Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: David Grover / Capture One on October 03, 2011, 04:00:14 am
-
Dear LL,
Lightroom 3.5 and the recent ACR update have added a great deal of compatibility with Hasselblad products and file formats.
Lightroom also makes use of Hasselblad colour processing knowledge by incorporating the same profile that is used in our own software Phocus.
This means with Hasselblad you know have the ultimate choice in Raw conversion software without compromising quality of colour rendition.
I attach a a document with more details and answers some questions regarding Phocus vs Lightroom as well.
David
-
And this is positive information. Finally, a small step forward.
Because of my innate inquisitiveness I ask. The documentation is not quite clearly defined:
1) if all files are read 3f, 3FR? H2D, H3D, H3DII, CFV, CFV39, CFV50, CF39,
2) or only files with H4D60 (3f, 3FR)? (or all H4D line only)
Best regards,
DF
-
And this is positive information. Finally, a small step forward.
Because of my innate inquisitiveness I ask. The documentation is not quite clearly defined:
1) if all files are read 3f, 3FR? H2D, H3D, H3DII, CFV, CFV39, CFV50, CF39,
2) or only files with H4D60 (3f, 3FR)? (or all H4D line only)
Best regards,
DF
It says in the document all Firewire based equipment, 3F and 3FR combined.
-
It's not so clear:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html
One might think that only H4D60. Added H4D60, but have forgotten that in previous versions - files are readable only 3FR format (all models listed below). And now they are 3f and 3FR. Hence the uncertainty.
Anyway nice to hear that :-)
-
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY I can streamline my workflow especially considering how my firewire loves to fail on the MBP 17" leaving me with a mix of 3FR and 3F files!!!
Now if only you guys can help solve this MBP firewire problem.
haha
-
This is fantastic news! This a major time saver for all of us who are committed LR/CS5 users.
Well done Hasselblad!
-
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY I can streamline my workflow especially considering how my firewire loves to fail on the MBP 17" leaving me with a mix of 3FR and 3F files!!!
Now if only you guys can help solve this MBP firewire problem.
haha
;)
Have you updated your firmware to include the firewire fix?
-
I attach a a document with more details and answers some questions regarding Phocus vs Lightroom as well.
Everything in the PDF is fine till this:
"A few words about one competitor
Adobe Lightroom or Camera Raw does not offer profile generated Lens Corrections for Phase One raw
files - only manual adjustments can be applied. Neither can you say that the image quality in Capture
One and Lightroom is compareable. Reasons are most probably related to that Adobe and Phase One
compete for the same customers and therefore probably do not cooperate closely."
Uh, it would be useful to stick to known facts and not speculate about how much cooperation there is (or isn't) between Adobe and Phase One. You'll note that the most recent ACR 6.5 and LR 3.5 included official support for a bunch of new camera backs including the Phase One IQ 140, 160 and 180. How do you suppose that happened? And while it's true that Adobe doesn't currently have lens profiles for Phase One lenses, I wouldn't be too sure they aren't cooperating to produce lens profiles in the future...
Hasselblad should stick to the facts about their own products...
-
Everything in the PDF is fine till this:
"A few words about one competitor
Adobe Lightroom or Camera Raw does not offer profile generated Lens Corrections for Phase One raw
files - only manual adjustments can be applied. Neither can you say that the image quality in Capture
One and Lightroom is compareable. Reasons are most probably related to that Adobe and Phase One
compete for the same customers and therefore probably do not cooperate closely."
Uh, it would be useful to stick to known facts and not speculate about how much cooperation there is (or isn't) between Adobe and Phase One. You'll note that the most recent ACR 6.5 and LR 3.5 included official support for a bunch of new camera backs including the Phase One IQ 140, 160 and 180. How do you suppose that happened? And while it's true that Adobe doesn't currently have lens profiles for Phase One lenses, I wouldn't be too sure they aren't cooperating to produce lens profiles in the future...
Hasselblad should stick to the facts about their own products...
+1 I agree!
Official documents of the company ... This behavior is not elegant.
-
Jeff,
So probably mean, its? or maybe, its?
I am from mars, in I like to learn American English.
Just asking, do not come after me, I am innocent until prove me, different.
I like how I took this photo, look the birds flying free. They look, like they stop in the air, saying its hell down their, everyone for their self.
-
.fff images from my 528c did not import to lightroom. :(
Only the ones from my CFii-39MS did :)
-
Design Freak wrote
"+1 I agree!
Official documents of the company ... This behavior is not elegant."
And you just cant resist to be negative, even on positiv news from
Hasselblad.
Other people writes "This is fantastic news!"
But you imediately doubt that it is for all the Hasselblads etc.
You are so transparent!!
For the records - I do not shoot with a Hasselblad, I use Leaf and Nikon
-
Jeff,
So probably mean, its? or maybe, its?
Due to NDA's I can't be more specific...I wrote what I wrote carefully.
-
Design Freak wrote
"+1 I agree!
Official documents of the company ... This behavior is not elegant."
And you just cant resist to be negative, even on positiv news from
Hasselblad.
Other people writes "This is fantastic news!"
But you imediately doubt that it is for all the Hasselblads etc.
You are so transparent!!
For the records - I do not shoot with a Hasselblad, I use Leaf and Nikon
Why not learn to read? ???
-
Great!
Thierry
I like how I took this photo, look the birds flying free. They look, like they stop in the air, saying its hell down their, everyone for their self.
-
Dear LL,
Lightroom 3.5 and the recent ACR update have added a great deal of compatibility with Hasselblad products and file formats.
Lightroom also makes use of Hasselblad colour processing knowledge by incorporating the same profile that is used in our own software Phocus.
This means with Hasselblad you know have the ultimate choice in Raw conversion software without compromising quality of colour rendition.
I attach a a document with more details and answers some questions regarding Phocus vs Lightroom as well.
David
Given that LR 3.5 and ACR now use the same colour processing is there any reason when shooting to card to convert to .FFF - or are the results in LR from 3FR files the same as .fffs? In the past I have had issues with the way that LR dealt with Hasselblad Colours and there was no question but that Phocus did a better job. My understanding was that the conversion from .3FR to .FFF not only brought Phocus into play but also had advantages in that the .3FR files were "expanded" and something was added in the conversion process to .FFF. Accordingly on hearing that LR 3.5 now supports .fff files I thought that the way to go would be to convert the .3fr files to .fff and then import those into LR. It now seems that in terms of colour rendition there is no advantage to this. Is that right?
Playing around I can find no real difference between 3fr and fff files on screen in LR 3.5. But then my eyes are old and I have not done any extensive tests.
Any thoughts?
-
Thank you David for posting, I am sure Lightroom workflow photographers are excited to hear the news - no longer need to include Phocus in the RAW workflow to pick up the Hasselblad RGB space for very good skin tones and the helpful lens corrections.
The intent is to streamline the total workflow so the photographer can concentrate on photography...congrats to programming developers on both Adobe and Hasselblad software teams. Great news.
Love to make a client smile, good stuff!
John
-
Hi Pflower,
That is actually a very good question.
The 3FR to 3F process does involve some further correction (like stitch for example) so I need to find out what is happening in Lightroom with that respect.
Ill let you know!
David
-
Hi,
Custom Camera Profiles, such as xRite Sensor Profiles, are not available for 3FR and FFF files opened in ACR.
These custom profiles are also not available for DNG, created through "Save As" menu in ACR from these Hasselblad RAW files.
The Custom Camera Profiles will only appear in ACR, if Hasselblad RAW files first exported from Phocus to DNG, then DNG opened in ACR.
-
evgeny, assuming you're referring to the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport ... how did you generate the DNG files that you fed to the Passport software to build the profiles?
-
David,
1. Shoot X-Rite ColorChecker Passport as normal image.
2. Open 3FR in Phocus and "Save As" to DNG, or first import to FFF and then "Save As" to DNG.
"Save As" to DNG should also work for 3FR/FFF opened directly in the new ACR. One should check that ColorChecker Passport software will accept that DNG created via ACR, too.
3. Open ColorChecker Passport software. Drag & Drop the DNG file in ColorChecker Passport window. Press the "Create Profile" button.
4. Software will generate sensor profile. Save it. The ColorChecker will place the profile in the correct directory. I assume that Photoshop is already installed.
The sensor profile is installed in Photoshop.
5. Open other 3FR/FFF files in ACR. The new sensor profile should be available in the list of profiles in the Camera Profile Tab. But it doesn't. This is a defect in software ACR. The list of profiles contains only Standard and Matrix. To see the new sensor profile, convert 3FR/FFF to DNG via Phocus and then open these DNGs in ACR. Now you will see the generated sensor profile.
Take attention, if you use ACR instead** of Phocus to Save As 3FR/FFF to DNG, the sensor profile will not appear in the list of profiles in ACR. This is a defect in software ACR.
-
evgeny, I need to check further, but I think this is because the Phocus and Adobe software embed different camera model names in the DNGs. The profile popup in ACR/LR is keyed off the camera model name, so this would explain why the profiles generated from one DNG won't show up when using the other.
As a workaround, try:
1. Opening 3FR file directly in ACR/LR.
2. Saving as DNG.
3. Feeding DNG to Passport software to build a profile.
4. This profile should be visible when opening 3FR files directly in ACR/LR, opening the DNG (as created in step 2), and FFF files exported from Phocus.
-
This is a defect in ACR.
Actually, I suspect it's a defect in the Phocus software (as Eric says). There was an issue with P-65+ backs from Capture One as well. Saving a DNG from C1 added a space between the P and the 65+ (P 65+ instead of P65+so when ACR/LR read the device name, it's didn't match the metadata when saving a DNG from ACR or DNG Converter. Phase One had to fix C1 to make it quit adding the space in the device name. Ping the Phocus engineers about it...
-
Well, there certainly is a difference in 3.5, but I don't know what it means.
Before, we had Adobe Profile or Hasselblad Profile available in the Camera Calibration panel. Now, we have Adobe Profile and Camera Profile and something called "Matrix", which didn't seem to be there in 3.4.
So what the devil is "Matrix"?
John
-
Well, there certainly is a difference in 3.5, but I don't know what it means.
Before, we had Adobe Profile or Hasselblad Profile available in the Camera Calibration panel. Now, we have Adobe Profile and Camera Profile and something called "Matrix", which didn't seem to be there in 3.4.
So what the devil is "Matrix"?
John
Matrix is there for backwards compatibility. Adobe suggests you use the Camera Profile.
-
evgeny, I need to check further, but I think this is because the Phocus and Adobe software embed different camera model names in the DNGs. The profile popup in ACR/LR is keyed off the camera model name, so this would explain why the profiles generated from one DNG won't show up when using the other.
As a workaround, try:
1. Opening 3FR file directly in ACR/LR.
2. Saving as DNG.
3. Feeding DNG to Passport software to build a profile.
4. This profile should be visible when opening 3FR files directly in ACR/LR, opening the DNG (as created in step 2), and FFF files exported from Phocus.
I did this today after a scheduled work. It works.
Thanks
Evgeny
-
Well this is interesting...
-
I have been trying out Lightroom 3.5 and imported a bunch of files from a Hasselblad H3D-39 from 2006-2009. The files from 2008-2009 imported into Lightroom with no difficulty(and the image quality from Lightroom on these files is exceptional) , but the 2006-2007 files could not not be read and I received a message "Preview Unavailable for This File". I reread the fine print in the Release Notes for Lightroom 3.5 and it does state that only 3F files converted in Phocus are supported. I think Phocus was not released until March, 2008. I had to use Flexcolor prior to that. I doubt there is any plan for Lightroom to "support" the older 3F files, but is there any sort of workaround?
Thanks.
-
Correct, Lr does not read files exported from the older FlexColor software. However, the workaround is that those older files can be read into current Phocus software and exported as DNG, which Lr can then read.
-
Hasselblad file full compatible with Adobe is one good thing.
But Adobe engine is not very good. The graduation tone in LR or ACR is not natural sometimes.
It is like it try to suppress tone to keep highlight and the result is not good.
Try to take a neon glow in the dark in both .jpg and raw you will see the neon glow differently.
-
Correct, Lr does not read files exported from the older FlexColor software. However, the workaround is that those older files can be read into current Phocus software and exported as DNG, which Lr can then read.
Thanks. Will LR still "read" the Hasselblad DNG file the same as if it had been a 3F file?
-
Thanks. Will LR still "read" the Hasselblad DNG file the same as if it had been a 3F file?
Essentially, yes. Of course, the file format is different, but the image data inside is still raw data so you can do the usual things (white balance, change color profiles, apply denoise, sharpening, etc.). And the metadata should be intact.
-
Essentially, yes. Of course, the file format is different, but the image data inside is still raw data so you can do the usual things (white balance, change color profiles, apply denoise, sharpening, etc.). And the metadata should be intact.
Sorry if this is a stupid question. Does LR 3.5 have access to the same raw data when it is a DNG converted in Phocus as opposed to a 3F file that has been imported in Phocus and LR can open directly, so the default settings, camera profile, etc. in the Develop Module that LR 3.5 uses are the same, i.e., there is no difference in the way LR 3.5 handles the file if it is a DNG as opposed to a 3F file?
Thanks.
-
Great great news....
David, i don't see your attachment... are all the DAC Corrections there?
-
Sorry if this is a stupid question. Does LR 3.5 have access to the same raw data when it is a DNG converted in Phocus as opposed to a 3F file that has been imported in Phocus and LR can open directly, so the default settings, camera profile, etc. in the Develop Module that LR 3.5 uses are the same, i.e., there is no difference in the way LR 3.5 handles the file if it is a DNG as opposed to a 3F file?
Correct.
-
Jeff,
So probably mean, its? or maybe, its?
I am from mars, in I like to learn American English.
As a followup to the Phase One/Adobe cooperation if you install ACR 6.6 or LR 3.6 RC's you'll note the addition of 16 lens profiles for Mamiya, Phase One & Schneider lenses for Phase One. So it appears that the cooperation between Adobe and Phase one is indeed going on. (Of course I knew that but couldn't say that at the time).
-
As a followup to the Phase One/Adobe cooperation if you install ACR 6.6 or LR 3.6 RC's you'll note the addition of 16 lens profiles for Mamiya, Phase One & Schneider lenses for Phase One. So it appears that the cooperation between Adobe and Phase one is indeed going on. (Of course I knew that but couldn't say that at the time).
I wonder how far the "cooperation" between Phase and Adobe goes. Hasselblad has publicly stated that the quality of the raw conversions of Hasselblad digital files coming out of LR 3.5 are as essentially as good as the conversions out of Phocus, the proprietary Hasselblad software. Phase One has been notably silent as to the quality of the raw conversions of Phase One IQ 160 and 180 files through LR compared to Capture One. What are your observations? Do you use LR for your Phase One P65+ raw conversions in lieu of Capture One?
-
What are your observations? Do you use LR for your Phase One P65+ raw conversions in lieu of Capture One?
I think that Hasselblad overstepped with their discussion of Adobe/Hasselblad "cooperation". Adobe works with many camera companies and tends to keep their mouths shut about what work is done with what companies. (you'll note the original posted PDF has now been removed–that says something).
Personally, I've been using ACR/Lightroom with my P65+ and IQ180 backs from the beginning. I do use Capture One when I'm shooting tethered but everything I shoot ends up in Lightroom (250K image and counting). I think if you know how to use the application on an expert level, you can get excellent results from pretty much any raw converter (well, except Nikon & Canon's software :~).
I'm pretty good at using ACR/LR...heck, I wrote a book on Camera Raw. I used ACR before the P65+ was officially supported from Adobe. But I had the benefit of having sent samples from my camera to Eric Chan for testing. That kinda helps when you are looking for camera support.
I think Capture One is clearly better at "default" than ACR/LR. But I think ACR/LR's sharpening and noise reduction is superior. Getting optimal color is really a question of mastering the tools each app supplies. I like ACR/LR's global and local controls a bit better (C1 doesn't have a gradient tool for example).
Look, there are no magic bullets...getting the best possible image takes good photo technique as well as good post processing.
-
Jeff or anyone,
How do you get LR/ARC to handle the transition from say a models hair to a light or back lit background? I find this one circumstance where clearly Phocus is better. In LR the same file ends up missing hair or having purple fringes or both where in Phocus there are none. I also find Phocus' shadow lifting tool superior. I don't consider myself an expert in LR nor an amateur. But with much less knowledge and time I can produce a better looking file out of Phocus and actually C1 for that matter. It's great that one can use the DNG files in Lightroom since this makes cataloging much easier, but I'm not at all convinced LR can produce an equal file. Definitely not in the case of using either LCC or Intensity leveling features as far as I know. If someone out there knows of a way, I'm all ears.
Eric
-
Great great news....
David, i don't see your attachment... are all the DAC Corrections there?
Sorry - not sure what happened there? I edited my post a while ago as there was a graphics error on the last page.
When I try to upload it says the document is too large, so Ill need to fix that in the morning.
If you PM me your email address, ill happily send it out.
David
-
I think that Hasselblad overstepped with their discussion of Adobe/Hasselblad "cooperation". Adobe works with many camera companies and tends to keep their mouths shut about what work is done with what companies. (you'll note the original posted PDF has now been removed–that says something).
Why the aggression Jeff?
See post above about the missing PDF. My error but no big mystery.
Lighten up, eh?
David
-
Why the aggression Jeff?
See post above about the missing PDF. My error but no big mystery.
Lighten up, eh?
David
Because I think both you and Hasselblad made an error...Hasselblad for the content of the PDF and you for touting the Adobe/Hasselblad "cooperation" which as I said, Adobe does with a lot of the camera companies, quietly...
-
I know I'll regret this, but it's not unusual for corporations that enter into agreements with each other, to make mention and advertise those agreements.
Phase one at one time briefly mentioned they would offer Leica Lenses for their Phase camera and that they would support the S2 with C-1. I guess that fell through because it was dropped rather quickly, but at the time, it was mentioned by both parties.
Jeff, you mention your cooperation with a number of photographic corporations and since consulting and instruction is part of your business model, I assume it adds credibility.
Nothing wrong with that.
I also am sure many of the companies you have associations with also communicate and consult with other photographers and a lot of that is kept quiet or not worth the mention as both parties see no marketing value, or have other marketing plans.
Still, if Hasselblad offered their information to adobe for Lightroom to hit the exact look of Phocus then I see that as a plus, not a negative and well worth the mention.
I use C-1, lightroom and Raw developer for processing out Phase files. I see all of this as a positive, not a negative and even more of a positive if the companies are cooperating with each other.
IMO
BC
-
Jeff, you mention your cooperation with a number of photographic corporations and since consulting and instruction is part of your business model, I assume it adds credibility.
Nothing wrong with that
To be honest I knew well before the OP's initial post that Phase One and Adobe had "cooperated" together on a lot of stuff...but I was in no position due to NDA's to say anything.
I think Hasselblad (and the OP) overstepped...pure and simple. They (Hasselblad) tried to take undue advantage...that's what I personally didn't like (nor appreciate).
I known for a fact (since I was involved in the discussions) that the working relationship between Phase One & Adobe was healthy and ongoing, but could not say anything...that's the nature of NDA's.
I think the OP made a strategic mistake in posting what was termed an internal document in public.
I think Hasselblad was wrong in their assessment in the motives (I think it was a major mistake to state a strategic position and speculate on Phase One and Adobe's "motives") and thats why I got "aggressive" when describing what was really going on.
I know EXACTLY what's going on...and I'm trying real hard not to fully disclose (and thus break) my NDA's.
Adobe has worked really hard with a variety of camera companies on a whole host of issues...believe me when I say nothing about Hasselblad is particularly unique, ok?
-
To be honest I knew well before the OP's initial post that Phase One and Adobe had "cooperated" together on a lot of stuff...but I was in no position due to NDA's to say anything.
I think Hasselblad (and the OP) overstepped...pure and simple. They (Hasselblad) tried to take undue advantage...that's what I personally didn't like (nor appreciate).
I known for a fact (since I was involved in the discussions) that the working relationship between Phase One & Adobe was healthy and ongoing, but could not say anything...that's the nature of NDA's.
I think the OP made a strategic mistake in posting what was termed an internal document in public.
I think Hasselblad was wrong in their assessment in the motives (I think it was a major mistake to state a strategic position and speculate on Phase One and Adobe's "motives") and thats why I got "aggressive" when describing what was really going on.
I know EXACTLY what's going on...and I'm trying real hard not to fully disclose (and thus break) my NDA's.
Adobe has worked really hard with a variety of camera companies on a whole host of issues...believe me when I say nothing about Hasselblad is particularly unique, ok?
I do have a name Jeff?
It was not a mistake to post the document as it contains useful information to customers about the differences between using Lightroom and Phocus, thats all?
I don't understand why you are getting so het up about it? I am sure if it was a Phase One Adobe title you would be very excited about it?
Relax OK? Ill repost the PDF shortly.
David
-
I am still having attachment issues! Even though it is less MB's than permitted by the forum it still gets rejected?
Anyway, I have uploaded it to my dropbox. So if anybody would like a copy, please PM and I'll forward the download link. Even you Jeff! ;)
David
-
I am still having attachment issues!
David
David you may want to rephrase that ;)
-
David you may want to rephrase that ;)
I might eh!
-
I don't understand why you are getting so het up about it? I am sure if it was a Phase One Adobe title you would be very excited about it?
Uh huh...I'm not a particularly strident Phase One "fan boy" David...yes, I use a Phase One but I also use Canon and more recently a Panasonic GH2. I don't make a particularly big thing about what I use...
Look, with regards to the PDF, I have no problem with the vast majority of the document...I do note however that the odds of Hasselbad running the document by Adobe before its release is pretty slim. If they did, the odds are Adobe would have told Hasselblad the official name of the product in discussion; Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® (note the ® which Adobe requires for the first reference to a product in a document–I know, I've had to go through Adobe legal many times). If Hasselblad unilaterally released this document to the public before getting Adobe's blessing, I'm wondering to what extent there's actually a lot of cooperation with Adobe going on.
But the real problem I have is the following:
"A few words about one competitor
Adobe Lightroom or Camera Raw does not offer profile generated Lens Corrections for Phase One raw
files - only manual adjustments can be applied. Neither can you say that the image quality in Capture
One and Lightroom is compareable. Reasons are most probably related to that Adobe and Phase One
compete for the same customers and therefore probably do not cooperate closely."
That is horseshit...
Hasselblad has no friggin' clue how much cooperation Adobe has or doesn't have with Phase One...Adobe tends to keep their cooperation with various camera companies quiet. Some companies have cooperated to the extent they actually use DNG as a capture file format (Hasselbald did at one point and killed it in a firmware update claiming DNG wasn't up to the task of carrying the needed capture data–which was bogus).
I happen to know how much cooperation there is going on between Phase One and Adobe...and considering the fact that Adobe HAS released 16 lens profiles for various lenses in the LR 3.6 & ACR 6.6 RC's (more than for Hasselblad BTW) and Adobe supports all of the Phase One camera backs, the statement above is simply not true.
If you do post the PDF, you might want to edit out the above statement by Hasselblad from the document–oh, & maybe call Adobe's products by their official names?
:~)
-
WOW!!! ::) Some peeps here sure r full of themselves &/or anytime any postings happen that is @ Hasselblad, they just go ballistic. Last time I opened my Photoshop or my Camera Raw, it did not give credit to HRH.
Please, no need to rip someone's head-off just because you have a hatred toward other brand, ease up!! Last I checked this has been a very civilized & informative forum. We can make our own decisions. Most of all we are all highly intellectual professionals & some of us are also with advanced degree, I with Masters in Engineering.
-
Please, no need to rip someone's head-off just because you have a hatred toward other brand, ease up!!
David asked why I was upset, so I told him...no head ripping involved. And I don't hate Hasselblad...I used to love Hasselblad and used one for years and made a ton of money with it. But if I think somebody crosses a line, I feel duty bound to point that out. So, I did.
-
duty bound
Did you use the word 'duty' because of a business or financial relationship or rather some kind of deep sense of justice? I've no horse in this game, just curious.
I'm happy that there is some cooperation among the MFDB makers and software makers and would like to see a lot more. What I'd really like to see is a way to have one big catalog of files be opened and read by any of the apps and not need to sync any of the others. Imagine working in C1 or Phocus for some jobs because it made more sense, but being able to rank and keyword and then close and open LR3 and see all that because it makes better web galleries and prints or made more sense for whatever reason.
-
Did you use the word 'duty' because of a business or financial relationship or rather some kind of deep sense of justice? I've no horse in this game, just curious.
A sense of correctness...a lot of guys at Adobe are long term friends that I've worked with for a long time. I don't like it when somebody tries to take advantage (my term) of what is a normal attempt at advancing the industry–which is what I think Adobe (or at least the Camera Raw team) tries to do...yes, Adobe and Hasselblad worked together...so did Phase One, so did Leica, so did Pentax and Samsung...there was nothing particularly special about what Hasselblad and Adobe did together...Adobe does that all the time (and tends not to beat their chests about).
Yes, I'm somewhat protective of the impression people have of Adobe largely because "Adobe" is a company but the it's the people who do the work. I know how much Thomas Knoll does to help the industry...Eric Chan is cut from the same cloth. I think it's wrong for a company to try to take undue advantage...
Phase One gave Adobe the lens data needed to create lens profiles for LR 3.6/ACR 6.6. Eric Chan made the profiles from the supplied data. Yes, it seems Hasselblad provided lens data before Phase One did–hence Hasselblad lenses being supported one version quicker than Phase One. Did Hasselblad's working with Adobe "inspire" Phase One to play ball with Adobe? Maybe...I personally think it's more a factor of timing...Hasselblad lenses got supported before Phase One. By a factor of 1 version...personally, I'm glad that both Hasselblad and Phase One are BOTH working with Adobe. It marks a good development. I had problems with the one specific paragraph in the PDF because I know it's horseshit...
Look, it boils down to a win/win proposition vs a win/lose proposition. Adobe working with both Hasselbald and Phase One is a win/win. It's good for the industry (the end users). So, Hasselblad didn't need to take the shot across the bow with that one paragraph they slipped in. It's clearly now wrong...so it's inappropriate for Hasselbald to say.
-
Jeff,
Relax, life still beautiful, don't die before the year end.
After you dead, we (yes I said WE) going to miss you for a month or two, after that,
you gone, in someone else, WILL come to take your place, I will be sad if you die before Xmas,
(yes I said me) if I come to the computer (only)
so relax.
-
Well sure enough, the lens profiles are there. Awesome!
Works very well. This was shot with my H3DII-31 and 35-90 lens. Distortion correction worked quite nicely...
(http://www.symbolphoto.com/other/KarenRyanPreview1.jpg)
(I shoot lots of couples... no fancy model stuff this time :) )
-
Jeff
I was astonished to read the series of posts on this subject and particularly the vitriolic tone of your own posts. I and many others have long held the view that there is a structural bias (some call it preference) for P1 products on this site. I wonder whether you would have been any where near so vitriolic if it had been the other way around and it was P1 making such a statement?
-
I wonder whether you would have been any where near so vitriolic if it had been the other way around and it was P1 making such a statement?
If Phase One had written the same offensive paragraph I quoted, yes, I would. Again, most of the document is fine and dandy...Hasselblad should have resisted the temptation to say "A few words about one competitor".
I actually think that releasing that document in the public was a mistake. It was marked internal and I suspect nobody really groomed the text.
-
Everybody makes mistakes...
Jeff, perhaps in the case of the document that offended you, a long chain of people were involved and somewhere the wording got altered by marketing types who were not aware the details. Deliberate intention to mislead? Probably not. Stuff happens. Think about it - who has come out looking the worst from all of this - you personally or HB?
-
Everybody makes mistakes...
Jeff, perhaps in the case of the document that offended you, a long chain of people were involved and somewhere the wording got altered by marketing types who were not aware the details. Deliberate intention to mislead? Probably not. Stuff happens. Think about it - who has come out looking the worst from all of this - you personally or HB?
:)
-
You see Jeff, I do remember the days when Rob Galbraith Forum was in full swing, before it was shut down because of all 'Cyber bullying" took place. You had real strong words even then @ Hasselblad. Seems like you look between the lines, whenever anything @ Hasselblad is posted. So after many years of consistant arrogant tone of ALL your posts, I for one get real tired of it.
If anyone has any doubt I am sure the history of your posts attests to that fact that you always put peeps down. Peeps are allowed to have their thoughts & opine @ it in this good old US of A.
This IS all I have to say @ this matter, period..
-
Well . . .
Now that David has kindly sent me a link to the original pdf I can at last see for myself what all the fuss has been about. Despite being a Hasselblad fanatic to the core (and owning an unhealthy amount of their gear) I have to say that I agree with Jeff, and I do not think that he is making a fuss about nothing.
The pdf has all the signs of being a hasty draft, rushed out without any proper review or editing. There are grammatical errors all over it, which is very unusal for Hasselblad documentation. The reference to Lightroom is not properly formatted as Jeff says with the correct trademark. It also has a rather self-congratulatory tone, which as Jeff says is unwarranted because other camera makers have been cooperating closely with Adobe for years. And the paragraph referring to the "competitor" - Phase One - is frankly risible, even in its revised form.
All of this is a great shame, because it obscures the fact that Hasselblad and Adobe have jointly greatly enhanced the Lightroom interface for Hasselblad users, which can only be a good thing.
John
-
You had real strong words even then @ Hasselblad. Seems like you look between the lines, whenever anything @ Hasselblad is posted.
I suspect the discussion about Hasselblad on RG's forum related to their removing DNG as a file format option which did piss me off because I had worked with Christian Poulsen of Imacon/Hasselblad and Thomas Knoll from Adobe to get DNG into the camera backs as an option. When Hasselblad decided to close off their system one of the things they did was do a firmware update for the backs that removed the DNG option. Christian claimed DNG was not capable of carrying all the camera data, Thomas didn't agree. Note, at the time I didn't even own a MFDB but I had close ties to Imacon and tried to work with Hasselblad. That didn't work out...
So I now think it's ironic that since Christian is gone there's a new leaf being turned over at Hasselblad. They are to be congratulated for trying to work with Adobe now...but really, it's not at all unusual nor unique.
-
Think about it - who has come out looking the worst from all of this - you personally or HB?
HB...
-
Everybody makes mistakes...
This conversation is so 1999.
Does anybody really care who worked with adobe first . . . Hasselblad or Phase One?
At least in the world of producing images for a living, (not consulting about images) nobody cares about who did what first.
We just care about buying what we need, shooting the gig and getting it done in the best way possible.
Anyone today that even thinks about buying an expensive system, actually any camera system, would probably assume they could process the file in ay processor, just like they do their Canon, Nikon, Pentax, files.
And to top it off, if you work with outside retouchers . . . any good retoucher will 99.99999 percent of the time process out the file in Photoshop's raw convertor, in whatever version they have.
I know I've purchased licenses of C-1 and Lightroom for our retouchers and we always send a processed and worked guide tiff and when they do process out a file they go to photoshop's raw conversion.
They could care less about pincushioning, lens corrections, ca because they're gonna fix it anyway.
Since I buy and use professional cameras, I don't care about pdfs because all the manufacturers including phase have made announcement boners about where, when and what. In the software-geek-electronic world you can double that ratio.
During annouceakina you can quadruple that number.
I own two Phase backs and they work fine, but I feel that if there is not a negative bias towards hasselblad, there is an obvious pro Phase bias that tones a lot of discussions.
Anyway.
Rather than this type of brand beating brand I'd love to see the makers concentrate on their product and just make it more useable in today's world.
At least Dave who works for Hasselblad comes out and gives information and responds in open court. Nobody from Phase does that, as they seem to inform behind the wall of dealers and surrogates.
Not that either style is right or wrong, though I'd rather here information direct from a company, because at least there is an obvious agenda to put their products first.
I give Hasselblad credit for talking straight on and if they misquote, or make a mistake, then it will be noticed, though I doubt seriously if anyone really cares about that pdf or any pdf.
Yair of Leaf and the Jim Jannard of RED are out in there also taking the hits and giving direct response.
There is something to be said for that.
IMO
BC
-
HB...
Bzzzzzzz, wrong.
-
This conversation is so 1999.
Does anybody really care who worked with adobe first . . . Hasselblad or Phase One?
At least in the world of producing images for a living, (not consulting about images) nobody cares about who did what first.
We just care about buying what we need, shooting the gig and getting it done in the best way possible.
Anyone today that even thinks about buying an expensive system, actually any camera system, would probably assume they could process the file in ay processor, just like they do their Canon, Nikon, Pentax, files.
And to top it off, if you work with outside retouchers . . . any good retoucher will 99.99999 percent of the time process out the file in Photoshop's raw convertor, in whatever version they have.
I know I've purchased licenses of C-1 and Lightroom for our retouchers and we always send a processed and worked guide tiff and when they do process out a file they go to photoshop's raw conversion.
They could care less about pincushioning, lens corrections, ca because they're gonna fix it anyway.
Since I buy and use professional cameras, I don't care about pdfs because all the manufacturers including phase have made announcement boners about where, when and what. In the software-geek-electronic world you can double that ratio.
During annouceakina you can quadruple that number.
I own two Phase backs and they work fine, but I feel that if there is not a negative bias towards hasselblad, there is an obvious pro Phase bias that tones a lot of discussions.
Anyway.
Rather than this type of brand beating brand I'd love to see the makers concentrate on their product and just make it more useable in today's world.
At least Dave who works for Hasselblad comes out and gives information and responds in open court. Nobody from Phase does that, as they seem to inform behind the wall of dealers and surrogates.
Not that either style is right or wrong, though I'd rather here information direct from a company, because at least there is an obvious agenda to put their products first.
I give Hasselblad credit for talking straight on and if they misquote, or make a mistake, then it will be noticed, though I doubt seriously if anyone really cares about that pdf or any pdf.
Yair of Leaf and the Jim Jannard of RED are out in there also taking the hits and giving direct response.
There is something to be said for that.
IMO
BC
Very well said!
-
Bzzzzzzz, wrong.
+1
-
"announcement boners "
made me chuckle. a pity the medium format world is full of them.
-
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thnx Mr. Cooter.
-
Actually, I would love to see a thread in which people from companies within the industry get their chance to speak, biases and all. Nothing to do with photographs - just business voyeurism. Some of us find a candid snapshot of a business more interesting than a model.
The official corporate line is rarely revealing. From the troops, in contrast, you get emotion and a much rawer view of what is happening within the company. Fun to follow and that is why there are rumor mill sites for various industries. Hard to keep internal secrets when the sales, support or development forces can vent on line.
Suggestion, start a "photography rumor mill" thread for our general amusement. Layoffs, bad managers, working conditions, secret projects, negotiations between companies, etc. Any photography company is fair game - just imagine what the people at Kodak are saying around the water coolers, for example. Posters could be anonymous and eveyone knows it is pure piffle.
-
I laugh my ass off every time someone gets this worked up about something.
Unlike some folks i'm out there shooting every day. I don't have time for this bickering... My own personal take on the matter is that Hasselblad has been kicked around on forums ever since they went 'closed'.
Well they are finally doing some kicking back and suddenly it's like Hasselblad is the devil. Right..... That's my take. Yes, i'm a very happy Hasselblad owner. The updates and stuff they've done in the last couple of months has been amazing and i'm very happy with their products. So call me biased.
-
I laugh my ass off every time someone gets this worked up about something.
Unlike some folks i'm out there shooting every day. I don't have time for this bickering... My own personal take on the matter is that Hasselblad has been kicked around on forums ever since they went 'closed'.
Well they are finally doing some kicking back and suddenly it's like Hasselblad is the devil. Right..... That's my take. Yes, i'm a very happy Hasselblad owner. The updates and stuff they've done in the last couple of months has been amazing and i'm very happy with their products. So call me biased.
+1 LOL ;D
-
+1 LOL ;D
unfortunately I have no idea why you are happy. well of course the guys are doing something (a developing), well the company has a good investor. but unfortunately many were destroyed by last year. These small incidents /mistakes happen too often. is the result of bad management, all the time there is no communication within the organization. since the president did not talk to their employees .... This testifies about something. 3 years ago it was inconceivable. of course I'm biased ;)
-
HB...
you lose time and nerves. They are not worth it. you know your value. you did so much for this industry. better do something useful.
-
+1
you are an ordinary servant!!!
SHAME >:(
-
unfortunately I have no idea why you are happy. well of course the guys are doing something (a developing), well the company has a good investor. but unfortunately many were destroyed by last year. These small incidents /mistakes happen too often. is the result of bad management, all the time there is no communication within the organization. since the president did not talk to their employees .... This testifies about something. 3 years ago it was inconceivable. of course I'm biased ;)
I think that we are all aware that you are biased and most sensible people will discount your criticism accordingly. Not so sure that I like your personal comments though and would suggest that you learn some manners.
-
I think that we are all aware that you are biased not to actually prejudiced and most sensible people will discount your criticism accordingly. Not so sure that I like your personal comments though and would suggest that you learn some manners.
This pdf is an example of good manners ;D
-
Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Please everyone, return to civil discourse.
Michael
-
snip...
And to top it off, if you work with outside retouchers . . . any good retoucher will 99.99999 percent of the time process out the file in Photoshop's raw convertor, in whatever version they have.
I know I've purchased licenses of C-1 and Lightroom for our retouchers and we always send a processed and worked guide tiff and when they do process out a file they go to photoshop's raw conversion.
They could care less about pincushioning, lens corrections, ca because they're gonna fix it anyway.
Since I buy and use professional cameras, I don't care about pdfs because all the manufacturers including phase have made announcement boners about where, when and what. In the software-geek-electronic world you can double that ratio.
During annouceakina you can quadruple that number.
Exactly.
Honestly guys, do you really care/see/apreciate "magic properties" in any of those, with or without collaboration? I don't get it. We will be in PS with 50 layers for whatever and therefore I'm missing a point here.
Why this topic is getting hot and sensitive?
-
Why this topic is getting hot and sensitive?
It's winter, Fred, gotta keep warmed up or risk a chill! Unfortunately, nothing very sensitive anywhere around these parts of northern Mallorca...
;-)
Rob C
-
It's winter, Fred, gotta keep warmed up or risk a chill! Unfortunately, nothing very sensitive anywhere around these parts of northern Mallorca...
;-)
Rob C
Hey, Rob.
Nice to see you again!
Winter...time to shut down the computers, forget about Phase or Hassy or ACR and loose one's self in the warm sheets of a gorgeous striking brunette.
-
Winter...time to shut down the computers, forget about Phase or Hassy or ACR and loose one's self in the warm sheets of a gorgeous striking brunette.
Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit ;)
I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.
John
-
Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit ;)
I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.
John
Losing myself in the sheets ain't where it's at: finding the brunette there is the name of the game. Or at least, as I would rather play it, but I need a few hints on what to do if/when I find one (brunette not sheet) - my memory is not what it used to be, you know.
Fred, why did you start all this? There I was, happy in my solitude, and then you had to go wake me up!
Rob C
-
John: But the good thing of Cooter is that he has retouchers, special FX studios, gaffers, cleaning ladies, assistants, massagists, healph trainers and great restaurants to put on weight on the street corner, with nice californian wine etc...weight that he simply looses with one motion assignment with zero diet.
That makes the insanity of the commercial world more fun.
Rob, I'm sorry
...but the infinite path of wisdom is to accept that in life, everything is unpermanent...well, normally. Picasso was a beast until the last minute according to his wife number ? (can't remember).
-
Well that certainly would be a nice option to have, dammit ;)
I will take you to task on one small point, however, Fred - there are a few of us out here printing nice photos who never go anywhere near PS, let alone 50 layers of it. That's just for the insane commercial world you and BC inhabit.
John
John,
I somewhat understand where you are coming from, but if you will step back for a moment and look at image making in general, there is a trickle down theory.
It always starts at the sharp end, usually from images most people find uncomfortable or in an area that don't want to be involved in.
Way before digital, Ansel Adams was working with large cameras and an exposure technique that was copied by photographers for generations in all genres, from snapshots to industrial photography.
Photographic styles from Weston on the fine art level to Guy Bordin on the high end of fashion found their way trickling down to all forms of image making.
That's just the process of how we perceive images and what goes from rare and unique to standard mainstream as the public tastes catch up with the artist's vision.
More so today with the easy ability to access almost any image and style in the world and emulate it to your personal or professional work.
Not that I'm a fan of that, but unique images or style pretty much go mainstream the moment they hit the internet.
Now in regards to 50 layers of photoshop, that's not as difficult or exotic as you would think.
These three images are a good example
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/no_retouch_copy.jpg)
The top image has no retouching, just manipulation, first in Lightroom, secondarily in photoshop with a dozen layers.
I spent less time in photoshop than I did in lightroom.
The second image the same, except there is some client directed retouching on the background, but overall, if I showed you the original out of Lightroom, vs. the final, the look isn't that much different.
The third image has no retouching at all, except some slight cleanup on the white background. The face has never seen a clone stamp, a dodge layer, or one bit of warping, liquifying, anything other than some color adjustment through layers in photoshop.
Now in regards to cameras, what camera was chosen was to reach a final look in post.
The first image is from a p21 because I find the 18mp size and lack of an aa filter allows for some over-sharpening effects in post.
The second image was a 1ds3, because it's heavy AA filter and higher iso allowed for a softer look and working with continuous lights inside and I need faster focus and the third image was a p30+ as I knew going in I wanted to do some cropping for the various formats the magazine required.
As far as crew, it depends. The bottom image was 4 people, the top image 6, the middle image 12. The middle image mainly due to client requests.
So John, I respect you can work in any way you want, but to deny a tool like photoshop in todays digital world, is comparable to always shooting in your backyard because it's close.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for reminding of Guy Bourdin James !
It's been a while since I haven't thought about his work, in fact years and years and your post re-connected me with him. Great work.
By the way, I find some of your image series (I'm thinking of the Leica M ones) in the very same line-quality.
http://www.guybourdin.org/
-
James
Your pictures are absolutely smashing and consummately professional of course. They are also not anything like the stuff I do, obviously.
The difference is, it seems to me, that you do photography for a living and as a professional, and I do it just for fun and because I want to. And I have no client to satisfy. If I did, I would probably be getting my order in for CS5 very rapidly.
John
-
James
Your pictures are absolutely smashing and consummately professional of course. They are also not anything like the stuff I do, obviously.
The difference is, it seems to me, that you do photography for a living and as a professional, and I do it just for fun and because I want to. And I have no client to satisfy. If I did, I would probably be getting my order in for CS5 very rapidly.
John
John
I find myself in the same situation as you. In my case some of my photography is used professionally but generally only as a nicely taken record of an historic building. I do use PS CS5 but only in a primitive way (resizing, levels and sharpening) but I am seeing more and more of my photography friends acquiring and using PS skills in their photography.
In fact I think I need to go on a course and catch up! I guess all that has happened is that digital photography has now reached the same level of complexity as B&W photography did many years ago but without the dust and the smells.
-
Going back to the topic.
As Jeff mentioned. Both these companies have not done anything revolutionary now. DNG format in those days was a revolution. It had for this one basic flaw. A terrible inertia in updating ACR. That was the reason why Christian Poulsen did not see the future in this solution. Inhibited the development of his product. But the idea was close to him. The biggest problem faced by the branch - we get products that are not with each other fully compatible. You take a pictures with P1, you get a wonderful program, but unfortunately retoucher must use another tool. here the problems begin. Not all data is transmitted, we have a problem with noise (the quality is worse than in the native raw converter ). So we get only half measures. The same is true in the case of Phocus, the files are read by the ACR, but not everything works. (The quality is better in Phocus). And in an ideal world we should forget about it all.No matter what software you use what you need to get quality provided by the manufacturer (best possible). A solution is very easy. After all, you can create a mechanism in which one could load the engine manufacturer's raw file. (Plugin) for processing applications (photoshop, lightroom, gimp, software for keying). In this case, the user load engine for example to Photoshop, and could enjoy the excellent quality. Such an engine would provide equipment manufacturer ... The idea is very easy.
Unfortunately this is not apparently in the interest of manufacturers.
-
no one wants to make his work has become easier and more enjoyable? regardless of brand name hardware and software you use?
-
David, Lightroom must be pretty close to processing photos similarly to Phocus. When i was in Phocus, i always felt images were a tad on the green tint side. Now in Lightroom it's similar when i follow those settings in the PDF. Still great color, but i always trend to magenta just a tiny bit.
Works great regardless, i'm very happy with the colors.
-
Phocus is the best-featured FREE general SLR Raw converter on the market.
So, let's all applaud Hasselblad for their philantropy!
Phocus gives you access to the Aperture converter code for free (although you get that in iPhoto and Preview too).
Edmund
-
Phocus is the best-featured FREE general SLR Raw converter on the market.
So, let's all applaud Hasselblad for their philantropy!
Phocus gives you access to the Aperture converter code for free (although you get that in iPhoto and Preview too).
Edmund
So you could agree with me, that today all these manufactures wasting time. They could focus on developing new products like:cameras, new matrix, focusing system, and push to the limit existing matrix. But they are focused on bulding own systems. Camera software should be as simple as posibble. One simple plugin (dev engine) that you could load to all existing graphic aps. In that thinking our industry will be few years ahaed...
-
So you could agree with me, that today all these manufactures wasting time. They could focus on developing new products like:cameras, new matrix, focusing system, and push to the limit existing matrix. But they are focused on bulding own systems. Camera software should be as simple as posibble. One simple plugin (dev engine) that you could load to all existing graphic aps. In that thinking our industry will be few years ahaed...
As Mr. Shewe will explain to you, the way it should be, the way it is meant to be, the way it will be, is that Canon and Nikon make the cameras, Adobe makes the profit. And in the end I think that is what will happen. The only company who will preserve quality is RED who cannot be conveniently Borged because their output does not fit into any existing workflow.
Edmund
PS. Iliah, no disrespect intended, that was a Startrek reference ;D
-
I completely disagree. The primary reason raw conversion software is as good as it is now is because the various software makers continually push each other to get better. There is no single correct way to process a given raw file, basic calibration steps notwithstanding.
-
As Mr. Shewe will explain to you, the way it should be, the way it is meant to be, the way it will be, is that Canon and Nikon make the cameras, Adobe makes the profit.
The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).
I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.
-
And it would be great if LR3 or ACR could do stuff like LCC and automated CA *easily* like the MFDB makers software can. Once Adobe gets there we might not need to use C1 and Phocus daily. As it is now, even with all the 'cooperation' I still can't use LR3 to even catalog my ixpress 528 files let alone process them without going to the trouble of converting, but I still have to go back to Phocus for LCC and use of color profiles not made in the little adobe profile tool. Same with the phase and leaf files I have. It's a bummer really that I can't put it all in the catalog.
-
The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).
I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.
If all hardware makers will use DNG file (and file structures will could be extended ), and adobe will lunch updates let say ones a 2 months. I think it would be right route. But...
As I know this market, they will never agree each other in this area.
Of course I could be wrong...
Where is sense that everybody use diverent files?? And if they need to do something more with files they need to use 3rd party software. But evrytime they loose somethig. It's really stupid...
If you have a system, all parts of this system shoud be cinsistant.
-
Eric, Jeff,
*first of all apologies for spelling Jeff's name wrong*
I see we are all in agreement that cameras and converters will only improve by competition.
I'm also afraid to say that I would agree with Mr. Schewe that software in the large sense is not something which the camera guys are going to learn how to do in the near future. But at the core of digital cameras design is "codesign" the art of splitting your task into hardware and software.
Jeff says the interface between the camera and the non-proprietary software should take place at the file level, he states the computer should do mainly DNG processing. I disagree - the computer has much more computing power available than the camera, and I think the camera makers would profit from doing more proprietary work on the computer side. An example of this was Hasselblad's 28mm lens which was cheap to make thanks to the software correction applied to the Raws. This gave Hassy a competitive advantage. The same goes for their shift adapter.
My fear is that camera makers are getting de-facto forced into accepting Jeff's argument, because they *cannot* make software (C and N and Leica) or find it less economical (H) they are planning on relying on ACR, and this is going to deprive us of the competition in the "codesign" which would allow the technology of post-correctable lenses to advance. In a sense the best we can hope for then is the Leica model, impeccable classical optical design which yields perfect files from the outset.
As for the competition in Raw converters - I think most of Adobe's competition have basically disappeared anyway, not because they couldn't make nice files, but because they couldn't provide a decent workflow to match Lightroom.
Both points above would be addressed if Adobe would create a clean interface for ACR replacements.
Edmund
The name is Schewe...and you have it almost right. I think Canon and Nikon should indeed concentrate on doing what they have shown themselves very good at–developing really good cameras, sensors and lenses. They should also work towards developing a raw file format standard such as DNG (or some other standard yet to be developed).
I do tend to think it would behove the camera industry to understand that they aren't really good software developers...Capture One is about the only really good 3rd party developer. There are some niche raw software developers doing interesting things with IQ but neither Nikon nor Canon can really engineer great software. It's simply not in their DNA.
-
I can't seem to get ACR or LR to read the IIQs file from PO. Is there only limited support for PO, or is there a way to get LR to recognize an IIQs from the IQ180?
-
In a sense the best we can hope for then is the Leica model, impeccable classical optical design which yields perfect files from the outset.
I think Leica is a perfect example...they decided to adopt DNG as their raw file format (and I suspect there was work behind the scenes between Leica and Adobe to make sure DNG carried the required metadata in the right form. They also adopted Lightroom as their base software. All their lenses (as far as I know, maybe only recent lenses) are also supported for lens corrections. If finicky Leica can adopt DNG and Lightroom and remain concentrated developing cameras, sensors and lenses, I think Leica is leading the way...
BTW, there IS a way of doing LCC when converting to DNG. The LCC correction has to be properly imbedded in the Opcodes in DNG and the correction will be applied upon processing. Unfortunately there's no manual way of doing that in ACR or LR–there's no UI for it. But the camera maker's software could do that or somebody could write a utility to do it.
-
I can't seem to get ACR or LR to read the IIQs file from PO. Is there only limited support for PO, or is there a way to get LR to recognize an IIQs from the IQ180?
ACR 6.5 and LR 3.5 should read IQ180 files...my files are read whether or not I've used TIFF or IIQ files...they also read Sensor + files as well. How are you getting the IQ 180 files out of Capture One into ACR/LR? Note, the C1 corrections won't be applied...
-
Leica is a perfect example because Adobe makes less money of an S2 or an M9 than Leica, so having Adobe do their software makes sense and lets them concentrate on hardware.
But now take a Canon Rebel, which costs $500 or something, and then the enthusiast user is supposed to go out and get Lightroom ($200) and Photoshop ($200) which cost Adobe zilch marginal cost to sell over the net. In the end the user has spent maybe $1200 in camera gear lenses and software, and Adobe has made $400 of profit. Well, it doesn't make sense from Canon's point of view - Canon is making the camera, Adobe is making several times the profit of Canon's sale of that camera.
So in a sense, with our high-end cameras Adobe is selling camera accessories, but for consumer enthusiast models the camera is now economically an accessory input device to the main profit maker which is Adobe.
And let's face it, I don't think Adobe is going to be very happy with any camera company who differentiate themselves enough to threaten the fungibility of input devices ;D
Which is why I believe that we will only see real consumer-level innovation from companies who find some trick to keep the value now going to Adobe for themselves. You can do a lot of innovation if you have $250 of R&D budget available for a $1000 product.
Edmund
PS This scenario played out in the PC world, with IBM, Compaq (remember them?), HP, Dell and many many others making PCs and Microsoft making the profit. Every attempt by the PC makers to differentiate and innovate got nixed. In the end the only company which could innovate was Apple, because it got the added R&D budget and because Microsoft slowed innovation to a crawl at its symbionts. We're heading the same way in the camera world, with fully interchangeable SLRs . I am afraid RED is the only standout as they still control their product end to end.
PPS As a example imagine Marvelous Camera has committed to Lightroom, and makes clone cameras, and now wants to make a camera with a totally new sensor that has several levels of focus. How can they market this? If Adobe don't integrate the converter their innovation is unmarketable! Any company which relies on Lightroom has abdicated control of its destiny.
I think Leica is a perfect example...they decided to adopt DNG as their raw file format (and I suspect there was work behind the scenes between Leica and Adobe to make sure DNG carried the required metadata in the right form. They also adopted Lightroom as their base software. All their lenses (as far as I know, maybe only recent lenses) are also supported for lens corrections. If finicky Leica can adopt DNG and Lightroom and remain concentrated developing cameras, sensors and lenses, I think Leica is leading the way...
BTW, there IS a way of doing LCC when converting to DNG. The LCC correction has to be properly imbedded in the Opcodes in DNG and the correction will be applied upon processing. Unfortunately there's no manual way of doing that in ACR or LR–there's no UI for it. But the camera maker's software could do that or somebody could write a utility to do it.
-
I've now processed about 40 photos in lightroom. I'm very happy with how it's working, as much as i loved Phocus, Lightroom just has a slicker workflow for me. The colors are good and i compared side by side with a file from Phocus. It's pretty darn close.
I think Phocus still has some extra DAC corrections that LR doesn't handle. But i'm very satisfied with the results so far. Good job Hasselblad/Adobe!
-
I've now processed about 40 photos in lightroom. I'm very happy with how it's working, as much as i loved Phocus, Lightroom just has a slicker workflow for me. The colors are good and i compared side by side with a file from Phocus. It's pretty darn close.
I think Phocus still has some extra DAC corrections that LR doesn't handle. But i'm very satisfied with the results so far. Good job Hasselblad/Adobe!
Never Settle for “Good Enough” ;D
-
I'm not settling... that's why i went Hasselblad. :)