Someone having a decent raw from the X1D to share?

[siddhaarta]

Sorry, is that "magical" an somewhat random comment or something more specific? I see that you mentioned above that you thought there was a slight difference before the 3FR & FFF files, but I'm new to Hassy files and if you or anyone has more info or opinions on this I would GREATLY appreciate it. I will also try to test my files tomorrow.

Thanks,
Josh

I am new to Hasselblad also, so I also would appreciate to know how more experienced users of Hasselblad X or H do manage their Raw files in Lightroom.

When I said "magical", it was more a joke, as I do not really understand what is going on behind the scenes, but temperature and tint are slightly different in Lightroom when you view FFF files (imported via Phocus) vs 3F files out of the camera.

I, for now (my X1D is on the way), am considering importing DNGs from Phocus (without any treatment) and work from there in Lightroom. The base files seem fine (and malleability the same or even slightly better than FFF) and as a bonus I have somewhat smaller files.

I made some tests with the FFF files available from DPreview's gallery, some of them with extreme dynamic range. If you pull the shadows in LR, the results seem slightly better with DNG than with FFF, but this is subjective.

 

[BANKER1]

I am new to Hasselblad also, so I also would appreciate to know how more experienced users of Hasselblad X or H do manage their Raw files in Lightroom.

When I said "magical", it was more a joke, as I do not really understand what is going on behind the scenes, but temperature and tint are slightly different in Lightroom when you view FFF files (imported via Phocus) vs 3F files out of the camera.

I, for now (my X1D is on the way), am considering importing DNGs from Phocus (without any treatment) and work from there in Lightroom. The base files seem fine (and malleability the same or even slightly better than FFF) and as a bonus I have somewhat smaller files.

I made some tests with the FFF files available from DPreview's gallery, some of them with extreme dynamic range. If you pull the shadows in LR, the results seem slightly better with DNG than with FFF, but this is subjective.

Actually, to me, Hasselblad files in Phocus are "magical". My workflow (and I'm not alone) is to use Phocus and export a TIFF to Lightroom if necessary. I started out in Flexcolor, that had a steep learning curve to use. Flexcolor was primarily a software program to support their film scanners. So when Phocus came along, it was very easy to use and very intuitive. And, of course, it could benefit from more tools, and some are added along the way. Phocus is very much improved since it was introduced and was improved recently in its last release. I have to laugh that Phase fans ranted and raved when Hasselblad "closed" their system while allowing anyone to use their software, and Phase has never allowed other MFD platforms to use their software while, for many years, depending on Hasselblad, and other camera platforms, to support their backs. Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy here?

Greg

 

[JoshMerwin]

Thanks for the info. I generally don't do too many adjustments, since most of what I shoot is portraits. So I like to get it captured, quickly processed and out the door. I think the main thing for most people is the convenience of having 1 workflow for all their cameras and not having to learn the intricacies of multiple processing softwares. Theoretically Phase software should give you the best results for Phase files and Phocus should give you the best results for Hassy files. Because they are creating the secret sauce and know not only how those ingredients are made, but where they are sourced from. To stay with the cooking analogy (because in my head so far) it's a good one. You can give 3 robot chefs the same ingredients and the same recipe and have them cook it the same way. But if the ingredients were sourced from different places, there will be a slight difference in the taste of the finished dish.

And yes, Greg, Hypocrisy sucks. I have a Phase back with an H4X body. And to be honest even with all the focus points in the X1D, which is great and a first for medium format(along with the GFX), I still want True Focus in that camera as well.

 

[hcubell]

Actually, to me, Hasselblad files in Phocus are "magical". My workflow (and I'm not alone) is to use Phocus and export a TIFF to Lightroom if necessary. I started out in Flexcolor, that had a steep learning curve to use. Flexcolor was primarily a software program to support their film scanners. So when Phocus came along, it was very easy to use and very intuitive. And, of course, it could benefit from more tools, and some are added along the way. Phocus is very much improved since it was introduced and was improved recently in its last release. I have to laugh that Phase fans ranted and raved when Hasselblad "closed" their system while allowing anyone to use their software, and Phase has never allowed other MFD platforms to use their software while, for many years, depending on Hasselblad, and other camera platforms, to support their backs. Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy here?

Greg

Yes, the hypocrisy used to drive me crazy, but at this point it is what it is. The problem with Phocus is that it is not nearly as capable of dealing with higher dynamic range images as LR, where the image adaptive exposure adjustments and the highlight and shadow tools are way beyond what Phocus offers (so far). No problem in softer or lower light, but with higher contrast imagery, LR is pretty amazing these days. C1 is much improved in this area as well, but it's not an option.