned Hasselblad is closely cooperating with Adobe some posts before. This leads me to the conclusion you guys are working to get a solution?
-
In Phocus an export from 3F to DNG is just that, a quick export that takes a couple of seconds.
If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else. It doesn't make sense to do a half and half approach in two different RAW converters.
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option. I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious. There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.
Also we do not 'force people to go to a tiff' as any change you make to the RAW file is non destructive and can be saved for a later date.
Best,
David
Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture? Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus? You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.
-
I'd say a camera company that manufactures all parts in a system with eleven lenses, three choices of sensor including multishot and advanced technology such as metadata based lens corrections..... is pretty forward thinking.
In many ways Hasselblad is forward-thinking. This is not one of them.
Don't worry; as someone who owns nine of those eleven lenses, I am too invested in glass to be changing platforms any time in the near future. However, you guys really need to look at how people want to incorporate Phocus into their workflows and help them do it.
-
I am in fully agreement with what gss has to say.
It is all about having the option to take the path you deem best.
In the end it will mean hasslebald will have happier customers which would be beneficial to the botom line.
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option. I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious. There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.
Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture? Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus? You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.
-
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option. I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious. There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.
Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture? Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus? You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.
This would require the changes we make in Phocus to be transformed into a DNG. As the way we manipulate RAW data in the 3F file is totally different to a DNG file this is not a straightforward process. The DNG format has a limited amount of colour information it can hold compared to a 3F file - therefore the translation from one to the other might not be equal across both platforms.
However I fully understand that you want as many options as possible.
What Dustbak is suggesting about being able to catalogue and modify metadata in a 3F file through Lightroom I believe is the initial way to go.
Best
David
-
David,
Obviously these guys are skipping my post or ignoring what I have said.
I have a very serious and simple solution for Hasselblad: Include the data they want in the DNG as private tags.
Then they can petition Adobe to use it.
When Adobe ignores them because they don't have the SOFTWARE (or because it's a tiny market), they can complain about Adobe and it will no longer be a complaint about Hasselblad. This should take your programmers all of about three (3) hours. Could have it done by noon tomorrow and then order them another pizza pie.
For those of us whom understand the real issue (the difference between SOFTWARE and METADATA), we'll wait until Adobe defines plugin standards for LR and ACR so manufacturers can work on the image stream directly.
Trust me on this. They are not listening.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
David,
Obviously these guys are skipping my post or ignoring what I have said.
I have a very serious and simple solution for Hasselblad: Include the data they want in the DNG as private tags.
Then they can petition Adobe to use it.
When Adobe ignores them because they don't have the SOFTWARE (or because it's a tiny market), they can complain about Adobe and it will no longer be a complaint about Hasselblad. This should take your programmers all of about three (3) hours. Could have it done by noon tomorrow and then order them another pizza pie.
For those of us whom understand the real issue (the difference between SOFTWARE and METADATA), we'll wait until Adobe defines plugin standards for LR and ACR so manufacturers can work on the image stream directly.
Trust me on this. They are not listening.
Kind regards,
Derek
Ha ha. Thanks Derek for understanding. ;-)
I hope Adobe and Apple do something constructive for plug ins... would make life a whole lot easier rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Best,
David
-
David,
I see little humor in the fact that the Phocus software developed by the leader in digital hardware is not the premier product.
My point is that it's lacking in numerous ways and Hasselblad needs to devote resources to bring it up to the standard of Capture One, or even better, exceed it!
I'm not going to waste my time listing all of the features lacking in Phocus that you can find for yourself by a quick study of Capture One given the fact the I've previously learned Hasselblad suffers from NIH.
I'd like to see this thread returned to what I posted it as:
Forget what Phocus is missing, how do we as photographer find work arounds!
Jack
Ha ha. Thanks Derek for understanding. ;-)
I hope Adobe and Apple do something constructive for plug ins... would make life a whole lot easier rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Best,
David
-
David,
I see little humor in the fact that the Phocus software developed by the leader in digital hardware is not the premier product.
My point is that it's lacking in numerous ways and Hasselblad needs to devote resources to bring it up to the standard of Capture One, or even better, exceed it!
I'm not going to waste my time listing all of the features lacking in Phocus that you can find for yourself by a quick study of Capture One given the fact the I've previously learned Hasselblad suffers from NIH.
I'd like to see this thread returned to what I posted it as:
Forget what Phocus is missing, how do we as photographer find work arounds!
Jack
Jack,
While you are not 100% happy with Phocus I can also say that many users are. This is the feedback I receive a lot of the time.
However, that does not mean the development has stopped. Quite the contrary, and as such and you will see rapid releases of improvements.
Best,
David
-
I believe most photographers have a difficultly grasping the difference between metadata and software. This is not a slight against them. It's just a misunderstanding.
The Phocus software alters the image using the camera and lens information (metadata) and gives the photographer control over it. The metadata does not alter the image, it does nothing but sit in the file.
...
Derek
Derek, if indeed the metadata truly did nothing but sit in the file forever, it would be completely useless. At some point the metadata must be used by Phocus to modify the image. The question is simply when.
-
This would require the changes we make in Phocus to be transformed into a DNG. As the way we manipulate RAW data in the 3F file is totally different to a DNG file this is not a straightforward process. The DNG format has a limited amount of colour information it can hold compared to a 3F file - therefore the translation from one to the other might not be equal across both platforms.
However I fully understand that you want as many options as possible.
What Dustbak is suggesting about being able to catalogue and modify metadata in a 3F file through Lightroom I believe is the initial way to go.
Best
David
Do you have a way to save these changes back to a 3F file with the changes actually applied rather than sitting in the metadata? Surely a 3F file has enough "color information" to hold the changes. When you create a tiff does it not have the color and lens corrections applied? Does a tiff file have more "color information" than a DNG?
-
Do you have a way to save these changes back to a 3F file with the changes actually applied rather than sitting in the metadata? Surely a 3F file has enough "color information" to hold the changes. When you create a tiff does it not have the color and lens corrections applied? Does a tiff file have more "color information" than a DNG?
DNG is a variation of TIFF, so that seems a bit unlikely. David, perhaps you can list the capability that DNG lacks?
-
Derek, if indeed the metadata truly did nothing but sit in the file forever, it would be completely useless. At some point the metadata must be used by Phocus to modify the image. The question is simply when.
gss, you are correct. I suspect what you are really asking for Hasselblad to do is to alter the RAW data. I think that is what you are asking, for Phocus to alter the RAW directly. Correct me if I am wrong. Not sure if this is possible without us losing control of the applied option. I know I use different DAC settings per image.
My entire contribution to this thread (other than my first post in which I tried to answer Jack) was: if Hasselblad puts the metadata into the file, it does not mean Adobe will use it. Since everyone (including myself) wants a single software solution (or an alternative), which is the point of this entire thread, the issue lies with Adobe in allowing manufacturers an interface (plugin) into ACR and LR so their "special" code can be executed.
To bitch and complain to Hasselblad is fine, my experience has been they work hard to improve; but they cannot create an interface into Adobe's products all by themselves.
I am sure if Adobe releases a plugin interface to ACR and LR (a day I pray for), then Hasselblad and Canon and all the rest will write the plugins for things like DAC, and so forth. Until then, you have to use the manufacturer's software for this.
I do not mean to insult anyone by any of my posts, I apologize if I have; I certainly understand Jack's frustration too and I hope he gets happy really soon. But I don't want Hasselblad to copy CaptureOne, as this would be wrong; perhaps instead all of us can email Hasselblad ideas to incorporate into Phocus, to make Phocus better, until there is a unified solution in LR or PS (via ACR). I have been doing just this for several months now.
Also keep in mind, Phocus has been out barely a year. And Phocus PC is not out yet (I'm still working with Phocus PC beta)! In my opinion, something doesn't make sense with Hasselblad: 1) either they're partying too much, 2) spending too much effort on that 50mp chip and ignoring us who have purchased a 39mp body (my money is on this), or 3) they program really slowly. Whatever it is, only David knows; but he needs to get them to move a bit faster (I'm still waiting for 64 second exposure bump and a final release of Phocus PC--for almost one year) (said as kindly and as gently as possible).
But none of this will solve Jack's issue. Sorry Jack, but I think you're smart enough to have known this before even starting this thread. Please don't misunderstand this as being sarcastic, I'm with you on this.
Kind regards,
Derek
-
gss, you are correct. I suspect what you are really asking for Hasselblad to do is to alter the RAW data. I think that is what you are asking, for Phocus to alter the RAW directly. Correct me if I am wrong. Not sure if this is possible without us losing control of the applied option. I know I use different DAC settings per image.
My understanding was simply that he wanted to be able to bake the Phocus-specific changes into a DNG, ie. the DAC modifications, and then to use this DNG in a separate program, which seems quite reasonable to me. If Hasselblad is unable (or unwilling) to pass on the necessary correction information to other programs, the baked DNG would allow him to move on anyway. Since Phocus can apparently do this with a TIFF, and DNG is a variant of TIFF, then simply doing it the same way for a DNG is possible, in theory.
-
I most certainly would not want Hasselblad to turn Phocus into the equivalent of Capture One. I really am beginning to like Phocus (even though I still prefer Flexcolor) and there are some things I would like to see in it. Some bigger things and some small ones. The small ones I have put in my wishlist on Hasselbladdigitalforum.com which are things that would make my day to day operation smoother.
I believe it is a waist of effort to do the whole P1 thing. Effort that is much better spend elsewhere. I am certain Hasselblad is fully aware of what the most common denominators are considering features we would like to see in Phocus and interoperability with ACR/LR.
It would be nice if Adobe would provide plug-ins, API's or other bus-type features for developers. These things aren't available? On the other hand my vested interest in Hasselblad is much bigger than it is in Adobe. Also my money is on Hasselblad when it comes to a listening ear to provide solutions or workarounds. I don't see much effect trying to push an 800-pound industry Gorilla if we could also tickle the Chimp
@Carsten.
That was how I figured how to get the option of the DAC'ed DNG (together with the 'old' DNG conversion! so not a request to replace that) and I am sure all others meant it the same way.
-
My understanding was simply that he wanted to be able to bake the Phocus-specific changes into a DNG, ie. the DAC modifications, and then to use this DNG in a separate program, which seems quite reasonable to me. If Hasselblad is unable (or unwilling) to pass on the necessary correction information to other programs, the baked DNG would allow him to move on anyway. Since Phocus can apparently do this with a TIFF, and DNG is a variant of TIFF, then simply doing it the same way for a DNG is possible, in theory.
You and Derek are both right. If Hasselblad were to bake the changes into a 3F raw, then we would automatically get them baked into a DNG by using the processed raw for conversion, but a baked DNG would be sufficient.
I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Hasselblad here; I think all camera/back companies should provide the facility to save changes in raw. Then we wouldn't have to worry about support for 31 flavors of metadata in addition to 31 flavors of raw.
-
I started this tread directed at other photographers, NOT Hasselblad.
What prompted my starting it is the fact that I was used to the dynamic toolset available with the Phase Capture One product. I could do substantially more "tuning" of the original RAW file and generate a far better TIFF file to then take into Photoshop.
My experience has taught me that the first iteration of TIFF generated from the RAW developer is critical to be of excellent quality if the final image is to be outstanding.
With Phocus, the TIFF file generated by the RAW developer is not, at least in my landscape work. Possibly it's a different story for controlled environments when shooting in a studio.
Since converting to a H-39 back, and processing the RAW file in Phocus, I now have to take the TIFF into LR2, tweak it there for shadows/highlights, etc, then into CS4 to continue the journey.
As I asked in the original post, IF others are like myself and find shortcomings in Phocus, how are you working around those short comings?
Hasselblad is not my target - gather insight from other photographers that are seeking more than Phocus provides is.
Trying to push Hasselblad to see it "my way" is not my intent or mission - that would be like the old Economics 101 axiom of "pushing a string".
Too frustrating for my attention span.
In closing, I have no regrets in moving to the H3dII-39 with the outstanding 28mm lens, etc. I'm getting excellent RAW files. Just want to optimize my conversion to a TIFF.
Jack
-
hi,
i am answering a bit late... but i do appreciate your answer though. i'll test the large embedded preview and let you know if it works.
what does phocus lack compared to LR. my 2 cents based on my workflow.
mainly the DAM part. i use lightroom for DAM, raw processing, and others. phocus is only raw processing, and that is understable. so comparing apples with apples (raw and raw).
LR better than phocus in (raw processing only):
-history of corrections.
-intuitive, fast and easy presets.
-preview of presets adjustment prior to selection
-virtual copies and snapshots
-ability to scroll the tool column (2 fingers in the trackpad and you move down... clicking on phocus arrows is really annoying)
-additional adjustments (brushes, spot correction, clarity)
again, my humble opinion only
i am positive phocus as a better raw engine, plus all the magic. but sometime and for some clients the magic is in other things (delivering fast).
LR is now incorporating camera profiles. i am positive it is a step towards integrating with manufacturers own softwares. maybe hasselblad can look into it. color rendition would be closer. lens correction might not be possible. but the ability to look at a raw file 6 months later and still change it is really nice. and it is lost if you finalize everything in tiffs. so export to DNG is the only solution for long term, which make you loose things, as the dng is not reverse compatible in phocus. so the choice at the end of a shoot is either to keep duplicate files, transfer to DNG and loose info, or keep 3f and loose DAM (no way i am going back to microsoft expression media... old IVMP was already nightmarish at times...))
again, my 2 cents, wish list, dreams of someone doing developing at 1130pm and trying to figure out where are the hassy files and the nikons one...
ciao,
alberto
Hi Alberto,
Check in the Phocus preferences that you have set embedded preview size to 'Large' that can help some customers.
If you do export to DNG you will lose a great deal of image quality. No lens corrections, poor performance at higher ISO and generally less accurate colours. What do you feel you are missing in Phocus?
Best,
David
-
I started this tread directed at other photographers, NOT Hasselblad.
What prompted my starting it is the fact that I was used to the dynamic toolset available with the Phase Capture One product. I could do substantially more "tuning" of the original RAW file and generate a far better TIFF file to then take into Photoshop.
My experience has taught me that the first iteration of TIFF generated from the RAW developer is critical to be of excellent quality if the final image is to be outstanding.
With Phocus, the TIFF file generated by the RAW developer is not, at least in my landscape work. Possibly it's a different story for controlled environments when shooting in a studio.
Since converting to a H-39 back, and processing the RAW file in Phocus, I now have to take the TIFF into LR2, tweak it there for shadows/highlights, etc, then into CS4 to continue the journey.
Jack
Jack,
Maybe we can help with certain aspects. I agree, I miss the fill light option of ACR as well. My workaround is to use S&H (Shadow & highlight) in PS. To avoid flattening & dulling of your image I mostly use that in the LAB color space. I convert to LAB, copy the layer I need to have S&H perform S&H adjust for taste.
Something else I sometimes do. I convert my image that is RGB to a smart object. I convert the smart object to LAB and do S&H. This way you can have RGB adjustments inside the smart object and LAB adjustments on top of the smart objects..
-
I started this tread directed at other photographers, NOT Hasselblad.
What prompted my starting it is the fact that I was used to the dynamic toolset available with the Phase Capture One product. I could do substantially more "tuning" of the original RAW file and generate a far better TIFF file to then take into Photoshop.
My experience has taught me that the first iteration of TIFF generated from the RAW developer is critical to be of excellent quality if the final image is to be outstanding.
With Phocus, the TIFF file generated by the RAW developer is not, at least in my landscape work. Possibly it's a different story for controlled environments when shooting in a studio.
Since converting to a H-39 back, and processing the RAW file in Phocus, I now have to take the TIFF into LR2, tweak it there for shadows/highlights, etc, then into CS4 to continue the journey.
As I asked in the original post, IF others are like myself and find shortcomings in Phocus, how are you working around those short comings?
Hasselblad is not my target - gather insight from other photographers that are seeking more than Phocus provides is.
Trying to push Hasselblad to see it "my way" is not my intent or mission - that would be like the old Economics 101 axiom of "pushing a string".
Too frustrating for my attention span.
In closing, I have no regrets in moving to the H3dII-39 with the outstanding 28mm lens, etc. I'm getting excellent RAW files. Just want to optimize my conversion to a TIFF.
Jack
Hi Jack,
We are certainly with you. As I said earlier you are not a loan voice and we are working hard to make Phocus the best professional converter out there.
Certainly I can very much see the benefit of highlight / shadow recovery in your line of work. True as you say it is not necessarily needed some of the time in studio / controlled lighting work.
Best,
David
-
You and Derek are both right. If Hasselblad were to bake the changes into a 3F raw, then we would automatically get them baked into a DNG by using the processed raw for conversion, but a baked DNG would be sufficient.
I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Hasselblad here; I think all camera/back companies should provide the facility to save changes in raw. Then we wouldn't have to worry about support for 31 flavors of metadata in addition to 31 flavors of raw.
Gss,
We DO bake changes into the 3F RAW. Every 3F file can have an unlimited about of adjustments applied to it which can be recalled in Phocus. So if you have repurposed the file in a few different ways you can always track back in a history.
However there is another issue at stake.
Phocus uses our raw converter, Adobe uses their raw converter.
So with this in mind, lets say you added +15 to the vibrancy slider in Phocus to get the look you want. Then in the ideal world you could make a DNG containing this adjustment for then further work in LightRoom or ACR for example.
So ACR, then looks at the DNG and then applies the +15 vibrancy setting. However, as they are using their RAW converter you will see quite possibly a totally different effect to what you expected in Phocus, thereby having to adjust the setting once more. If you had made various other changes then you would be then chasing your own tail readjusting everything.
Do you see? Its not a 100% straight forward issue to solve.
As an experiment, take a 3F file with nothing but a white balance applied and export it through Phocus to a TIF. Take the same file, export a DNG and bring it into LightRoom. Apply the same White Balance. Both images will look quite different, therefore transforming like settings from one converter to another will probably be a hopeless cause.
What MFDB are you using?
Best,
David
-
hi,
i am answering a bit late... but i do appreciate your answer though. i'll test the large embedded preview and let you know if it works.
what does phocus lack compared to LR. my 2 cents based on my workflow.
mainly the DAM part. i use lightroom for DAM, raw processing, and others. phocus is only raw processing, and that is understable. so comparing apples with apples (raw and raw).
LR better than phocus in (raw processing only):
-history of corrections.
-intuitive, fast and easy presets.
-preview of presets adjustment prior to selection
-virtual copies and snapshots
-ability to scroll the tool column (2 fingers in the trackpad and you move down... clicking on phocus arrows is really annoying)
-additional adjustments (brushes, spot correction, clarity)
No problem! We are all busy. :-)
-History? We do keep a history of all ways the 3F has been purposed, but I am assuming you mean a more PhotoShop history? Phocus does support multiple undos though.
-Every tool can have a preset saved and you can save global adjustment presets to apply a number of things instantly
-Not sure what you mean here?
-You can store as many settings as you like for each 3F
-Agreed. Use Option-Click to expand and collapse all windows.
-Understood
Best,
David
-
Gss,
We DO bake changes into the 3F RAW. Every 3F file can have an unlimited about of adjustments applied to it which can be recalled in Phocus. So if you have repurposed the file in a few different ways you can always track back in a history.
What you are describing is exactly the opposite of baking the changes into the raw. It sounds like you are doing nondestructive changes by putting all the instructions for your changes into the metadata.
-
What you are describing is exactly the opposite of baking the changes into the raw. It sounds like you are doing nondestructive changes by putting all the instructions for your changes into the metadata.
Correct. Why would you want to irreversibly alter the raw data?
-
Correct. Why would you want to irreversibly alter the raw data?
So that you could take the modified raw file, with lens and other corrections that only Phocus may do already applied, into another tool.
-
So that you could take the modified raw file, with lens and other corrections that only Phocus may do already applied, into another tool.
In that case - see my post further above.
-
Jack,
Maybe we can help with certain aspects. I agree, I miss the fill light option of ACR as well. My workaround is to use S&H (Shadow & highlight) in PS. To avoid flattening & dulling of your image I mostly use that in the LAB color space. I convert to LAB, copy the layer I need to have S&H perform S&H adjust for taste.
Something else I sometimes do. I convert my image that is RGB to a smart object. I convert the smart object to LAB and do S&H. This way you can have RGB adjustments inside the smart object and LAB adjustments on top of the smart objects..
Is it possible to simultaneously have your background layer in one color space and a smart object in another color space?
-
Yes. At least the content inside the smart object can be RGB (for instance). The smart object itself and the layers on top can be in LAB (for instance).
-
In that case - see my post further above.
Your post above is assuming that the metadata changes are being applied by the separate applications.
It is entirely true that if you actually baked in changes, some color corrections would still need to be made due to the different interpretations of the raw data, but Phocus is the only tool that can make the DAC changes.
-
Your post above is assuming that the metadata changes are being applied by the separate applications.
It is entirely true that if you actually baked in changes, some color corrections would still need to be made due to the different interpretations of the raw data, but Phocus is the only tool that can make the DAC changes.
We can't do a Bayer ---> Bayer transform of the DAC lens corrections. It is built into the interpolation algorithms that take the RAW format to the finished file.
Not to say it is impossible but it would be a lot of R&D time which for the most would be more beneficial elsewhere - like improving Phocus.
David
-
Thanks for that clear answer.
As you say it is possible but not cost effective.
It would however be a great solution for me and I assume many others.
I do believe it would make Hasselblad more attractive to potential customers if they be able to use software of their own preference.
Thanks
KAI
We can't do a Bayer ---> Bayer transform of the DAC lens corrections. It is built into the interpolation algorithms that take the RAW format to the finished file.
Not to say it is impossible but it would be a lot of R&D time which for the most would be more beneficial elsewhere - like improving Phocus.
David
-
Thanks for that clear answer.
As you say it is possible but not cost effective.
It would however be a great solution for me and I assume many others.
I do believe it would make Hasselblad more attractive to potential customers if they be able to use software of their own preference.
Thanks
KAI
Actually the majority of our users prefer to use FlexColor and now Phocus. The loss in quality from going the DNG route is generally not acceptable.
If adobe and/or Apple design their respective softwares to accept plug ins or bespoke colour engines it paves the way for a far better solution.
Best,
David
-
Actually the majority of our users prefer to use FlexColor and now Phocus. The loss in quality from going the DNG route is generally not acceptable.
I do hope you see the irony in this statement.
-
I do hope you see the irony in this statement.
The irony is escaping me. I happen to be one of those that has tried the DNG route for taking files through ACR and find the results notably lacking in quality compared to what I can get from Phocus(completely putting aside the issue of DAC). I hear the same basic complaint from many(most?) who shoot with Phase backs who compare the file rendering out of ACR/LR with C1.
-
I do hope you see the irony in this statement.
No.