The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

CFV II 50c and rodenstock 28 with shift anyone ?

rdeloe

Active member
Thanks for trying that out Rob! I have a series of three bracketed exposure with the LCC file as the last file. When I select all three I get a message that it is Flat-Field Correcting 4 photos but only one of them is converted to a DNG file and visually it doesn't look like any correction has been applied.

Here is a screenshot of the settings:
View attachment 177322

Just in case Lightroom saves some sort of cache that remembers a past process, I deleted all the files and re-uploaded them from the camera card. I also created a set of .3fr and .fff files to see if that could be making a difference. Both ways didn't work.

The next thing I tried was to export the .fff to .tiff files (within Lightroom) and then ran the correction and it worked. For some reason it is having difficulties with the Hasselblad filetypes. Maybe?

Curious if you would be able to get the flat field correction to work with the raw files.

Going to see if it works when exporting DNG files…results soon
I'm happy to experiment if you put the files somewhere I can reach them.

However, my first guess would be that Lightroom needs you to break the process up into two steps:
1. HDR
2. Flat field correction

You could do it two ways:
1. HDR the three uncorrected files, and then Flat Field the result
2. Flat field each of the three uncorrected files independently, and then HDR them

The first approach is definitely faster!

Also, I hear you re the pain of having to shoot an LCC! I would dearly love to have something in the 45mm focal length on my outfit, and my calculations suggest I could just barely make an Apo-Digitar 47/5.6 work, but on my GFX 50R sensor I'd have to do colour correction for every shot, which is such a pain.
 

diggles

Member
2. Flat field each of the three uncorrected files independently, and then HDR them
I tried two ways:
1. Flat fielding all three in the series at the same time
2. Flat fielding one at a time

Both ways worked with the TIFF files, but neither worked with the RAW files.

The way I generally do exposure blending is to put the layers in a stack and create luminosity masks to blend them together. I've tried the HDR option but never been able to get results I like.

Here is a link to the raw files if you are up for a go at it:
 

diggles

Member
Here's an example of a daylight shot for additional reference. This image has less noise in the sky compared to the previous dusk image. This one was about 10mm of camera fall as well.

Copy of raw image:
B0000560-RAW.jpg

Copy of LCC image:
B0000563-LCC.jpg

Copy of image with scene calibration applied in Phocus:
B0000560-Processed.jpg
 

diggles

Member
Here's another one with some 100% crops for detail, keep reading if you're not sick of me yet! 28mm HR lens on the CFV II 50c.

This was taken with about 5mm of camera fall. I've included a copy of the raw, lcc, and processed files. 100% detail shots of roughly the center, right middle, right bottom, left middle, left bottom, and top of the smokestack detail.

You will notice that the left middle and bottom images look soft. It's not because of the lens, I'm learning/practicing swings and tilts and was a bit off on this one and that area of the image suffered.

Copy of the RAW (auto white balance was a bit off on this one):
B0000555-RAW.jpg

Copy of the LCC:
B0000558-LCC.jpg

Copy of the file processed in Phocus with a little additional color work done in photoshop:
_HBLD-00555.jpg

100% detail of the smokestack:

_HBLD-00555-100-Detail-01.jpg

100% detail of trees in the middle:

_HBLD-00555-100-Middle.jpg

100% detail silos towards the top left:

_HBLD-00555-100-Top-Left.jpg

100% detail of the middle right:

_HBLD-00555-100-Middle-Right.jpg

100% detail of the middle left:

_HBLD-00555-100-Middle-Left.jpg

100% of the bottom right:

_HBLD-00555-100-Bottom-Right.jpg

100% detail of the bottom left:

_HBLD-00555-100-Bottom-Left.jpg
 

rdeloe

Active member
I tried two ways:
1. Flat fielding all three in the series at the same time
2. Flat fielding one at a time

Both ways worked with the TIFF files, but neither worked with the RAW files.

The way I generally do exposure blending is to put the layers in a stack and create luminosity masks to blend them together. I've tried the HDR option but never been able to get results I like.

Here is a link to the raw files if you are up for a go at it:
I flat field corrected ...863.TIF against ...868.TIF. LR successfully creates a new ...863.DNG, but there was still a strong magenta cast. Ditto with ...864.TIF and ...868.TIF, and then ...865.TIF and ...868.TIF. The amount of magenta in the sky is not acceptable.

I then tried the ...863.FFF and the ...868.FFF -- didn't work. Ditto the corresponding .3FR files. And ditto the other two 3FR and FFF files.

On a hunch I tried .FFF against .TIF (nope) and .3FR against .TIF (also nope).

All the times it failed, it didn't throw up an error message, like it does when you use a LCC correction file that has hard vignetting. Instead, it simply doesn't work.

This is a new feature in Lightroom. My guess is it's just not working properly. FYI I'm using version 9.3 because 9.4 does not work on my system.
 

diggles

Member
Thanks so much for trying it Rob, it seems like we are experiencing the same thing. I'm using version 9.4.

In Phocus it does give a messages reading - "Correction created but issues were noted: Image seems to have too much variation"

It appears that Phocus will create it anyway, but not Lightroom.
 

rdeloe

Active member
Thanks so much for trying it Rob, it seems like we are experiencing the same thing. I'm using version 9.4.

In Phocus it does give a messages reading - "Correction created but issues were noted: Image seems to have too much variation"

It appears that Phocus will create it anyway, but not Lightroom.
Have you been able to make it work with other RAW files from Hasselblad? If so, then your thinking would make sense. It also makes sense relative to the poor performance of the TIF correction.
 

diggles

Member
Have you been able to make it work with other RAW files from Hasselblad? If so, then your thinking would make sense. It also makes sense relative to the poor performance of the TIF correction.
I'll try a couple other images tonight and see what happens…
 

diggles

Member
Have you been able to make it work with other RAW files from Hasselblad? If so, then your thinking would make sense. It also makes sense relative to the poor performance of the TIF correction.
Hey Rob,

Yes. Lightroom does work fine with other RAW files from Hasselblad. The example that wasn't working must have too much variation so Lightroom just ignores it.
 

rdeloe

Active member
Hey Rob,

Yes. Lightroom does work fine with other RAW files from Hasselblad. The example that wasn't working must have too much variation so Lightroom just ignores it.
That makes sense Warren. However, that function (Flat Field Correction) strikes me as rather half-baked. I find it really irritating that it replaces the RAW file with the DNG rather than leaving the RAW behind, and the failure to report what's going on when the issue you've discovered occurs is a problem.

Having said that, I'm glad it's there! I just hope it gets some attention to polish it up in future updates. Adobe staff do read the community forum, so if you post a concern there, it often gets into the queue for future updates.
 

nameBrandon

Active member
That makes sense Warren. However, that function (Flat Field Correction) strikes me as rather half-baked. I find it really irritating that it replaces the RAW file with the DNG rather than leaving the RAW behind, and the failure to report what's going on when the issue you've discovered occurs is a problem.

Having said that, I'm glad it's there! I just hope it gets some attention to polish it up in future updates. Adobe staff do read the community forum, so if you post a concern there, it often gets into the queue for future updates.
I'm guessing you know this already, but just to clarify for others who may not.. the raw file doesn't go away, it's still on disk where it was.. it's replaced in the catalog with the resulting DNG. If you were to reimport that directory you'd get the raw files back as well as the DNG.

I do agree with you, 100%, that LR should not be "hiding" the original raw file. I often want to compare the pre/post Flat-Field images and this makes it a PITA to do.
 

rdeloe

Active member
I'm guessing you know this already, but just to clarify for others who may not.. the raw file doesn't go away, it's still on disk where it was.. it's replaced in the catalog with the resulting DNG. If you were to reimport that directory you'd get the raw files back as well as the DNG.

I do agree with you, 100%, that LR should not be "hiding" the original raw file. I often want to compare the pre/post Flat-Field images and this makes it a PITA to do.
That's a helpful clarification for folks who don't know already what's going on. It's definitely not intuitive, especially given that there's a check box for "Delete originals after successful completion"! When I left it unchecked and my RAW file still disappeared, I was quite puzzled.

They should at least change that to "Delete originals after successful completion (if unchecked, we'll just take it out of the catalogue whether or not you want, but we'll leave it on the drive so you have to try to re-import it)". ;)
 

diggles

Member
I tried RawTherapee with 00864.fff and 00868.fff. I think the result is promising. I don't know what the color should be.
Thank you for taking the time to do that! The results do look quite promising.

After running the files through Phocus scene calibration the sky in the center of the frame above the building had noticeable noise. Was this noise noticeable after running flat field correction in RawTherapee?
 

diggles

Member
They should at least change that to "Delete originals after successful completion (if unchecked, we'll just take it out of the catalogue whether or not you want, but we'll leave it on the drive so you have to try to re-import it)". ;)
Hey Rob, I definitely like the accuracy of yours, LOL!
 

TimoK

Member
Thank you for taking the time to do that! The results do look quite promising.

After running the files through Phocus scene calibration the sky in the center of the frame above the building had noticeable noise. Was this noise noticeable after running flat field correction in RawTherapee?
In RawTherapee there is many tools to manage yuor picture. First when I looked your file in RT it was awful. Then I tried to find right tools. The key was choosing the right demosaicing algorithm. I recommend VNG4 for HBL files.
The answer for your question is no, after all those things I did to make the picture. But I wonder the reason for the noise could be how you apply the flat field file. In Rt there is a slider to blur the flat field file. I usually use a little blur, as I did with your picture too. If I do not apply any blur, the resulting picture is noisier. I wonder if there is something alike in Phocus too.
Later I played a little more with your picture, changed color temperature and added saturation and vibrance but did not get it really clear. There is still some color cast in the sky. I post the new trying here. Here is also 100% crop of the sky in the center.crop_of center_sky_HBLD-00864.jpgnew_small_HBLD-00864.jpg
 

diggles

Member
First when I looked your file in RT it was awful. Then I tried to find right tools. The key was choosing the right demosaicing algorithm. I recommend VNG4 for HBL files.
Raw Therapee looks like a very capable program. When I first got the 50C back I was looking for RAW processing options and ran across RT. I'd read a number of posts and it seems that RT addresses many of the shortcomings of Lightroom, C1, and Phocus with finer and more detailed control–but to be honest, it overwhelmed me.

After seeing your promising results I decided to give RT another go, but still wasn't able to get a clean file. At the time I didn't know about the different demosaicing algorithms. You were able to clean up the sky quite significantly. Choosing the right algorithm must be the key.

As far as I can tell there is no way to adjust the amount of blur when doing the Scene Calibration in Phocus–that would be a very useful feature. I tried different setting in Phocus–selected Remove cast, but left Equalize intensity unselected. Their was less noise this way and the resulting sky seemed like it would be easier for me to work with.

This image show the file when Remove Cast checked, but Equalize Intensity is left unchecked:
_HBLD-0863-PHOCUS.jpg

I've tried using C1 and Phocus to process my files, but I always go back to my old ways of using Photoshop. After exporting the normal and dark exposure as 16 bit Tiffs from Phocus I put them into a stack and worked on them in Photoshop. The sky took a bit of processing and I had to clean up a few distracting areas. Here is what I got:

_HBLD-0863-0865-csu-biology-building.jpg

So I guess the moral of the story is that shifting to the limit of this lens on a CFV II 50C will produce a lot of color cast and exposure variance. Scene Calibration will get you part of the way, but it will take some Photoshop work to completely fix it.
 
Top