Site Sponsors
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 151 to 156 of 156

Thread: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

  1. #151
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Have used LR1.1 and Aperture 2 and must say I like AP2 much more. Only thing missing for me are Curves adjustments.

    Having said that C1Pro in its current incarnation is soooo much better still. And I expect that the next version will be another big step forward.

    And frankly I doubt that Phocus will be able to come close - unfortunately!
    Either I really know my way around software OR I am so hopeless as to not be able to see the differences in terms of what they all deliver. I use C1 Pro/Phocus/LR/Exposure/CS4 - each has their strengths and weaknesses. LR has some pretty cool tools that no other software has - of course C1 does a great job with raw files - if they have a soup for the raw file and Phocus delivers the best IQ for native Hasselblad files as eXposure does for Sinar.

    I hear a lot of great feedback from people who have done a course here with Jack and Guy on C1 Pro. I wonder how many of these people have actually done a course or immersed themselves in other software to the same extent?

    there isnt much difference between the lot of them - except for workflow differences more or less pretty GUI and perhaps better or worse DAM capabilities and at the margin batch processing capabilities.

    If you use a number of different backs and camera systems from different manufacturers you haev an incentive to learn your way around a number of different software programmes.

    They all have one thing in common - you end up exporting to CS4 to finish -

  2. #152
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Either I really know my way around software OR I am so hopeless as to not be able to see the differences in terms of what they all deliver. I use C1 Pro/Phocus/LR/Exposure/CS4 - each has their strengths and weaknesses. LR has some pretty cool tools that no other software has - of course C1 does a great job with raw files - if they have a soup for the raw file and Phocus delivers the best IQ for native Hasselblad files as eXposure does for Sinar.

    I hear a lot of great feedback from people who have done a course here with Jack and Guy on C1 Pro. I wonder how many of these people have actually done a course or immersed themselves in other software to the same extent?

    there isnt much difference between the lot of them - except for workflow differences more or less pretty GUI and perhaps better or worse DAM capabilities and at the margin batch processing capabilities.

    If you use a number of different backs and camera systems from different manufacturers you haev an incentive to learn your way around a number of different software programmes.

    They all have one thing in common - you end up exporting to CS4 to finish -
    Think this will be my destiny, to end up with multiple SW packages

    Currently using PS4, Bridge4, Aperture2 and C1Pro. Well you are right it does not matter to get also LR2 and Phocus2 to the list, then I have mainly all one could ever need.

    And for printing some good RIP SW, which I already tested some packages and really like the additional functionalities above what is in PS4, Bridge, LR and Aperture.

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Think this will be my destiny, to end up with multiple SW packages

    Currently using PS4, Bridge4, Aperture2 and C1Pro. Well you are right it does not matter to get also LR2 and Phocus2 to the list, then I have mainly all one could ever need.

    And for printing some good RIP SW, which I already tested some packages and really like the additional functionalities above what is in PS4, Bridge, LR and Aperture.


    think I could ever workout how to use photoshop to print something? nope. and I did try..very hard..for a long time..

    Now...I just use Imageprint RIP on Epson - it works every time. Thoroughly recommended.

  4. #154
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,874
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    think I could ever workout how to use photoshop to print something? nope. and I did try..very hard..for a long time..

    Now...I just use Imageprint RIP on Epson - it works every time. Thoroughly recommended.
    Great to hear this, I was also thinking about Imageprint. Especially if you want some freedom in creating layouts and this in short time.

  5. #155
    gdwhalen
    Guest

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Great to hear this, I was also thinking about Imageprint. Especially if you want some freedom in creating layouts and this in short time.
    ImagePrint 8 is a classic no-brainer.

  6. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by yaya View Post

    Apple's concept with Aperture was to allow 3rd parties to build plug-ins, however for whatever reasons Aperture has not become a mainstream raw converter...

    Yair
    Yair,
    Thanks for the kind words. With respect to Aperture and the plug-ins.....one of the things that I really do NOT like about that concept is that Aperture actually shells out to an intermediate file for each plug-in, and they are not easily combined for a final. In other words, if you use one plug-in to do something like dodge and burn adjustments, Aperture creates a separate tif or psd file (all done while still in Aperture) with those adjustments. Then, if you want to do some color adjustment or other correction, it creates yet another file for just those. Since those created files get flattened before returning them to Aperture, you are unable to go back to them to make any adjustments to the original or RAW, unless you start the entire process all over again. The plug-ins are not terribly interactive or adjustable once a correction with them has been made. This actually slows workflow quite a bit, and starts to create many versions of things, as there is no way to engage all the plug-ins from a single pallet to work on a file just once.

    The initial concept is good, allowing 3rd party folks to create plug-ins to be used within Aperture, but the final execution is messy and not able to easily incorporate multiple changes easily. If you have a rather simple workflow with specific corrections to make via different plug-ins, things are not so bad, but you cannot go back and "undo" or modify those corrections without creating a new version from scratch again. Not something that folks who like to tweak and retweak things can like.

    LJ

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •