Any Hasselblad users just use Phocus and nothing else?

[hasselblad 503cw]

C1 only for phase one files, no need for any Adobe apps
Phocus only for Hasselblad files, no need for any Adobe apps
I am not editing guy, I dislike PS.

 

[colonel]

I use Phocus first. For macro adjustments, like contrast, recovery, clarity, etc. It can pull some amazing stuff. Then I use lightroom to finish off, e.g. crops, content removal, etc.

 

[tenmangu81]

I didn't observe any difference for my pictures between processing with Phocus or Lightroom since I got my X1D II. So, I decided about a year ago to use Lightroom, as I could save disk space by not converting into TIFF, and because I need a powerful catalogue.
More recently, there was a very clear and deep experiment done by Matt (Grayson) - thanks again, Matt - showing, by image differences, that there is no significant difference between Lightroom and Phocus, at least for the examples he processed. I was then comforted by Matt's work.

 

[MGrayson]

I didn't observe any difference for my pictures between processing with Phocus or Lightroom since I got my X1D II. So, I decided about a year ago to use Lightroom, as I could save disk space by not converting into TIFF, and because I need a powerful catalogue.
More recently, there was a very clear and deep experiment done by Matt (Grayson) - thanks again, Matt - showing, by image differences, that there is no significant difference between Lightroom and Phocus, at least for the examples he processed. I was then comforted by Matt's work.

You're welcome!

To be clear, I was showing the comparison with all adjustments turned off. With some body and lens combinations, the differences with adjustments are larger - especially lens corrections and CA corrections. (Phocus does a much better job with Adaptive CA on non-native lenses). Having said that, I'm perfectly ok with LR for 99% of my photos.

 

[dmecham]

Yes I use Phocus only. Seems to work great. Considering it's a free download can't thing of a reason to use anything else. Tried opening one of my RAW files in Adobe RAW and the colors didn't look right and highlight recovery wasn't as good as Phocus.

 

[sjg284]

What kind of workflow do people use if they use Adobe LR as their primary asset management tool and want to stick to it?
Directly import? Go through Phocus? Do some/all/no editing in Phocus before export to LR? Etc.

Would be interested what works for others here.

907X 100C user if it matters.

 

[dmecham]

I use only Phocus for RAW conversion to TIFF files. Then Photoshop after the conversion. Works great and Phocus provides the optical corrections for the Hasselblad lenses.

 

[tenmangu81]

What kind of workflow do people use if they use Adobe LR as their primary asset management tool and want to stick to it?
Directly import? Go through Phocus? Do some/all/no editing in Phocus before export to LR? Etc.

Would be interested what works for others here.

907X 100C user if it matters.

I just use Phocus to import and convert the .3FR into .fff. Without any editing at all. Then I open the .fff files within Lightroom. Lightroom could also open .3FR files but .fff files sizes are smaller.
Lens corrections are better with Phocus, more particularly it takes into account lens settings while LR doesn't, but LR corrections are enough as far as I am concerned, as I don't use very wide angle for the time being.

 

[darr]

I have been using Lightroom only, but after reading Robert's and others' import into Phocus and then into Lightroom, I will try it their way.
Thanks, guys!

 

[KlausJH]

I use Phocus for all my Hasselblad files. Most of the time that is all I need. For my Leica and Sony data I use LrC now. When I need stitching, super resolution oder extended masking I import .FFF files to LrC and continue.
Not all adjustments are available in Phocus with non HB raw data. So always a second editing software is needed when different camera makes are used.

 

[Photon42]

I do use Phocus for the initial conversion and that is mostly enough, if there is nothing else required from the magic arsenal of Adobe's tool palette. If I keep the Raw file with Phocus adjustments, I also create a processed JPEG for uploads and such. Lightroom sees both files, but obviously does not display the adjustments from Phocus. I understand the FFF files have calibration applied and removed, thus being quite a bit smaller.

 

[Godfrey]

LR Classic is my standard Image management system, regardless what else I might use to process images. Happily, I find LRC does a decent job with most raw files, including the Hasselblad, and use it a good bit of the time for convenience. I've learned enough to tweak LRC's standard settings such that it doesn't matter too much what other software I might be using..

Phocus works very well for the Hassy files, just adds another pre-process step to my workflow if I choose to use it. If I had nothing else, it would be fine and I'd concentrate more on getting exactly what I wanted in camera without need for much/any processing.

G

 

[Ai_Print]

Since I have close to 1.5M images archived for the past 30 years of work, I don't use LR to catalog or build libraries at all, it makes no sense to do that with all those images and jobs spanning redundantly across several arrays with a capacity North of 300TB. So I use Photo Mechanic and Photo Mechanic Plus which are very fast and do not use or need sparse bundle data sets like LR, Apple Photos, etc do.

But...out of all the file formats and camera types that I use and have used, those darn Hasselblad files are the only ones I find to be a bear to cull after uploading because PM and PM+ will not render thumbs. Bridge kind of works but is clunky as is LR as a DAM. Phocus is just a non starter for evaluating and culling, way too clunky. I'm hoping that with a new subscription model, Camerabits can somehow make an updated version of Photo Mechanic render Hasselblad raw files so I can trim the fat from projects and jobs shot with it.

It's a truly great camera and the files are a dream to work with in post, but editing down to the final archivable set is damn near impossible with these files.

Am I missing out on a great application that can actually facilitate working with these files or are am I forever stuck with no way to easily and quickly cull these Hasselblad files?

 

[dmecham]

One thing that may help with file size is after any major adjustments to the images are completed I'll output the file as an 8 bit TIFF file which makes them roughly 150 mb. As far as the thumbnail creation issue I have no answers.

 

[Niddiot]

Matt Granger - Hasselblad File Management (.3FR vs .FFF)

Get the most out of your Hasselblad files and store the correct .fff format images. We can't use capture one, but we CAN get the best Hasselblad colors and corrections, whilst using lightroom for file management!

www.mattgranger.com

I found this a useful explanation. Going to try Phocus as the Raw converter to .3fr and then use LR as I currently do as catalog. I assume that that the Hasselblad stuff from Phocus is baked in to the .3fr once have been through the conversion but that isnt 100% clear. Been using only LR up to now, not unhappy.

 

[dmecham]

Using Phocus as the first step is best as at least some of the optical corrections and color science is performed using Phocus in the conversion from RAW file. After Phocus I use Photoshop for any further changes needed. I haven't used LR but would imagine it would work fine.

 

[tenmangu81]

One thing that may help with file size is after any major adjustments to the images are completed I'll output the file as an 8 bit TIFF file which makes them roughly 150 mb. As far as the thumbnail creation issue I have no answers.

It is not very safe, IMHO, and as far as colour rendering and gradation is concerned, to start from a rather large colour space such as Hasselblad RGB or L*RGB, and then reduce the information to 8 bits. I think it's far better to stay with 16 bits.

 

[tenmangu81]

Matt Granger - Hasselblad File Management (.3FR vs .FFF)

Get the most out of your Hasselblad files and store the correct .fff format images. We can't use capture one, but we CAN get the best Hasselblad colors and corrections, whilst using lightroom for file management!

www.mattgranger.com

I found this a useful explanation. Going to try Phocus as the Raw converter to .3fr and then use LR as I currently do as catalog. I assume that that the Hasselblad stuff from Phocus is baked in to the .3fr once have been through the conversion but that isnt 100% clear. Been using only LR up to now, not unhappy.

What Matt Granger does is what I am doing. And, for sure, Phocus lens corrections are not kept when opening .fff files within Lightroom. LR has its own corrections (vignetting, distortion, CA,...) which are not as good and extended as in Phocus. But they are good enough for me. And I am not unhappy with Lightroom !!

 

[mristuccia]

I mostly use Phocus only. Have LR but don't use it anymore.

I don't like having to cope with (and risk ruining) catalog databases that I cannot access/hack myself directly.
That's the reason why I maintain a well defined file system folder structure and a naming convention that is enough (for me) to fast search any image/project I'm looking for.

Besides Phocus, which does all exposure/colour grading/lens correction work, I use Photoshop mainly for the following tasks:
- If I need the spot healing brush
- If I need to stitch multiple shots together
- If I need to use the ALPA Lens Correction tool for images with rise/fall or horizontal shift applied by my Cambo WDS.

 

[Godfrey]

The workflow I use is to import the image files to my computer with Lightroom Classic. This allows me to automate exactly where in the original file system I want them to be located, and allows me automation for some IPTC and keyword annotation as well.

LR is completely nondestructive so the raw files on the computer are exactly what was on the card or in the camera's storage. I often just use LR and its supplied lens profiles to render the photos. BUT if I think that Phocus might actually do a better rendering, I start up Phocus, import the selected files, and then do whatever it is I want in Phocus. Once i'm done with Phocus, I output TIFF 16bit files to the original location named "original name.TIFF" rather than .3RF.

Lightroom will then import all the TIFFs with an update on that folder, and I can copy the annotation into the new TIFF renderings.

I've found this to be a pretty useful workflow. And, by and large, Lightroom does a pretty good rendering of Hasselblad 3FR files if you use the lens profiles. There ARE differences, though, so obviously for some things Phocus is the right tool.

Here's a quick example of an image that I rendered in LR with and without the lens profile, and in Phocus, for comparison:


1-LR-no_corrections


2-LR-profile-applied


3-phocus-no_edits

taken with Hasselblad 907x + XCD 21mm f/4
ISO 400 @ f/5.6 @ 1/200 sec @ 21mm

You can download the full resolution images from Flickr if you're so inclined. They're rendered to JPEGs to save space.

G