If you had to do it all over ...

Hasselblad H3D: Scandinavian precision rocks!

38 (29%)

Sinar/Leaf Hy6/Afi: Swiss/German/Israelii precision rocks!

46 (35.1%)

Phase One/Mamiya AFDIII: Danish/Japanese precision rocks!

24 (18.3%)

Leica S2: German precision rocks!

9 (6.9%)

Nikon MX: Japanese precision rocks!

8 (6.1%)

You forgot my brand so I'll rock you!

6 (4.6%)

Total Members Voted: 123

[tho_mas]

I owned a p45+. Trust me, yes, it's not full frame, but the amount of real estate loss with the mask was very tiny. FF, in effect, if you squinted.

Yes, you are right. I use the P45 (non plus). Me personally I don't think that I could profit very much of fullframe as I doubt my lenses will hold edge sharpness on fullframe with 6.0 microns pixel except if stopped down to f11 or even f16 (Contax Lenses... well, the 4/120macro probably still will be perfect on fullframe). These are good lenses but I think the 1.1 crop finally helps... And as I don't know any reason why I should buy another MF-System within the next years I don't care that much about the P65+. Actually the best thing about the P65+ - for me - is that prices for the refurbished backs will go down. But too I think that this is just my personal standpoint and that others maybe like fullframe and improved ISO.

[Guy Mancuso]

Strange as it may sound I like the extra viewing in the finder around the P25 and P45 Grid lines in the finder. Nice to know what is out there.

[Dustbak]

I truly would like to hear from a late-model Hasselblad user, to see if the most recent Phocus software actually will not run on an Apple laptop. That, to me, is just mindboggling -- to be forced to drag around a tower on location, if you bought Hasselblad and needed to tether.

Is there anyone out there shooting high-volume location work that uses the Phocus software on a 17" MacBook Pro?

This one thing is an absolute dealbreaker for Hasselblad, if true.

I use Phocus on a 2 year old Macbookpro15. It runs pretty well however I prefer Flexcolor for several reasons. My backs are CF39 & 384 (next week this would be CF39 & CF39MS). I shoot anything in between 100 & 300 images per day (after selection so these need to be processed).

My main problem is keeping enough diskspace which is the prime reason I had to delete the Windows partition on the MBP.

I process to DNG's first and let Photoshop and the image processor handle from there. I find both Flexcolor as well as Phocus too slow to process, especially on a laptop. It would be different when I get my MacPro (13 seconds which some people claim to get is very acceptable). Converting a couple of 100 FFF's towards DNG takes less than about halve an hour. You miss DAC when you go the DNG route but is you know what you are doing in PS the quality is excellent.

Processing my Leaf A17 files on the MBP via Leaf Capture I found to be just as slow. Slowness is not a Hasselblad exclusive. I would not process files from either back with their dedicated raw converter if I have to do several hundred of images on my MBP.

Support for Leaf files is excellent in PS. It is unfortunate that Hasselblad files cannot be read natively by PS (with DAC) but converting to DNG's is extremely fast.

It is amazing how much faster and with how much more control (especially when using actions) you can process raw files via the Bridge compared to most 'native raw converters'. I find it unbelievable none of the brands have an option to invoke actions when processing their files next to being slow.

[Jack Flesher]

I dunno about the Hy6...  I have a friend who has one, and invariably when we are in lower levels of light like dusk or dawn landscape, or even indoors in normal light, his AF will invariably go into continuous hunt mode and not be able to lock.  Don't get me wrong, *love* the build-quality and I would love to have a WLF and rotatable back option, but I think I'd wait for a version 2 body with updated AF before investing in that system.

just my .02...

[gwhitf]

I process to DNG's first and let Photoshop and the image processor handle from there. I find both Flexcolor as well as Phocus too slow to process, especially on a laptop. It would be different when I get my MacPro (13 seconds which some people claim to get is very acceptable). Converting a couple of 100 FFF's towards DNG takes less than about halve an hour. You miss DAC when you go the DNG route but is you know what you are doing in PS the quality is excellent.

So, in the real world, if you shot a job on Monday, and you came home on Monday night, and the client wanted to see Web Galleries of the job on Tuesday, what exactly is the workflow?

You have to take what you shot, tweak the RAWs to your color taste, and then batch everything from this native format to DNG first?

And then, you take all those DNGs and then you batch everything to JPG for web galleries to show the client?

There is no way to simply make a web gallery from the RAW files?

Thank you.

[James R Russell]

So, in the real world, if you shot a job on Monday, and you came home on Monday night, and the client wanted to see Web Galleries of the job on Tuesday, what exactly is the workflow?

You have to take what you shot, tweak the RAWs to your color taste, and then batch everything from this native format to DNG first?

And then, you take all those DNGs and then you batch everything to JPG for web galleries to show the client?

There is no way to simply make a web gallery from the RAW files?

Thank you.

I don't know anything about Phocus or how long it takes, but if a file won't work natively in most of the processors then I don't want to know about it.

Also how are you going to store.  Some people may throw the native files away and keep the dngs, but can the hasselblad dng files be backwards converted to the Hasselblad format.

I'd probably never throw away the orignal format files because convertors change, things get better (hopefully) and that means you end up with double the files, double the storage.

I also routinely ship processed files with an attached raw to a retoucher. Converting one or two to DNG is not issue but dozens, hundreds, then it's just another step regardless of how fast and easy.

As far as how Phocus runs on computers, it seems it's very video card dependent and maybe that works will all computers, but unless I can use it on a 24" imac and a macbook pro, that pretty much rules it out for location.  I'll never drag a desktop computer around the world to use software for tethering.

I don't understand this process of different file formats depending on whether you shoot tethered or to cf cards, I don't understand extra steps of compression to work in 3rd party converters.  

If Phase has one great advantage it's the file now seems to work in anything regardless of the compression.  That's a great benefit, but knowing medium format as I write this someone is probably thinking up a way to make it more complicated.

I like the idea of the Sinar all dng workflow, but does this cover the complete range of Sinar and new Sinar/Leaf (Leaner) backs, or will it just be to the 31mpx product?

You really need a schematic to follow medium format.

JR

[Dustbak]

So, in the real world, if you shot a job on Monday, and you came home on Monday night, and the client wanted to see Web Galleries of the job on Tuesday, what exactly is the workflow?

You have to take what you shot, tweak the RAWs to your color taste, and then batch everything from this native format to DNG first?

And then, you take all those DNGs and then you batch everything to JPG for web galleries to show the client?

There is no way to simply make a web gallery from the RAW files?

Thank you.

There apparently is a quick way to generate small jpg's. I have never used it so cannot tell you about that but have seen people using flex & phocus advice it each other.

I routinely come home monday night (really monday night actually) with 250 images that needs to be on my FTP before the studio starts Tuesday at 9. In most cases I let my MBP convert the FFF files to DNG's immediately after the shoot. Since nothing happens color wise or processing wise when converting from FFF to DNG it is of no use doing that in either Flexcolor or Phocus. I don't do anything but tell Phocus/Flexcolor save as DNG. When the MBP is converting I am packing all my stuff. In most cases the conversion process is done by the time I have packed everything. I pack my MBP as last anyway because it is also running my music

When I come home I open up the Bridge and open the DNG's in ACR. I do most color correcting, cropping, etc.. in ACR. I close the files (I do about 30 at a time). I run the image processor, select an appropriate action and run the processor toward the desired file. In the processor I mostly process directly to PSD because many files need some manual labor as well. After that I process the PSD files towards JPG.

If I need low res web gallery images I would process to sRGB and downsize significantly.

My policy is to automate as far as possible and do only the really necessary things by hand.

[jimgolden]

So, in the real world, if you shot a job on Monday, and you came home on Monday night, and the client wanted to see Web Galleries of the job on Tuesday, what exactly is the workflow?

You have to take what you shot, tweak the RAWs to your color taste, and then batch everything from this native format to DNG first?

And then, you take all those DNGs and then you batch everything to JPG for web galleries to show the client?

There is no way to simply make a web gallery from the RAW files?

Thank you.

My workflow would be to convert FFF to DNG (usually due this while cleaning up the studio, or in transit back to the studio) import to LR, then tweak and sync settings then export a gallery. I don't use Phocus, it's hocus-pocus, and I find flex to be a slow workflow for me. I can hammer through work in LR much faster even w/ the time to convert to DNG. That said, I'd love in camera DNG, dream come true, but not for $30k and $7k lenses, thx but no thx. After things get hit in post, you can't tell wether it was Mam glass, Mam "D" class, canon, hassie H or V or whatever. the only thing I see a real difference in is say a schneider digitar on a 2x3 or 4x5 w/ a DB.

Is their any software that will take a RAW file and make a web gallery from it? ie C1, Leaf, Phocus, etc, etc?

I think James + co. have a point - needs to compete w/ Canon/Nikon for ease of use, etc, especially for the crazy prices

[jimgolden]

@ Dustbak - in flex you can bump out a small preview file (under 1k) and then use that to build a web gallery, but still needs to go thru some processing to get there

in reality - all the companies should make their raw formats easily DNG compatible - then you have a choice to use DAC like corrections in your manufacturer's proprietary software or use LR , ACR, but it'd be up to us. the only time DAC has really done much for me is w/ the HCD28 - it took a some distortion out, but I could have done it in PS as well.

[gwhitf]

I don't use Phocus, it's hocus-pocus, and I find flex to be a slow workflow for me.

Is there a slightly more technical description of hocus pocus, and how that funkiness shows up for you when you're using it?

Everything that I hear about Hasselblad workflow just turns my stomach. Step 1, then batch to Step 2, etc.

Sounds like lots of jumping thru hoops to me, and for what gain...?

Thanks for responses.

As far as Mr Russell's schematic idea, I have been thinking to start a shared Google Document, and have everyone contribute to it -- all the models from all the brands. There are so many variations right now that my eyes just glaze over; I can't keep them straight.

[BJNY]

Apple's Aperture supposedly support Hasselblad  3FR & FFF file formats,
so couldn't that be a solution for quick galleries?

[BJNY]

.

[design_freak]

I process files directly from Phocus. In my opinion, quality is better that export files to DNG and then open it in Lightroom. Lightroom has not the best raw converter. Same Aperture. Probably Phase users use C1 to process the files and get better quality...

[tho_mas]

Is their any software that will take a RAW file and make a web gallery from it? ie C1, Leaf, Phocus, etc, etc?

C1 yes.

Probably Phase users use C1 to process the files and get better quality...

Fast in fast out differences (IQ wise) are not that big. If you look exacting to the files C1 is better (more detailed) in dark tonal values and subtler over all. And colors... matter of taste... but I hate the midtone accentuated digital default look in ACR/LR...

[James R Russell]

I process files directly from Phocus. In my opinion, quality is better that export files to DNG and then open it in Lightroom. Lightroom has not the best raw converter. Same Aperture. Probably Phase users use C1 to process the files and get better quality...

For general work, c-1 3.78 is good and stable and processes fast.

V4 processes lighting fast and has better skin tones, though the pro version is not out yet.

For oh my god, building your own film the very best is Raw Developer.  Download the new one and you can correct your color channels to make your own film, and not light lightroom where your chaning the orange, but actually chaning the lookof each rgb channel with click stops.

RD is not elegant and not easy to batch out a lot of small jpegs, but for those special images it's amazing.

It's noise reduction for the phase files is also superior to anything I've used, blows away V4 and lightroom.

JR

[tho_mas]

For oh my god, building your own film the very best is Raw Developer.

Interesting! I do like the Color Editor in C1 a lot as I like to work with ICC profiles for different looks. But just because I'm used to...

[Streetshooter]

Is their any software that will take a RAW file and make a web gallery from it? ie C1, Leaf, Phocus, etc, etc?

I think you can do this in iView Media Pro.......

[jimgolden]

Is there a slightly more technical description of hocus pocus, and how that funkiness shows up for you when you're using it?

Everything that I hear about Hasselblad workflow just turns my stomach. Step 1, then batch to Step 2, etc.

Sounds like lots of jumping thru hoops to me, and for what gain...?

Phocus was supposed to be a Hasselblad LR - they even snagged some adobe developers. it's clunky, flakey (freeze, crashes), slow IMHO. plus you have to do upgrades to a MacPro (ie more RAM, new vid card), it wont run on a macbook (LR runs fine!!) and I have yet to see it in person running on a MacBook Pro smoothly. it feels significantly less robust than Flex. Flex is decent, you just have to know it well to be fast. I do agree, it's jumping thru a lot of hoops. I wish you could just import+convert 3FR straight into LR - that would be killer.

ALSO - do we have the ISO bump in Phocus 1.1? I think that was a selling point for a lot of people...

[BJNY]

For oh my god, building your own film the very best is Raw Developer.  
Download the new one and you can correct your color channels to make your own film,
and not light lightroom where your chaning the orange,
but actually chaning the lookof each rgb channel with click stops.

RD is not elegant and not easy to batch out a lot of small jpegs, but for those special images it's amazing.

It's noise reduction for the phase files is also superior to anything I've used, blows away V4 and lightroom.

Even supports Hasselblad and Sinar files:

http://iridientdigital.com/products/rawdev...er_cameras.html

[Dustbak]

Ah.... it seems RD finally supports FFF files again! That would be a nice addition. I loved RD for my Leaf files.

I totally agree with the fact the 3FR, FFF, DNG path from Hasselblad creates confusion but can tell in practice it is not such a big deal. Having said that it would make life much easier if you could have 3FR (either compressed or uncompressed) and have it read in more than 1 converter (especially ACR, eg. LR & PS). With the complete DAC functionality please!