Almost certainly it does. Otherwise why would Hasselblad's Phocus software be able to do a better (or just different) job than Lightroom? I bet you that almost all RAW data has been filtered in some way by the onboard ADCs and firmware.
Think about Raw Conversion as being a translation from a foreign text. Yes, there is one underlying "truth" (the original scene) but other than for scientific projects (e.g. art reproduction) there is very little about the process that is set in stone. There is a ton of math in raw conversion. Think of it this way, dozens of PHDs have spent since the early 90s (and much before depending on you definitions) working on how to take raw data from a sensor and best translate it into a final image. We have seen meaningful improvement in every iteration of new software. Take the same raw file through Capture One 3, 4, 5, and 6 and you'll see how much that has improved - likewise from Lightroom 1, 2, and 3 and the beta of 4 (I can't speak to Hassy but I'll assume the same could be said of early FlexColor to later FlexColor to early Phocus to now). This can be observed with raw files from a myriad of cameras (not just digital backs). This math is sometimes public domain (university research or just common knowledge for instance), some of it is developed independently and then purchased, and much (most?) is developed in-house by the math-heavies at each company.
So if it's clear (and empirically evident) that the math used in a raw processor matters a LOT to the final result, and the math used in each software is developed separately then why would you think the difference between Phocus (or Capture One or Leaf Capture) and LightRoom are because of changes to the raw file in-camera??
That said there is a lot of information Phase One, for instance, places in the raw data that other programs may or may not look for and use. For instance the dark frame data from long exposures. The guys developing Capture One and the guys choosing the hardware for Phase One digital backs, and the guys working on the firmware for those backs all work in the same building (for the most part) and go out for beer together and know each others kids. They are personally, professionally, and financially motivated to create the best total product possible and have the most intimate knowledge of every nuance of the sensor, A/D convertor, and other electronics that influence the raw data.
None of this is to say that LR can't do a great job with digital back files. In fact LR4 is looking like a big step forward (as I would expect from Capture One 7 - keep in mind that Adobe likes to show their betas and Phase One keeps theirs private). And since raw processing is partly (largely?) aesthetic it's very possible any given person will prefer different processors than someone else.
I'm simply explaining that the raw processor matters, and no hokus pokus is required for a manufacturer to the best job handling the processing of their own raw files.
A similar response
on GetDPI I made a while back.
P.S. The difference between convertors is usually most evident with difficult files like high-iso, strange white balances, long exposures, or with large/heavy post process (e.g. very strong curves or strong highlight/shadow recovery).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183Newsletter
| RSS FeedBuy Capture One 6 at 10% off