Any Hasselblad users just use Phocus and nothing else?

[Hasslebad]

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.

I’m not familiar with Hasselblad Raw files. But I have had a good experience with Fast Raw Viewer which swiftly reads through the embedded jpegs in Raw files and is great for quickly culling images. I believe it reads CFV files.

 

[mristuccia]

I’m not familiar with Hasselblad Raw files. But I have had a good experience with Fast Raw Viewer which swiftly reads through the embedded jpegs in Raw files and is great for quickly culling images. I believe it reads CFV files.

I can confirm that FastRawViewer has no problems with 3FR and FFF files, at least with those produced by my CFV-50c Mk I.
I use it sometimes for culling/copying from the CF card to my work disk.

 

[Ai_Print]

I just downloaded Fast Raw Viewer to my 16" M3 Max and it works great with X2D files, ripping fast at that, no heat no matter how fast I swipe across the thumbs. This completely solved my X2D workflow dilemma, huge thanks folks!!!

 

[vjbelle]

Very late to this thread but now that I have a 100C I thought I would give Phocus a try. If there would be any color advantage I would consider using it exclusively - at least to generate an 'fff' file for further processing in camera raw. I ran a test shooting a DataColor Spyderchecker (light generated from GTI Executive Viewing Station) and processed the 3FR file in Camera Raw and also used Phocus to generate an 'fff' file. I didn't do anything else for processing with either method other than to generate a file that Camera Raw could process to 'tif' format. The only variance I noticed was that the histogram in Phocus showed an almost perfect exposure while Camera Raw showed a slight underexposure. The patch measurements also bore this out but once in Bridge they were identical.

I could not see any difference between the two files for any color patch when brought into Bridge. Clicking on either file and staring at a particular patch was an exercise in 'they look identical'. Measurements in Bridge were so close that any differences, to me, were insignificant. For instance I may get a reading of 155 on the 3FR file and 154 on the 'fff' file. One digit was the most variance in any of the patches.

So for me I intend to use Camera raw exclusively unless I need to generate a scene calibration file. I found Phocus more difficult to work with and with more bugs.

For sure there is amazing color with either method - something I have not experienced with other cameras.

Victor B.

 

[MGrayson]

Very late to this thread but now that I have a 100C I thought I would give Phocus a try. If there would be any color advantage I would consider using it exclusively - at least to generate an 'fff' file for further processing in camera raw. I ran a test shooting a DataColor Spyderchecker (light generated from GTI Executive Viewing Station) and processed the 3FR file in Camera Raw and also used Phocus to generate an 'fff' file. I didn't do anything else for processing with either method other than to generate a file that Camera Raw could process to 'tif' format. The only variance I noticed was that the histogram in Phocus showed an almost perfect exposure while Camera Raw showed a slight underexposure. The patch measurements also bore this out but once in Bridge they were identical.

I could not see any difference between the two files for any color patch when brought into Bridge. Clicking on either file and staring at a particular patch was an exercise in 'they look identical'. Measurements in Bridge were so close that any differences, to me, were insignificant. For instance I may get a reading of 155 on the 3FR file and 154 on the 'fff' file. One digit was the most variance in any of the patches.

So for me I intend to use Camera raw exclusively unless I need to generate a scene calibration file. I found Phocus more difficult to work with and with more bugs.

For sure there is amazing color with either method - something I have not experienced with other cameras.

Victor B.

The Phocus FFF file is NOT processed. Camera RAW sees exactly the same data from the 3FR and the FFF. Export a 16 bit TIFF from Phocus to see how it processes colors and corrections. Otherwise you're not seeing any of Phocus.

(I did the test and the images from 3FR and FFF files viewed in PS agreed to 15 stops.)

 

[vjbelle]

I repeated the test with Phocus exporting a tif and Camera Raw exporting a tif. No other adjustments were made EXCEPT for white balancing on a white patch in Spyderchecker.

Now differences are more apparent but they are subtle. I would much prefer to do as much processing in RAW than on the TIF file so again my preference would be to process most files in CR vs. Phocus.

Thanks for the clarification......

Victor B.

 

[MGrayson]

I repeated the test with Phocus exporting a tif and Camera Raw exporting a tif. No other adjustments were made EXCEPT for white balancing on a white patch in Spyderchecker.

Now differences are more apparent but they are subtle. I would much prefer to do as much processing in RAW than on the TIF file so again my preference would be to process most files in CR vs. Phocus.

Thanks for the clarification......

Victor B.

I do the same. If I shot portraits, I might look more closely at the differences, but for what I do, it just isn't significant.

 

[PeterA]

Try as s I might Phocus V LR raw files I 'see' no difference for most shots. The only difference I have been able to see hs been a a few macro flower shots - with subtle rendition of bright reds and oranges and only at the margin. If I ever need tether capability I will use Phocus.