Hasselblad file workflow?

[jecxz]

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

[Carsten W]

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.

[Dustbak]

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.

[gss]

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.

[Lust4Life]

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

[mazma]

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

[Dustbak]

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..

[David Grover / Capture One]

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

[David Grover / Capture One]

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

[David Grover / Capture One]

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]

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.

[David Grover / Capture One]

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?

[gss]

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.

[David Grover / Capture One]

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.

[hubell]

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?

[Dustbak]

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).

[gss]

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.

[David Grover / Capture One]

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

[kaimaui]

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

[David Grover / Capture One]

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