Vincent,
My post was not aimed to anyone in particular but a kind of reaction to some general ideas that have been regularly sprayed in this forum year after year, like for example that C1 is a "more professional" software than Phocus.
It appears to me perfectly fine and desirable that each photographer had a preference in building a system and particular workflow and feel more orientated in using a particular equipment. Testing gear in personal configuration, trying softwares etc...to find what's-best-for-me is part of equation and there is nothing to discuss about it. Now...the use of "professional"
My experience in photography is 90% assisting, in low and high-end and I do know this: you arrive in the studio and they are computers wich characteristics aren't under your control. Generally underpowered and not updated softwares. The session was normally a Canon's but the boss decided to use a Blad also. There is Phocus and C1, Phocus will be used. Nothing to say. IF there is a crash, we can't say, "hey that's bloody phocus wich is not a good program". We simply have to resolve. In my professional experience, I think that not once that I remember I've heard serious complains about a camera or a particular software except in the forums. People are payed (photographer included) to acheive a goal, regardless of the limitations of the equipment.
We can't come with excuses, cameras-softwares-hardwares complains, or not knowing how to solve an issue. It has to be done. If not, they won't call you back.
I've seen that each time in the past I was barking against an equipment it was mostly because of my lack of mastering it, knowledge issue, not equipment issue.
I did that, we all do it, but I think there is a time with experience that the equipment becomes very very relative if not irrelevant.
I can make mistakes, but I can't not solving my mistakes and point an external reason by any means.
It's like those endless discussions about how bad the 5d2 files are compared to the MF back...I'm not saying that the MF equipment is not "superior" in many aspect of the IQ but again, in my experience, all I see are people choosing the right equipment for the right purpose. If it has to be a 5D2 it will be a 5D2. In the end, not one client cares about that, all they care is about the final image-cost. If it was done with a 1000$ Pentax APS, developped in Silkipix but the imagery is top, it's OK. You will be taken more seriously than shooting brickwalls with a 180 back.(not targeting anyone in particular here but a general idea)
I've never saw a single photographer built his reputation because of the equipment involved, except the workshopers because it is part of their equation, and there are very few equipment on this planet that really make a difference in one's reputation. Nodody knows or cares in cine if this director used an ARRI or a RED or his gran'ma camera. And ARRI and RED are precisely among the very little exceptions where the brand can have a commercial impact. Any file in this digital world will pass by so many softwares and-or hands before the delivery that all those considerations aren't relevant to me. Today, most if not all cameras and systems are capable to deliver great IQ with a great amount of reliability.
I never had a single crash with Phocus except once at home the very first moment I upgraded, re-boot the computer and it was all fine.
C1 is known to had issues when previous versions where installed and they clearly recommend to desinstall previous versions. I didn't have any crash with C1 either but know some people experienced it. So it is not a Phocus exclusive, it is digital imagery in general and the experiences can be very diverse in that aspect.
I realised that many people can be easily impressed by rather primitive softwares specs, a little bit of filters here, a more complete color correction controls there is enough...the fact that C1 is a more complete and "complex" program than Phocus often makes think that it is a more professional software. I don't buy that. It sounds to me a typical amateur statement as I pointed, amateur means in my mind someone how does not earn money with...not someone who is a complete stupid. But it is up to the pro to follow and know the wikenesses of the equipment and been preapared for that.
I spend quite a lot of time in collecting informations about how others have resolved a specific issue. I frankly would prefer to use this time for the fun but in my understanding, it's part of the professional attitude. Every system that I know has wicknesses. I've been complaining on Apple's politics recently about a complex ProRes issue, but in the end I must admit that my complain araised because I was not preapared enough technically. The issue really exists but then my point was irrelevant as a professional. Right or wrong, I just have to deal with it and more importantly, find the way to solve it. At the time I write, I haven't find a satisfactory way to solve the problem, more a DIY solution, but I will because I never give-up.
Testino's team to take an example uses Phocus, and it works, and works perfectly fine. In fact, most of the heavy weights here in Europe use Blad combined with Phocus and another point: it is not rare in the shooting sessions that the PS task is started right live in the session to gain time and money... a raw developper is in the end a simple software but the heavy stuff is PS and I think that if a Phase back is used, C1 should be used, if a blad is used, Phocus should be used; and then, layers, wich is where the heavy work starts.
IMO, if Hasselblad has not filled its Rawdev with zillion options except the srtictly necessaries it is not because they can't but probably they know their market and clients expectations.
Cheers.
