Old vs new.

[rdeloe]

@rdeloe - thanks for your posted examples - whilst I 'see' the differences in your posted tiffs- my comparisons are made splitting my monitor into two and comparing LR to Phocus rendering side by side san tiff exports and such interfventions. Still, I have to say that I am surprised by the differences in colour rendering in the firts two shots- these are way way different not only in colour but also in contrast. I must say - this level of difference I have not experienced in my workflow -or typical casual shooting/ In studio my experience is Phocus is a better choice.

Still, as you say in PP everythign is able to be corrected for any taste or use case - tbh the only reason I prefer LR over anyhting else is its inbuilt Library functionality - that and it also plays well with Leica and Hasselbald files - in my experience.

My post was getting long enough so I left out the line where I mentioned I did the same thing, i.e., split the screen and had LR on one side and Phocus on the other! Like you I wanted to eliminate a variable. I didn't see any difference between the TIFF versions in PS and the files in their applications.

I'm not terribly surprised that there are differences. The choice of RAW processor and camera profile makes a huge difference. Hasselblad made one set of choices for RAW development, and Adobe made different choices that produce different results with that file (although they were trying to match the Hasselblad result...).

Were I using a Hasselblad camera, I would still go with Lightroom because I use the database functionality extensively, and I'm extremely familiar now with the way it works. For me, the benefits of using Lightroom far outweigh the costs of not getting precisely the look Hasselblad intends. While I like the Hasselblad result, I don't always want the same look. I very much appreciate the flexibility of being able to use a few camera profiles that give me the feeling or mood that works best for each project.

We are fortunate to have access to so many good tools. Everyone can find something that suits.

 

[dchew]

...and Adobe made different choices that produce different results with that file (although they were trying to match the Hasselblad result...).

Hi Rob,
I was at a printing workshop with Jeff Schewe earlier this year. One of the coolest things was hearing him talk about the early days of PS, LR and Camera Raw. At one point, we were discussing the differences between Capture One and Camera Raw. He explained that early on, when all the camera companies had their own software and none of if was very good, Thomas Knoll developed Camera Raw to be a tool that provided a common baseline for users across camera systems. Several times Jeff used the phrase, "Camera Raw normalizes, Capture One optimizes."

That applies to Adobe's canned profiles. So, it may not be the case that Adobe is trying to match the Hasselblad result, at least with the Adobe Standard profiles.

Dave

 

[rdeloe]

Hi Rob,
I was at a printing workshop with Jeff Schewe earlier this year. One of the coolest things was hearing him talk about the early days of PS, LR and Camera Raw. At one point, we were discussing the differences between Capture One and Camera Raw. He explained that early on, when all the camera companies had their own software and none of if was very good, Thomas Knoll developed Camera Raw to be a tool that provided a common baseline for cameras users with different camera systems. Several times Jeff used the phrase, "Camera Raw normalizes, Capture One optimizes."

That applies to Adobe's canned profiles. So, it may not be the case that Adobe is trying to match the Hasselblad result, at least with the Adobe Standard profiles.

Dave

Hi Dave.
Thanks for insider knowledge. That's the kind of insight that simply gets lost when people retire or pass away and take the knowledge with them. I love learning these little tidbits. It's also good to hear that Jeff is still active. I enjoyed his books.
Rob

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Long time, no hear. JS is a legend from the LuLa era

 

[rmueller]

Hi @TimG,
not sure you made up your mind regarding the X2D yet. It is certainly a fine camera, don't have it as the X1DII and H6D-50c are more than I actually need. Regarding T/S solutions for the X2D I see two options

1. Get a HTS 1.5 adapter from Hasselblad. There is a thread here on GetDPI about the use of X1D and HTS and the kind of adapters you'd need, see
   https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/hts-1-5-with-x1d.61195/ I use the HTS 1.5 with the H6D-50c and it does what I need, for any serious T/S I have Linhof Kardan GT and MT 3000 and shoot analog.
2. Linhof has an adapter for the X1D to mount a X1D to a Technikardan or Super Technika 6x9, see https://linhof.com/en/hasselblad-x1d-mount-adapter-for-tk-st-6x9/ They also have an adapter for XC glass, see https://linhof.com/en/m679-and-techno-adapter-for-hasselblad-x1d-mount/

If you need T/S only occasionally and do not need the full view camera capabilities, the HTS and XH adapter solution might work for you.

Regards,
Ralf

 

[cunim]

@rdeloe and @dchew, I am under the impression that most of us optimise raw processing prior to applying higher level functions. In my case, for example, I bring Phase 1 images into C1 (or Phocus back in the day), do primary fiddling (eg highlight adjustment) on the raw images, and then export TIF (not raw) to PS and LR. I do all that in the spirit of MF photography. That is, convenience and ease are sacrificed for maximum flexibility and quality. In contrast, I just import Sony images directly into LR, even though I prefer the look of DXO Raw. Different mind sets in MF and FF.

The point is, once I accept the PITA that C1 or Phocus can be, it doesn't much matter which raw processor I use. I arrive an an end point that is my own. Hasselblad's color science or C1's secret sauce - it all comes out in the wash. At least, that's how it seems to me. 'Course, my old eyes see things differently than they once did and the left eye has a different color balance than the right. Those idiosyncrasies have far more effect on how I balance my final images than whatever the raw processors are doing so I suppose the specific workflow tools don't matter very much. God knows what my images really look like to people with normal vision.

 

[rdeloe]

@rdeloe and @dchew, I am under the impression that most of us optimise raw processing prior to applying higher level functions. In my case, for example, I bring Phase 1 images into C1 (or Phocus back in the day), do primary fiddling (eg highlight adjustment) on the raw images, and then export TIF (not raw) to PS and LR. I do all that in the spirit of MF photography. That is, convenience and ease are sacrificed for maximum flexibility and quality. In contrast, I just import Sony images directly into LR, even though I prefer the look of DXO Raw. Different mind sets in MF and FF.

The point is, once I accept the PITA that C1 or Phocus can be, it doesn't much matter which raw processor I use. I arrive an an end point that is my own. Hasselblad's color science or C1's secret sauce - it all comes out in the wash. At least, that's how it seems to me. 'Course, my old eyes see things differently than they once did and the left eye has a different color balance than the right. Those idiosyncrasies have far more effect on how I balance my final images than whatever the raw processors are doing so I suppose the specific workflow tools don't matter very much. God knows what my images really look like to people with normal vision.

We certainly each find our own workflow and "secret sauce"! For myself, I've always been happy with how Lightroom does RAW development, with one exception. In the early days of X-Trans III, I thought Iridient X Transformer did a better job with my Fuji X-T2 files. I'd develop them in IXT and then bring them into LR. But then LR caught up, and then I switched to GFX.

I did some comparisons a while ago to see if other RAW developers gave better results than Lightroom with GFX files. I didn't find anything that I preferred, and certainly nothing that made it worth losing the ability to use the custom camera profiles that I like.

Wrapped around all that is a rather large caveat: I'm certain that better is possible. I know this because I look at work I thought was good from a year or two ago, and frequently am unhappy with what I'm seeing. Going back further in time, I almost can't look at my black and white digital work anymore. I still like the large format analogue work I have hanging around my house, but I no longer like what my previous taste in black and white digital was.

The problem is never the RAW processor I used. Rather, it's the choices I made, the style I favoured, etc.

 

[PeterA]

My post was getting long enough so I left out the line where I mentioned I did the same thing, i.e., split the screen and had LR on one side and Phocus on the other! Like you I wanted to eliminate a variable. I didn't see any difference between the TIFF versions in PS and the files in their applications.

I'm not terribly surprised that there are differences. The choice of RAW processor and camera profile makes a huge difference. Hasselblad made one set of choices for RAW development, and Adobe made different choices that produce different results with that file (although they were trying to match the Hasselblad result...).

Were I using a Hasselblad camera, I would still go with Lightroom because I use the database functionality extensively, and I'm extremely familiar now with the way it works. For me, the benefits of using Lightroom far outweigh the costs of not getting precisely the look Hasselblad intends. While I like the Hasselblad result, I don't always want the same look. I very much appreciate the flexibility of being able to use a few camera profiles that give me the feeling or mood that works best for each project.

We are fortunate to have access to so many good tools. Everyone can find something that suits.

I use LR because of its DAM funcitonality as well- as for colour and B&W work - I use my own presets and profiles - irrespective of what camera system I am using. I 've gone back and relooked on 10 different styles of shots- and I give Phocus a marginal tick at best over LR- as far as colour goes but everyone's eyes are different and it is no big deal- people can use whtever post processor they like -Ive not come acrtoss two decent photographers that use the same PP workflow anyway. As for Capture One - I will say nothing - except there is a lot of mythology floating around in this forum about that software - no doubt it is the best software to use with Phase One backs and it used to be my goto for Fuji as well when I was in that system - but the LR to Library workflow outweighs the marginal if you squinit reallly really hard differences - for me anyway.

 

[lookbook]

... taste changes - or taste develops.
This is the case with food, fashion and of course with colors, shapes and many other things.

Most people like what they see all the time.
In the case of color photos, this is the interpreted colors of smartphone images.
(rather cute/sweet?)

Colors who come closest to this interpretation are the ones people like it.
These are not the "best" colors and certainly not the right colors.
I think that in a few years there will be other color interpretations that most people will like.
In the future might then say about our color photos that these photographers had such strange taste in colors.

 

[Alkibiades]

... taste changes - or taste develops.
This is the case with food, fashion and of course with colors, shapes and many other things.

Most people like what they see all the time.
In the case of color photos, this is the interpreted colors of smartphone images.
(rather cute/sweet?)

Colors who come closest to this interpretation are the ones people like it.
These are not the "best" colors and certainly not the right colors.
I think that in a few years there will be other color interpretations that most people will like.
In the future might then say about our color photos that these photographers had such strange taste in colors.

Absolutly true!
sadly there are no camerasytem that can deliver the best, the most natural or whatever colors for all aplications.
in some light situations are not the acurate colors the wanted colors, becouse we want sometimes warmer or cooler colors even when they are not correct.
some companies make avertaising with natural colors, but this is all nonsence.
in the film time there was the warm kodak look or cold fuji, or something between: agfa.
then the high contast or positiv film against lower contrast of negative.
colors for people photography are always different to architecture, product or landscape.
the raw interpretation now is the old own photo laboratory of the past. the JPg engine can help very much to find the right end results.

 

[rdeloe]

I really like Eliot Porter's photography. Foxtail Grass is easily my favourite Porter photograph. But whoo, the colour in Intimate Landscapes is not what I would call "modern".