Lightroom Hasselblad Camera Profile anybody that gives the Phocus look?

[orc73]

The Phocus files (usually) just look that much better for my H4d-40, especially on skin tones.
Two questions on that:
1. Does anybody have a profile, that fits the Phocus output?
2. Is this difference still there in the h5d-50c?


I tryed x-rite colorchecker in LR, not even close to Phocus.
When downloading the lastest Firmware on the HB website I saw there is a LR tethered plugin, is it stable?

Currently I tether with Phocus and export the files with exposure, sharpening directly as TIFF to LR.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Have you tried to make a DCP profile for your camera?

It is really easy, you need a ColorChecker and either Xrite ColorChecker Passport software or Adobe DNG Profile editor. Both these programs are free. Shoot the colour checker in your light and use either of the mentioned products to generate a colour profile.

It may or may not work for you and your application. Worth a try…

Best regards
Erik

The Phocus files (usually) just look that much better for my H4d-40, especially on skin tones.
Two questions on that:
1. Does anybody have a profile, that fits the Phocus output?
2. Is this difference still there in the h5d-50c?


I tryed x-rite colorchecker in LR, not even close to Phocus.
When downloading the lastest Firmware on the HB website I saw there is a LR tethered plugin, is it stable?

Currently I tether with Phocus and export the files with exposure, sharpening directly as TIFF to LR.

[bdp]

Lightroom can't do it. When I first got my Hasselblad I tried for months to match the colours in Phocus by creating custom profiles and tweaking them endlessly with DNG profile editor, and even if you get a profile that is close to the result from Phocus with one file it will probably be way off for another file.

IMO Lightroom does a very poor job of separating out the subtleties in warm tones - oranges, browns, yellows, reds etc. I shoot a lot of food, and the top of a roast chicken processed in LR will show all these colours mashed together into one browny-green dead lump. Phocus however will emphasise every deep brown and and the whole range of reds to yellows on top of the chicken in a beautiful way. With a LOT of work playing with HSL sliders you can get a result that is close to Phocus, but never quite as perfect. I find LR does a similar thing to blonde hair a bit too, where it's hard to get pleasing colour without a lot of HSL work and/or post in Photoshop. The colour is never 'quite right' in my opinion, but most other raw converters I've played with give a much better result by default.

The colour rendition of Phocus is Hasselblad's strong point. It's a shame because LR is so good in every other way, I just think it's colour engine sucks.

Ben

[ndevlin]

Sadly, Ben is totally right.  His experience matches mine.  I don't know why Adobe can't improve their colour work on the LR / ACR engine.  Process 2012 needs to be given a decent burial and replaced with something much better.

God knows, with their new monthly tithing plan, Adobe has the money...

- N.

[Doug Peterson]

Your question seems to imply that the only thing involved in the final "look" that software provides for a given raw file is a color profile. This is simply not the case. The look from one package cannot be achieved in another package through color profiling.

There is no "one true photo" inside a raw file that you simply "open" with compatible software. Every major raw convertor has it's own proprietary math. Just look the improvement between newer/older versions of the same software to see how much this math matters even when the color profile remains the same.

The above is not to say that you can't get closer to the color look you want in any given package by playing with different profiles, profiling, or profile editing.

Not surprisingly, you'll find many people find the best color/tone/look using [software + hardware] from a single source, as they:
- know the hardware the best (they can literally walk down the hall and ask questions as needed)
- can influence each other during the design/prototype stage (e.g. IQ250 development)
- are financially/professionally as well as personally motivated to spend as much time as needed for a specific [camera+software] to look it's best

Of course it is subjective, so the most important lesson to take away is to try multiple raw convertors and consider the entire package (software + hardware) whenever making a purchase/rental/etc.

[Josef Isayo]

I love the skin tones from my Hassy H4D-40 going through Aperture. I have not made a direct comparison between Aperture and Phocus because I wanted to stick with one software (Aperture for now) for both the 35mm and MF systems.

[Jim Kasson]

The Phocus files (usually) just look that much better for my H4d-40, especially on skin tones.
Two questions on that:
1. Does anybody have a profile, that fits the Phocus output?
2. Is this difference still there in the h5d-50c?

I don't know if a non-tethered workflow would work for you, or even what it would do with the colors, but have you tried Phocus Quick to DNG to Lr?

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2521099/phocus%20quick_user%20manual_uk_%20v1.pdf

Jim

[eronald]

Doug,

Lightroom wrecks the quality of any camera. It is probably the best sales tool which Phase dealers can buy - they should buy licenses and give them away to all potential customers.  

Of course, Phase backs deliver market leading color with C1, but Hassy backs do quite well with Phocus, Canon with DPP, and even Sigma with the horrible Sigma software - but if one can tell the customer "come to my studio, take a comparison shot with your own camera" and then develops that with Lightroom, and compares with a Phase image it's almost a guaranteed sale

Edmund

PS - I'm sure you're going to have trouble disputing my qualification of "Phase delivers market-leading color", but in the spirit of a friendly debate I'll be glad to watch you try

Your question seems to imply that the only thing involved in the final "look" that software provides for a given raw file is a color profile. This is simply not the case. The look from one package cannot be achieved in another package through color profiling.

There is no "one true photo" inside a raw file that you simply "open" with compatible software. Every major raw convertor has it's own proprietary math. Just look the improvement between newer/older versions of the same software to see how much this math matters even when the color profile remains the same.

The above is not to say that you can't get closer to the color look you want in any given package by playing with different profiles, profiling, or profile editing.

Not surprisingly, you'll find many people find the best color/tone/look using [software + hardware] from a single source, as they:
- know the hardware the best (they can literally walk down the hall and ask questions as needed)
- can influence each other during the design/prototype stage (e.g. IQ250 development)
- are financially/professionally as well as personally motivated to spend as much time as needed for a specific [camera+software] to look it's best

Of course it is subjective, so the most important lesson to take away is to try multiple raw convertors and consider the entire package (software + hardware) whenever making a purchase/rental/etc.

[Doug Peterson]

PS - I'm sure you're going to have trouble disputing my qualification of "Phase delivers market-leading color", but in the spirit of a friendly debate I'll be glad to watch you try

Ha. Happy holidays to you too Edmund .

[orc73]

Thanks for all the replies!

Using "3rd party" (not sure if that's the right name for the marked leader in case of Lightroom) Raw developer will make you use money and quality.
I tested Aperture and it does a slightly better job the Lightroom in the conversion(to my taste).
I tryed to adjust curves in LR, still resulting in less depth and missing something.


Certainly that's a pro for PhaseONE to have one of the best converters, it's still not as handy and powerfull as LR...for how I work in it - that might be different for other people and of course up to personal preferences and workflow.
A Hasseblad file developed with Phocus is not matched out of the box with whatever I saw before if Skin Tones are involved.

[torger]

Color models vary vastly between converters. Lightroom's is the only one that's well documented as it's incorporated into the DNG format. The DCP profiles are better mathematically than the ICC profiles, but you can't do as many tricks.

I think skin tone is much about texture and separation, not just a hue, which makes it difficult to match with a profile. For say art reproduction you can make a good scientific color match with a custom profile in any converter.

That said I'm not so sure that it's really the color model's fault. Adobe's bundled profiles are not exactly trying, it's consumer pop they try to achieve. The profile editor is not that powerful either. Maybe with proper inhouse color expertise and real attempts they could compete.

[Theodoros]

I don't see what matching colour profiling between different softwares has to do with anything... Even if the profiling will be based on a colour chart and has much resemblance to a different software, the differences in DR, detail and contrast are enough to show the superiority of MF software... and that doesn't only apply to (the superb) Phocus, C1 is also much superior to LR or ACR or other "mass" market products and has even more parameters than Phocus (if one ever needs them).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My issue with LR/ACR is more about demosaicing on MFD sensors, it is well possible that skin tones are better wit say C1 or Phocus, but the interpretation of skin tones is very liberal.

For my work, LR works just fine, except for demosaic issues. For those issues programs like RawTherapy, AccuRaw or Iridient RawDeveloper may offer a better solution.

I would say that I prefer a well documented solution over a "secret souce".

Best regards
Erik

Color models vary vastly between converters. Lightroom's is the only one that's well documented as it's incorporated into the DNG format. The DCP profiles are better mathematically than the ICC profiles, but you can't do as many tricks.

I think skin tone is much about texture and separation, not just a hue, which makes it difficult to match with a profile. For say art reproduction you can make a good scientific color match with a custom profile in any converter.

That said I'm not so sure that it's really the color model's fault. Adobe's bundled profiles are not exactly trying, it's consumer pop they try to achieve. The profile editor is not that powerful either. Maybe with proper inhouse color expertise and real attempts they could compete.

[ndevlin]

Slightly off tangent question: can Phocus handle native DNGs, or only 3FRs?

- N.

[eronald]

Slightly off tangent question: can Phocus handle native DNGs, or only 3FRs?

- N.

Why don't you download the software and try your favorite DNG? It's free.
On Macs, Phocus can open just about anything, because it grabs the Macs codecs, as used by Aperture and iPhoto.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I did a quick check on Phocus with the files I have. Seems to be a decent program, but most options are greyed out on my Sony, P45+ and DNG-files.

Best regards
Erik

Slightly off tangent question: can Phocus handle native DNGs, or only 3FRs?

- N.

[eronald]

Hi,

I did a quick check on Phocus with the files I have. Seems to be a decent program, but most options are greyed out on my Sony, P45+ and DNG-files.

Best regards
Erik

Mac or PC? I think it uses the Mac (Aperture) codecs for third party files.

Edmund