Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on April 29, 2016, 06:33:20 am
-
OK, again, just asking for opinions on this topic.
As I've been out of MF for a couple of years, I was wondering has any RAW developer become the favorite with the majority of us shooting Hassie H cameras?
I'm trying to get back up to speed as quickly as possible and I know that in the past I found not all RAW Developers were equal, to say the least.
I've now put together my Hassie MF system: H5D-50c (dealer demo with 3,140 clicks on it), a new 28mm and a used mint 100mm.
Jack
-
Phocus, and it's free.
-
Jack,
Congratulations to your new equipment. Regarding raw conversion, I heard many positives about Phocus.
Best regards
Erik
OK, again, just asking for opinions on this topic.
As I've been out of MF for a couple of years, I was wondering has any RAW developer become the favorite with the majority of us shooting Hassie H cameras?
I'm trying to get back up to speed as quickly as possible and I know that in the past I found not all RAW Developers were equal, to say the least.
I've now put together my Hassie MF system: H5D-50c (dealer demo with 3,140 clicks on it), a new 28mm and a used mint 100mm.
Jack
-
That's what I used to use based on the logic that Hassie knows how their electronics and algorithms better than anyone and they should be able to pull the best image out of their data set.
Curious, when you convert the files from RAW, what format are you writing to for importing into LR and PS? Tiff 16, DNG, etc.
-
Hi,
I would think that 16-bit TIFF is most appropriate.
When a raw image is used in Lightroom and opened with PhotoShop the raw image will be sent to Photoshop and opend with ACR the same way LR would have processed it. When you close the image it will save it as a 16 bit TIFF and stack it with the original raw.
What you also need to consider is the colour space used on export to Photoshop. LR uses ProphotoRGB and that colour space is large enough to contain what is called Pointer's gamut, all reflected nonspecular colours occouring in nature. With a smaller colour space, like Adobe RGB, those colours would be truncated.
Best regards
Erik
That's what I used to use based on the logic that Hassie knows how their electronics and algorithms better than anyone and they should be able to pull the best image out of their data set.
Curious, when you convert the files from RAW, what format are you writing to for importing into LR and PS? Tiff 16, DNG, etc.
-
I always export my files out as 16bit, prophoto RGB forfurther edits in PS.
Has worked well for me so far.
-
RawTherapee (IMHO it is the best, cross platform and free). Get a good DCP profile for accurate color.
-
16 Bit Prophoto RGB TIFF also. Phocus has the reproduction mode built, and even without using it the Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution works so well it is hardly necessary except for critical work.
-
From a commercial photography perspective.
Focus to process then output 8 bit Adobe RGB.
I don't need 16 bit because I have done the "heavy lifting" tone shifts if needed in Phocus.
I don't use ProfotoRGB because I don't like editing colors I can't see.
-
With the new modern CMOS sensor noise reduction is not as important as before with the Kodaks, so some of the algorithm advantage in Phocus disappear. It's simply much harder to make good raw conversion of the older CCDs than a new CMOS sensor.
However the strongest reason to use Phocus I think is color. Hasselblad has really good color profiles, and the only way to access them is through Phocus as they use a proprietary multi-illuminant format.
Still I use RawTherapee myself for my H4D-50 with my own color profile designed using DCamProf, which I prefer, but it's a niche use case which I wouldn't recommend to a stressed professional unless you're really interested in taking detailed control over raw conversion and prepared to put a significant effort into doing so.
-
Hi,
With Adobe RGB you loose some colours your printer can handle but Adobe RGB cannot. It is clear that colour nuances outside Adobe RGB are probably not visible on screens, but that may change with 4K, as the Rec. 2020 colour space is much wider than Adobe RGB.
To me, it seems smart to work in a wide colour space, even if that means that it contains info that is not visible on older monitors.
Best regards
Erik
From a commercial photography perspective.
Focus to process then output 8 bit Adobe RGB.
I don't need 16 bit because I have done the "heavy lifting" tone shifts if needed in Phocus.
I don't use ProfotoRGB because I don't like editing colors I can't see.
-
Ideally one sould use Prophoto RGB and 16 bit Tiffs, but my actual experience has been very bad. Adobe RGB usually works well until some software forgets the tag. My experience is that the workflow advantages of sRGB outweigh the gamut advantages of a large space for any rushed work; every decent monitor can be used, prints can be easily made without profiling and web and iPad previews always look good, whatever software you use to write the file!
Single prints benefit from careful work in Adobe RGB with the print gamut warning for your paper. If you are a CMYK specialist then your mileage will differ.
That's what I used to use based on the logic that Hassie knows how their electronics and algorithms better than anyone and they should be able to pull the best image out of their data set.
Curious, when you convert the files from RAW, what format are you writing to for importing into LR and PS? Tiff 16, DNG, etc.
-
Hi,
With Adobe RGB you loose some colours your printer can handle but Adobe RGB cannot. It is clear that colour nuances outside Adobe RGB are probably not visible on screens, but that may change with 4K, as the Rec. 2020 colour space is much wider than Adobe RGB.
To me, it seems smart to work in a wide colour space, even if that means that it contains info that is not visible on older monitors.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik
Yes I am well aware of the differences in colour gamut between the two spaces. I specifically wrote from a "commercial photography perspective", I am not selling inkjets.
I work with a 1 year old Eizo which covers ARGB, I wasn't aware that there were monitors that can display Prophoto RGB, link please.
-
Hi Erik
Yes I am well aware of the differences in colour gamut between the two spaces. I specifically wrote from a "commercial photography perspective", I am not selling inkjets.
I work with a 1 year old Eizo which covers ARGB, I wasn't aware that there were monitors that can display Prophoto RGB, link please.
I'm not sure there could be :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space
l think there are now printers that can basically display any naturally occurring solid color.
-
Hi Nick,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik
Yes I am well aware of the differences in colour gamut between the two spaces. I specifically wrote from a "commercial photography perspective", I am not selling inkjets.
I work with a 1 year old Eizo which covers ARGB, I wasn't aware that there were monitors that can display Prophoto RGB, link please.
-
I like to bring in the.fff in phocus it makes the lens corrections well then export to the same folder as 16 bit tiff, then import in to LR. Use the sliders to make a general preset that you like and save it, then apply that preset to simalr images. It's very quick and efficient LR is much better at lifting the image than Phocus. Phocus has its own qualities which need very little tweaking on images with controlled lighting ex portraits, but with landscape shots using the SUN a one of your light sources or tweaking anything besides skin I find most other programs to be much more efficient to get the final desired result.
Make a small print first fix any issues then make a 20" print correct any further defects...the blow the hell out of it make a 60" print you will love it.
-
I like to bring in the.fff in phocus it makes the lens corrections well then export to the same folder as 16 bit tiff, then import in to LR. Use the sliders to make a general preset that you like and save it, then apply that preset to simalr images. It's very quick and efficient LR is much better at lifting the image than Phocus. Phocus has its own qualities which need very little tweaking on images with controlled lighting ex portraits, but with landscape shots using the SUN a one of your light sources or tweaking anything besides skin I find most other programs to be much more efficient to get the final desired result.
Make a small print first fix any issues then make a 20" print correct any further defects...the blow the hell out of it make a 60" print you will love it.
Exporting to tiff will lose quite a lot of dynamic range compared to RAW. I am still trying out phocus, but the thing that I'm wondering about is the weird highlight recovery. Drag the slider too much and the image gets completely washed out. Haven't noticed that phenomenon in Lightroom or Capture1.