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!

DPR: 907X and CFV II 50C sample gallery and impressions

SrMphoto

Member

Quote:
"There is a big difference in image rendering between Adobe Camera Raw and Hasselblad’s Phocus software, so as awkward as Phocus is to use I recommend processing these files in that rather than the application most people will automatically reach for."

How many of you use Phocus for initial processing? I do see the difference in rendering between Phocus an LrC, but often the difference is not that large.
 

tcdeveau

Active member
From the H4D-40 to the X1D to my brief time with the 907x/CFVII, I’ve always used Phocus for initial adjustments and finish in LR/PS. I think it’s at least helpful to do a first pass in Phocus at least for the lens corrections but YMMV
 
  • Like
Reactions: spb

Godfrey

Well-known member
I'm only still learning Phocus, where I have fourteen years experience using LR... But what I see coming out of it motivates me to use it more and more of the time.
 

JAB

Member
I've been slow to adopt Phocus due to years of Photoshop and Bridge/CR. Never really used LR that much. I guess too much of an old dog. But from what I am hearing here, I need to definitely step up my use of Phocus.

GetDPI continues to be the source for medium format!!

Thank you to all!
 

nameBrandon

Active member
All XCD lens correction can be handled in LR.

"There is a big difference in image rendering between Adobe Camera Raw and Hasselblad’s Phocus software, so as awkward as Phocus is to use I recommend processing these files in that rather than the application most people will automatically reach for."
I question the premise here. I have yet to see an example that convinces me that there's anything magical Phocus will do as far as the raw conversion process.

I would love to be proved wrong, who wants to share an actual LR vs Phocus example that clearly demonstrates the big difference between the two rendering approaches? :)
 

darr

Well-known member
I have used Phocus with my CFV-50c files, mainly when tethering at the copy stand.
I have not used it enough as a post-processor to comment if there is a difference as I get excellent results in LR.

I too look forward to comparison images if anyone has them to offer.
 

nameBrandon

Active member
I have used Phocus with my CFV-50c files, mainly when tethering at the copy stand.
I have not used it enough as a post-processor to comment if there is a difference as I get excellent results in LR.

I too look forward to comparison images if anyone has them to offer.
I'm the same.. I use it tethered because.. well.. nothing else really works. :) It works great in that scenario.

One of the things that drives me crazy about Phocus outside of tethering is the need to import the .3FR files. Phocus does whatever it does and then creates the equivalent .FFF file. Now I have two of the same file (one .3FR and one .FFF). I hadn't checked recently, but I had heard Phocus didn't properly record to XMP sidecar files either and that the adjustments made in Phocus were tied to Phocus only.. anyone know if that's still the case?
 

SrMphoto

Member
All XCD lens correction can be handled in LR.



I question the premise here. I have yet to see an example that convinces me that there's anything magical Phocus will do as far as the raw conversion process.

I would love to be proved wrong, who wants to share an actual LR vs Phocus example that clearly demonstrates the big difference between the two rendering approaches? :)
My approach with Phocus is to demosaic in Phocus, adjust there the black and white points, recovery and shadow fill, and white balance; export as TIFF-16 into LrC for further processing. Most of the time, I do not see a difference, but occasionally there is a noticeable one (e.g., the blue of a photographed sculpture was not quite right in LrC).
My approach is to do the Phocus step described above for significant images only, compare with LrC demosaiced ones, and then decide with which one to continue.
 

spb

Active member
One of the things that drives me crazy about Phocus outside of tethering is the need to import the .3FR files.
Doesn't bother me at all. Some people say one doesn't need to keep them. So one can instruct computer import from SD card or HD wherever the .3FR is and just forget the .3FR.

I have 3 folders: 3FR, FFF, FINALS for every project. Finals is the TIFF location where the adjusted files live. I have only once ever gone back to the .3FR file, after 'importing' and working on. So really I ask myself why do I keep the .3FR files. At the back of my mind that is explained by the thinking that the .3FR is my negative, the .FFF is the 'development' file and any image in FINALS is the finished result.
 

Abstraction

Active member

Quote:
"There is a big difference in image rendering between Adobe Camera Raw and Hasselblad’s Phocus software, so as awkward as Phocus is to use I recommend processing these files in that rather than the application most people will automatically reach for."

How many of you use Phocus for initial processing? I do see the difference in rendering between Phocus an LrC, but often the difference is not that large.

I imagine that if one were to create a custom profile for LR, one wouldn't see any differences between LR and Phocus.
 

spb

Active member
Me too, since I started with Hasselblad I will use Phocus. I try to get the image close to what I want in camera, so I have to post-process less - framing and exposure especially in camera.
 

mristuccia

Active member
Upon close inspection, especially on micro-details and chromatic noise areas, I don't get great results with Phocus.
I only use it for tethering in studio.

My main processor is LR in combination with the "Enhance details" feature. When I need to squeeze all possible micro-details out of an image, I use Iridient RAW Developer launched through its LR plugin integration.
 
Last edited:

SrMphoto

Member
Upon close inspection, especially on micro-details and chromatic noise areas, I don't get great results with Phocus.
I only use it for tethering in studio.

My main processor is LR in combination with the "Enhance details" feature. When I need to squeeze all possible micro-details out of an image, I use Iridient RAW Converter launched through its LR plugin integration.
What is Iridient RAW Converter?

I am aware of the Iridient's transformer tools that integrate with LR (I use them for Olympus and Fuji), but there is none for Hasselblad cameras. There is also the Iridient Developer (I have the demo version) that can read Hasselblad files, but it creates TIFF output and does not integrate with LrC.
 

4*Paul

Member
Interesting discussion as I’ve been through this dilemma since I acquired an X1D to use alongside a Phase IQ back.

I’ve used Phocus on and off for at least 10 years, maybe more, when it was necessary to process 3FR files that came out of my Flextight scanner. It worked just fine but somehow I never quite got to grips with it and defaulted to LR & PS for other images from whatever digital camera I had at the time.

However, since acquiring a Phase back 6 years ago, I have used Capture One and found it so good to use that my preferred route for X1D files is to convert them to dng in LR and do the Exif edit “fudge” before importing to C1.

Putting aside the obvious benefit of lens profiles in Phocus, I was rather concerned that I was missing something by not using It for the X1D files. So, whilst I can’t claim to have done it thoroughly or scientifically, I made a rough comparison between Phocus and the alternatives that I normally use.

I processed several X1D image files to TIFFs and compared them. They were noticeably different - with (in my judgement) Phocus being the most accurate and appealing.
However, in trying to make all three TIFFs look the same, I went back to the RAW file and made adjustments to the LR & C1 images, including getting the WB to look the same. I had included a grey card in the photos - which was unusually good thinking for me!
The LR file was noticeably softer (with the standard profile) but otherwise similar. So I just increased the sharpening.
With C1 (dng neutral profile) it was a bit duller and turning up the saturation (about +20) did the job in giving it the same look as the Phocus image. Sharpness looked very much the same.

The outcome was that, after making these adjustments, all TIFFs were good, and near identical.
So I’m reasonably comfortable that I can use my preferred software without feeling that I’m missing something.

Of course, it would be reasonable to ask why go to all this trouble to process an X1D file in C1 and all I can say is that I find the whole experience more rewarding.
YM will almost certainly V but it works for me!
Paul.
 

mristuccia

Active member
What is Iridient RAW Converter?

I am aware of the Iridient's transformer tools that integrate with LR (I use them for Olympus and Fuji), but there is none for Hasselblad cameras. There is also the Iridient Developer (I have the demo version) that can read Hasselblad files, but it creates TIFF output and does not integrate with LrC.
You're right. I meant the Iridient Developer you've mentioned. I've corrected my previous post to make it clear. :)
There is an integration plugin on LR. It automatically opens the raw file in Iridient's editing/developing window and at the end it generates a developed TIF file back to LR. It also saves it's development receipt onto a sidecar file, so that if you open the original RAW file in Iridient again, you'll have all the development settings applied the last time.
In this case the role of LR is limited to further editing the TIF file and keeping everything archived (and stacked) in its catalog.
 
Last edited:

ndwgolf

Member

Quote:
"There is a big difference in image rendering between Adobe Camera Raw and Hasselblad’s Phocus software, so as awkward as Phocus is to use I recommend processing these files in that rather than the application most people will automatically reach for."

How many of you use Phocus for initial processing? I do see the difference in rendering between Phocus an LrC, but often the difference is not that large.
I tried Phocus but always got better results from ACR and Photoshop........ maybe because I just feel more comfortable using the latter
 
I tried Phocus but always got better results from ACR and Photoshop........ maybe because I just feel more comfortable using the latter
I have my problems with Phocus as well -- speaking as a newcomer, though. Capture One is so much snappier for editing.

Does anyone have experience on a streamlined Phocus + Capture One workflow with basic lens corrections done in Phocus only and afterwards fine tuning tif or dng in C1?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I've been using Lightroom since 2006 so I have a fairly robust skill set with it.

That said, I've got Phocus and Phocus Mobile 2 now on both my Mac and my iPad Pro 11". I'm still learning how to get what I want out of Phocus, but I don't find it either particularly difficult or much better or worse than Lightroom. The workflow is pretty easy to understand and it produces excellent, satisfying results on the default settings for the CFVII 50c raw files, presuming I used the right exposure settings and got the focus on the mark. I find that it does a slightly better job, on the defaults, than LR does but that with a little tweak or two I can achieve the same thing.

C1 and I don't get along ... I've tried it several times, through various revisions, and I just don't like the workflow design notions it's built on at all. For me, that's more important than what it does on its defaults because, by and large, I can get what I want out of any raw conversion/image editing tools I've tried with an appropriate amount of learning and use effort. Same goes for ON1 and a few others that I've tried.

Your familiarity, skill, and experience with a given image processing system will ultimately be the bottom line in the quality and satisfaction you get out of your photos, not which image processing system you choose. There are some choices that are obviously a little more capable than others, but once past the basic capability/proficiency hurdle, most are much of the same recast with different workflow and UI notions in mind. :)

G
 
Top