Have you tried PHOCUS to develop your DSLR's files?

[Theodoros]

The use of of Capture One instead of LR or CR or camera's own Raw processor for DSLR development, has been widely discussed and have been suggested as being much superior (at least by those that have some decently calibrated monitor and print some of their images)... But have you tried phocus? ...I just did and am highly impressed, I don't know yet if I would prefer it from C1, but it's so obviously much better than LR, that I wonder why the subject hasn't been discussed... Surely phocus isn't as equipped as C1, but OTOH, I never missed the extra offerings of C1 and Phocus seems to be as capable for DSLR files processing, if not even better... further testing will be on during the weekend... In the mean time, your experience/suggestions will be highly appreciated.

[NickT]

What Phocus needs is a way to manage my music like iTunes.
 I really wish Hasselblad would listen to my ideas as not adding music functionality is why Hasselblad have lost market share.

[SecondFocus]

I have tried it on Canon RAW files and was impressed. It is free so certainly that could be a consideration. However C1 v8 is ways more versatile and produces great images.

[Theodoros]

What Phocus needs is a way to manage my music like iTunes.
 I really wish Hasselblad would listen to my ideas as not adding music functionality is why Hasselblad have lost market share.

Surely you can whistle while you develop.....

[Theodoros]

I have tried it on Canon RAW files and was impressed. It is free so certainly that could be a consideration. However C1 v8 is ways more versatile and produces great images.

C1 is undoubtedly the king for developing DSLR files... but this well known and has been widely discussed. Never the less, there are many that (by choice) don't use a developer for more than the image appearance for tonality, colour and DR even if they do use C1... As you said, Phocus is free and my findings up to now, (I believe yours too) seem to compare directly (if not beat) with the results one would get if he was using C1 instead, at least if development parameters are enough for the requirements of the user. What is really surprising, is why people don't use it much (since it's free of charge) although it's top quality and why it is not promoted!  ...There should be considerable fame by now given its superb results.

[eronald]

Phocus is IMHO the best "generic" free software on the Mac. I think it uses the Apple iPhoto core routines, but provides much finer control and pro workflow.

Edmund

[eronald]

C1 is undoubtedly the king for developing DSLR files... but this well known and has been widely discussed. Never the less, there are many that (by choice) don't use a developer for more than the image appearance for tonality, colour and DR even if they do use C1... As you said, Phocus is free and my findings up to now, (I believe yours too) seem to compare directly (if not beat) with the results one would get if he was using C1 instead, at least if development parameters are enough for the requirements of the user. What is really surprising, is why people don't use it much (since it's free of charge) although it's top quality and why it is not promoted!  ...There should be considerable fame by now given its superb results.

People just don't know about it. Hasselblad never pushed the dslr aspect.
Hassy is a camera company that does digital, Phase are a digital company that sells cameras.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

Phocus is IMHO the best "generic" free software on the Mac. I think it uses the Apple iPhoto core routines, but provides much finer control and pro workflow.

Edmund

Are you saying (implementing) that Phocus performance on Mac is superior than the same on PC Ed? ...I've only tried it on Mac.

[Johnny_Johnson]

Are you saying (implementing) that Phocus performance on Mac is superior than the same on PC Ed? ...I've only tried it on Mac.

Phocus doesn't process RAW files on a PC.

Later,
Johnny

[Ligament]

So my understanding is that if one uses Phocus on the Mac for non-Hasselblad raw files, the results will be the same as if one used aperture or iPhoto or preview?

[DanielStone]

So my understanding is that if one uses Phocus on the Mac for non-Hasselblad raw files, the results will be the same as if one used aperture or iPhoto or preview?

download it and give some files a whirl

[eronald]

So my understanding is that if one uses Phocus on the Mac for non-Hasselblad raw files, the results will be the same as if one used aperture or iPhoto or preview?

No. it is getting the camera specific demosaic from Apple, but the adjustment tools, curves, NR, and sharpening are Hasselblad. There is no reason to assume that Phocus does worse than C1 on Nikon or Canon. In fact I found it pretty good when I tried, and anyway  Canon's free DPP makes a joke of any other converter when it comes to Canon files.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

..........and anyway  Canon's free DPP makes a joke of any other converter when it comes to Canon files.

Edmund

Most dedicated by the maker Raw converters are much superior than LR or CR or other third party..., but when it comes to C1 or Phocus things are a bit different... Maybe sharpness can be matched by a dedicated converter (depending on the sensor), but DR and colour accuracy is hard to beat....

[BernardLanguillier]

Interesting, thks for the pointer!

Cheers,
Bernard

[G*]

After some time without bothering to change my workflow, this thread made me give it another try with Phocus software for my Nikon D800E files.

What I am taking away after some days of fiddling around: Lots of greyed out functions with NEF files, but that’s okay for a free program. No issues with detail rendition at base ISO, but ugly noise and artifacts at higher ISOs. (No surprise here, as Hasselblad did not really have to bother with that for their own backs until recently). Nice color separation in some areas. But fails to render saturated reds to my liking (like most RAW developers do) and introduces an overall red color cast to near-neutral tones.

Oh, and there where issues with exported JPG-files which could not be viewed properly in Apple’s Preview. Tiff files worked well, though.

BTW, somebody in another thread suggested using the IQ280 or IQ250 profiles in CaptureOne for NEF files instead of the dedicated generic ones. I tried that too, and I felt like Bugs Bunny. Everything suddenly looked like a carrot.

My 2ct.

Cheers

[Zerui]

For me the greatest benefit of using Phocus rather than Aperture or Adobe is the brilliant colour adjustment tool.  Try it and you will find all others disappointing.  Goff

[Theodoros]

For me the greatest benefit of using Phocus rather than Aperture or Adobe is the brilliant colour adjustment tool.  Try it and you will find all others disappointing.  Goff

DR too... superb!