Switching from Capture One to Phocus for the X1D?

[sanvandur]

If the Hasselblad X1D is as good as the specs indicate, it will be as close to ideal for my work. Lightweight, small, medium format, leaf shutter, weather sealed, etc. I love my Phase One DF/P30+ kit, but it's bulky, heavy, not weather proofed. I've been a very satisfied Capture One user for many years. It's a huge part of my workflow. So much, that I hardly use Photoshop at all anymore. The X1D is VERY tempting, but from what I've seen of Hasselblad's Phocus, it is far behind Capture One. I'm sure the image quality is great, but it's the lack of features (compared to C1) concerns me. Does anyone have a similar hesitation? Is it worth losing Capture One for the X1D/Phocus? What's it like going from C1 to Phocus? Frustrating, satisfying?
I just wish Phase One would make an AF mirrorless camera. They might lose a lot of photographers in the next few months...

[Paul2660]

With it's latest release with the H6D, Hasselblad added quite a bit to Phocus.  You might try downloading it, I believe it's still free for Hasselblad camera use as C1 DB is for Phase One backs. 

There was a review on LuLa as I remember featuring some of the newer features. 

As for the 2nd part of your post mirrorless from Phase.  I am sure they have something in the works, but when and how much is the question.  Currently all of the Schneider lenses would need an adapter similar to one Hasselblad has announced for their legacy glass.  I would settle for a EVF view finder that would attach to the XF.  Just dreaming.

Paul C

[David Watson]

Having used H Series cameras with Phocus the software choices would in no way impact on my decision to buy the X1D or not.

The combination of RAW conversions using Phocus and Hasselblad cameras is a marriage made in heaven. Accept Phocus for what it is before continuing in Photoshop.

Quite agree.  I use Phocus as the raw converter and for tethered capture.  I then export the TIFF to Lightroom - all works very well.

[Doug Peterson]

If the Hasselblad X1D is as good as the specs indicate, it will be as close to ideal for my work. Lightweight, small, medium format, leaf shutter, weather sealed, etc. I love my Phase One DF/P30+ kit, but it's bulky, heavy, not weather proofed. I've been a very satisfied Capture One user for many years. It's a huge part of my workflow. So much, that I hardly use Photoshop at all anymore. The X1D is VERY tempting, but from what I've seen of Hasselblad's Phocus, it is far behind Capture One. I'm sure the image quality is great, but it's the lack of features (compared to C1) concerns me. Does anyone have a similar hesitation? Is it worth losing Capture One for the X1D/Phocus? What's it like going from C1 to Phocus? Frustrating, satisfying?

You can download Phocus for free and I assume your local Hassy dealer can get you a sample set of 50mp Raws from one of their already shipping 50mp cameras.

Then you can evaluate speed, features, image quality and workflow yourself.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just to remind, TIFFs throw away information and they are 3-6 times fatter than raw files. If you can keep a parametric workflow you still work with the original. Raw conversion breaks parametric workflow.

Best regards
Erik

Quite agree.  I use Phocus as the raw converter and for tethered capture.  I then export the TIFF to Lightroom - all works very well.

[E.J. Peiker]

And here is a third place that the same thread has been started on LULA.  My original answer repeated here:

I have exactly the same hesitation/issue with the X1D.  Simply put, unless I can work the files in C1, it's going to be very difficult for me to get an X1D.  I have used the latest Phocus and it's at best a very rudimentary converter in comparison.  I had asked about the possibility of converting the Hasselbald RAW files to DNG and then using Capture One in the thread about Hasselblad support in C1 here on Lula in the Capture One Forum but got told to go away in that thread by the original author of the thread...  So I never got an answer if any current Hasselblad users are doing that.

[sanvandur]

Thanks Doug Peterson for the tip. I will give the H raw files a whirl in a downloaded Phocus. I sat through a 1hr+ YouTube Phocus tutorial to get an idea of its capabilities. It does all the basics, but that's about it. As far as features go, the current Phocus reminds me of where Capture One was about 5 years ago (give or take). The X1D on its own is remarkable, but -IMO- with only Phocus/Lightroom, it's a hard sell. Phase could really use a mirrorless w/AF right about now (no, the Alpa/P1 offering does not count). The new XF is great, but bigger and heavier than the DF. Plus, it doesn't take older Phase backs. So my future with P1 cameras hangs by a thread right now.

[hjulenissen]

So the MF players make their own raw development SW and make this a part of the "lock-in"? I guess that making a raw developer for camera A is not significantly different from making one for camera B, and both take considerable effort. Big credits to the MF players if they are able to make something that works "better" than Adobe and friends.

But I am amazed that they do this as part of their business plan. Like Toyota making their own gasoline.

-h

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You may consider putting some work into getting LR working your way. Making you own camera profiles is a good starting point.

Phase One has chosen to not support competing MFD systems. So if you need MFD and C1 you go with Team Phase One.

For Hasselblad, Hasselblad makes Phocus that may not be a workflow solution like Lightroom or for that part Capture One. I cannot really tell about C1 as I never made friends with it.

Pentax and Leica have their own embedded DNG profiles for LR, that may be better than Adobe Standard profiles.

There are other excellent raw converters like Iridient's Raw Developer, Raw Therapee or AccuRaw but those may not be a be a workflow solution.

Personally, I use Lightroom with home made profiles. With Lightroom I feel Adobe does not do an optimal processing of non OLP filtered images, but I am a bit oversensitive to aliasing artefacts. But, Lightroom can handle 90% of the images I throw at it without doing PP in Photoshop. So it works for me.

So, if you need Capture One on MFD, buy Team Phase One.

If you can live without Capture One you can use whatever program that comes with your back.

Learning to make best use of a general purpose solution like Lightroom may be a workable solution, too.

But, please don't whine about Phase One not supporting competing backs. That is simple not a part of their business idea. Also, don't expect Phase One to support third part products at the same level as Team Phase One products. Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.

That said, not everyone is that impressed by C1 colour handling. They add a lot yellow to skin tones and use high saturation. Not everyones cup of tea that is…

Best regards
Erik

Thanks Doug Peterson for the tip. I will give the H raw files a whirl in a downloaded Phocus. I sat through a 1hr+ YouTube Phocus tutorial to get an idea of its capabilities. It does all the basics, but that's about it. As far as features go, the current Phocus reminds me of where Capture One was about 5 years ago (give or take). The X1D on its own is remarkable, but -IMO- with only Phocus/Lightroom, it's a hard sell. Phase could really use a mirrorless w/AF right about now (no, the Alpa/P1 offering does not count). The new XF is great, but bigger and heavier than the DF. Plus, it doesn't take older Phase backs. So my future with P1 cameras hangs by a thread right now.

[E.J. Peiker]

Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.

Have you ever heard Phase One explain their process for profiling a camera?  I have from several Phase One employees independently and the amount of work that they put into every camera's profiles is extraordinary and far exceeds what Adobe does.It's one of the reasons why they often don't have C1 ready for new cameras the day they start shipping as they procure actual production cameras and then profile them using a test suite that includes about 700 actual photos to zero in on their profiles.

[sanvandur]

Hi,

You may consider putting some work into getting LR working your way. Making you own camera profiles is a good starting point.

Phase One has chosen to not support competing MFD systems. So if you need MFD and C1 you go with Team Phase One.

For Hasselblad, Hasselblad makes Phocus that may not be a workflow solution like Lightroom or for that part Capture One. I cannot really tell about C1 as I never made friends with it.

Pentax and Leica have their own embedded DNG profiles for LR, that may be better than Adobe Standard profiles.

There are other excellent raw converters like Iridient's Raw Developer, Raw Therapee or AccuRaw but those may not be a be a workflow solution.

Personally, I use Lightroom with home made profiles. With Lightroom I feel Adobe does not do an optimal processing of non OLP filtered images, but I am a bit oversensitive to aliasing artefacts. But, Lightroom can handle 90% of the images I throw at it without doing PP in Photoshop. So it works for me.

So, if you need Capture One on MFD, buy Team Phase One.

If you can live without Capture One you can use whatever program that comes with your back.

Learning to make best use of a general purpose solution like Lightroom may be a workable solution, too.

But, please don't whine about Phase One not supporting competing backs. That is simple not a part of their business idea. Also, don't expect Phase One to support third part products at the same level as Team Phase One products. Just as an example, many users have found that using C1 with colour profiles for the IQ 250 yields better results with the Nikon D800 than using Cature One's D800 profile. How come? My guess is that Phase One puts a lot of efforts in the C1 profiles for IQ-backs.

That said, not everyone is that impressed by C1 colour handling. They add a lot yellow to skin tones and use high saturation. Not everyones cup of tea that is…

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I'm not whining.
And, Capture One actually does support MF cameras in addition to Phase One. The Leica S system, Mamiya/Leaf.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would give Irident Developper a try.

It lacks the workflow capabilities of LR/C1 but still has the best raw conversion IMHO. Profiles and WB interpretatin tend to be a bit on the cool side, but the conversions are beautiful.

As far as Phocus goes, I hear that 3.1 should improve further.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sanvandur]

The reason I started using Capture One was because I acquired a Phase One system. It makes sense to use a RAW converter made by the same manufacturer of a given camera. That is my thought process. So, if I go the X1D route, I'd go in committing to Phocus. Any "workaround", IMO, would defeat the purpose of using a high end camera.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you are looking for a workflow solution, my guess is that you won't be happy with Phocus. If you want a raw converter, that converts your images to TIFF that you process in Photoshop you will probably be quite happy with Phocus.

My experience is with a bunch of Sony cameras and a P45+ back. Neither is supported by Phocus.

With the Sony's and the P45+ I feel that Lightroom gives me much more control than C1, but I have been using LR since public beta 3 back in 2006.

I find that C1 handles aliasing better than Lightroom. But, the differences may not be visible in reasonable sized prints (say 40"x60"). Printing large I may use a different raw converter like RawTherapee, Iridient's RawDeveloper or AccuRaw and do all sharpening in FocusMagic.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104708.0

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=94812.0

My personal take is a bit that it if it doesn't work with Lightroom, forget it. That said, I can achieve the results I want with my P45+ and Lightroom. Capture One has a different bias, no doubt, a great converter. It just does not work for me. Here is a short explanation:

Natural scenery often has a great illumination range, say 1:100000. Human vision handles this. Modern sensors may capture like 1:10000, but this is still beyon what we can see in print and screen. Prints are limited to say 1:200 and screen perhaps to 1:500. So going from 1:10000 needs some tone mapping. Adobe introduces content aware tone mapping in the 2012  processing pipeline. This kind of tone mapping cannot be reproduced by shifting curves, as they are dependent on modifying local contrast. Before 2012 I was experimenting with HDR techniques to map tone scales, but with LR's 2012 pipe line I could achieve pretty good results in a quite subtle manner.

C1 has added some content aware tone mapping features in C1 version 9, but I am not sure they can match LR6.

On the other hand, C1 has upper and on aliasing artefacts.

Anyway, I have all my work under LR6, around 90000 images. No way I will switch to another tool that supports my P45+ back slightly better and especially not if I get inferior results. So, yes, I am quite biased towards Lightroom, because it deliver the results I want.

I could probably invest a lot of time in C1 and learn to match the rendition I get from Lightroom, but that would be like walking past the bridge for water.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I'm not whining. I'm simply asking a question.

[scyth]

Have you ever heard Phase One explain their process for profiling a camera? 

everything that you need to know is in http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0

[scyth]

And, Capture One actually does support MF cameras in addition to Phase One... Mamiya/Leaf.

Mamiya/Leaf are part of P1 nowadays

[ErikKaffehr]

Whmm,

Have you actually tried it?

I am using DCamProf with Lightroom, but using it with C1 is a bit more complex.

Best regards
Erik

everything that you need to know is in http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100015.0

[NickT]

C1 is obviously a very featured piece of software. Phocus is basically a RAW converter and not intended to compete with C1.

If you want C1 to support FFFs ask Phase One, (hint they won't).

Phocus does an excellent job converting RAW file and the lens corrections for HC and HCD lenses are better than any other software bar none.

I happen to be a fan of Hasselblad's colour solution rather than having to pick a profile based on the subject, (btw what do you pick when you have a model holding a product?).

If C1 is where you want to be then yes you could export DNGs from Phocus but you'd be sacrificing quality and losing Phocus' secret sauce.

My workflow (mostly tethered) is do the heavy lifting in Phocus then export Tiffs into Lightroom for tweaking and cataloguing.

I have to say the more I use Lightroom the more I like it, glad I didn't invest too much time learning Aperture!

Hope that helps.

[BernardLanguillier]

I have started to play with Phocus a bit on my D810 files and I like the conversions. The colors are nice and the rendering of details is very natural with default settings.

Obviously I am sure it does an even better job on the Hassy files for which it was designed.

What I liked:
- clean UI
- basic functions are there

What I didn't like:
- slow performance when browsing folders with many images
- lack of some key features I often use in my C1 Pro workflow such as: vertical corrections, luminance curve to mention the 2 most obvious ones.
- I wasn't able to use some of the features such as highlight recovery, but I guess those only work on Hassy files

I am looking forward to version 3.1. I feel that there is a sound code base here that must be enriched in the coming releases. One thing is sure, Phocus is far from being as terrible as I had heard even if it isn't as mature as C1 Pro.

Cheers,
Bernard

[scyth]

Have you actually tried it?

since the very beginning (when it became public on this very site)... the author eventually created the very detailed manual/tutorial where you can see what you need to do for C1 (like "transfer function", what it is and how to get it)... naturally P1 OEM profiles (like non repro) do include some subjective manipulation (by creators) with LUT (like making skin tones more "golden" so to say) - but then it has nothing to do with the raw converter itself and where in the pipeline the part of color transform encoded in icc/icm container is applied... so apart from this subjectivity you have everything that you need in DCamProf... and even some options to do your own subjective look.