Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: kaimaui on March 18, 2009, 11:17:21 pm
-
Is there a legal reason why there is no support for Hasselblad raw files by adobe.
I have been using RPP raw software the last few days with great results on my 3ff files.
So If an individual can write a software which produces great results adobe should be able to do it.
So is it legal ? political? Or something else.
-
Is there a legal reason why there is no support for Hasselblad raw files by adobe.
I have been using RPP raw software the last few days with great results on my 3ff files.
So If an individual can write a software which produces great results adobe should be able to do it.
So is it legal ? political? Or something else.
I think it is because Hasselblad won't provide the necessary info to Adobe
-
Is there a legal reason why there is no support for Hasselblad raw files by adobe.
I have been using RPP raw software the last few days with great results on my 3ff files.
So If an individual can write a software which produces great results adobe should be able to do it.
So is it legal ? political? Or something else.
Phocus will happily export DNGs for you to process in Adobe Camera Raw.
-
Is there a legal reason why there is no support for Hasselblad raw files by adobe.
I have been using RPP raw software the last few days with great results on my 3ff files.
So If an individual can write a software which produces great results adobe should be able to do it.
So is it legal ? political? Or something else.
I tried getting an answer on this last Fall from the guy from Adobe who posts all the time on LL about ACR and LR, but he ignored my question. (It lead to a humorous exchange with Jeff Schewe, but that's another matter.)
BTW, RPP is not alone. Raw Developer and Aperture can read Hasselblad raws. Maybe Adobe has the same team working on this that worked on the focus blending in CS4.
-
I can't go into many details on this forum but I can say this.
There is no desire on either side to NOT have 3F files working in Lightroom / ACR / Bridge.
Our goal as a company that provides high quality solutions is that the implementation is right for the customer.
Best,
David
-
Without wanting to pin you down on something but this does sound as if we will get this at some point in time (rather sooner than later)?
-
There is no desire on either side to NOT have 3F files working in Lightroom / ACR / Bridge.
So, Adobe thinks H'blad is wanting too much money? Or H'blad thinks Adobe is offering too little?
Both, I'll bet.
-
So, Adobe thinks H'blad is wanting too much money? Or H'blad thinks Adobe is offering too little?
Both, I'll bet.
Fortunately not everything is about money.
David
-
Fortunately not everything is about money.
David
Well hopefully there will be some support in the future.
I do use Phocus and do not dislike it. For some images I have had great result.
As I wrote in another tread it is more about work flow.
I like to catalog all my images strait after I shoot them. Then over time i will go trough sort delete and eventually work on the files that appeal to me.
Lightroom is where all of this happens. At the moment I translate to DNG. import to lightroom. Then I will go back to the hasselbald raw files with either Phocus or rrp and back into Lightroom / Photoshop with the tiff. et.......
David you did speak some time ago about a plug in for Lightroom.
Is that still something being considered?
Thanks
KAI
-
Gidday,
This was one of the reasons I bought a Leaf Aptus 75 back 3 years ago cause at the time Phase would not work in Adobe.
Luckily since then Phase have seen there error in there ways and have made there Phase backs compatible.
At the end of the day give the customer the ability to choose what Camera Raw developer they what to use.
Cheers
Simon
-
i have heard that hasselblad does not feel that adobe does all that is needed to make hasselblad files look good. actually, the same holds for D3x files.
peter
Fortunately not everything is about money.
David
-
i have heard that hasselblad does not feel that adobe does all that is needed to make hasselblad files look good. actually, the same holds for D3x files.
peter
As for Nikon's own software, the programmers are S, and the users M.
Edmund
-
As for Nikon's own software, the programmers are S, and the users M.
Edmund
well, yes. but it does perform.
p
-
i have heard that hasselblad does not feel that adobe does all that is needed to make hasselblad files look good. actually, the same holds for D3x files.
peter
and Sony files as well.
-
Gidday,
It seems that Hasselblad are making the same arrogant comments that Phase did a few years ago before they finely made the right decision to make there files work in Adobe.
I do all my processing of my Leaf Aptus 75 and Nikon D2X raw images in Adobe Bridge/CS4 and I get fantastic results.
I will repeat myself again in saying GIVE THE PHOTOGRAPHER THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Cheers
Simon
-
and Sony files as well.
And Leica files. In fact, ACR/Lightroom are known for not being that great with sharpness and corrections for almost every type of camera, except Canon and Nikon. When DPReview first reviews a new camera from some other maker, it almost invariably looks like a poor performer, because they often use only ACR. They may have changed this recently.
-
Gidday,
It seems that Hasselblad are making the same arrogant comments that Phase did a few years ago before they finely made the right decision to make there files work in Adobe.
I do all my processing of my Leaf Aptus 75 and Nikon D2X raw images in Adobe Bridge/CS4 and I get fantastic results.
I will repeat myself again in saying GIVE THE PHOTOGRAPHER THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Cheers
Simon
Please note the above comments were not made by Hasselblad!
David
-
Phocus will happily export DNGs for you to process in Adobe Camera Raw.
Does the DNG generated by Phocus carry over the lens corrections (DAC) and lens cast calibrations if applied to an image?
Patrik
-
No it doesn't, neither does the moire reduction, the color rendition of ACR is also of lesser quality compared to phocus.
-
-Is there a reason why Adobe will not support Hasselblad files?
-Them won't because them're idiots!
-Them who?
Edmund
-
-Is there a reason why Adobe will not support Hasselblad files?
-Them won't because them're idiots!
-Them who?
Edmund
I started this tread mostly out of curiosity as i wanted to find out if there was some impediment to adobe supporting Hasselbald files.
I was not supposed to be a Jab at Hasselblad or Adobe.
It appears that there may be a chance of some support in the future which would be great.
In the meantime I reinstalled flex color on my computer and am using that to generate DNG files to use with Lightroom.
A lot faster then going trough Phocus.
A note to David and Hasselbalad. I have always had good service from their technical support. I had a sensor problem a while back and it was handled in a very professional and timely manner.
Thanks
KAI
-
I started this tread mostly out of curiosity as i wanted to find out if there was some impediment to adobe supporting Hasselbald files.
I was not supposed to be a Jab at Hasselblad or Adobe.
It appears that there may be a chance of some support in the future which would be great.
In the meantime I reinstalled flex color on my computer and am using that to generate DNG files to use with Lightroom.
A lot faster then going trough Phocus.
A note to David and Hasselbalad. I have always had good service from their technical support. I had a sensor problem a while back and it was handled in a very professional and timely manner.
Thanks
KAI
Hey Kai,
Well there certainly is no impediment, but working with large corporations always takes time.
Just worth noting, in the next release of Phocus you will be able to go very quickly from 3FR to DNG if that is your desire. So you will be able to wipe that install of FlexColor again. ;-)
David
-
Is there a legal reason why there is no support for Hasselblad raw files by adobe.
In my limited experience, I found that I got better results using the camera manufacturer's own image edit software to do the image capture and conversion and then export into a generic format like TIFF to be opened in PhotoShop for further editing. I assume that the manufacturer's edit software knows more about the nuances of the format. This was definitely the case with my underwater Olympus E330 and ORF.
In the case of Phocus, you get the added advantage of checking the firmware and synchronising the camera's internal clock.
Regards
Peter
-
In my limited experience, I found that I got better results using the camera manufacturer's own image edit software to do the image capture and conversion and then export into a generic format like TIFF to be opened in PhotoShop for further editing. I assume that the manufacturer's edit software knows more about the nuances of the format. This was definitely the case with my underwater Olympus E330 and ORF.
In the case of Phocus, you get the added advantage of checking the firmware and synchronising the camera's internal clock.
Regards
Peter
Correct; however some people prefer the one-size-fits-all workflow and ergonomics. I guess using Lightroom for Raw conversion over the manufacturer software is like using a point and shoot instead of a heavy MF camera when flexibility is preferred over quality
Edmund