Photoshop verses Phocus for H6D100c

[ndwgolf]

I’ve become so so competent in Phocus but just find PScc quicker and more intrusive to use. Over on the Hasselblad forum I’m told that I’m missing out by not using Phocus but when I process a picture in photoshop and then do the same photo in Phocus I just can’t see any in your face differences
What do you guys think
Neil

 

[SrMphoto]

I’ve become so so competent in Phocus but just find PScc quicker and more intrusive to use. Over on the Hasselblad forum I’m told that I’m missing out by not using Phocus but when I process a picture in photoshop and then do the same photo in Phocus I just can’t see any in your face differences
What do you guys think
Neil

There are things that you can't do in Phocus. You can use Phocus as a start and then switch to PS.

 

[ndwgolf]

There are things that you can't do in Phocus. You can use Phocus as a start and then switch to PS.

The problem with that is that there is no way to correct the black and white points in Phocus like you can in ACR so by going to ACR first I might as well just finish everything in Photoshop.
I’m using Bridge to initially import my pictures into the computer so again it’s like they all fit in together
Neil

 

[JohnBrew]

Hasselblad held a webinar last week on using Phocus. Now I feel a bit more comfortable processing files there. Before I only used it to download my files before exporting to PS.
I'm trying to get more familiar with Phocus as I plan on ditching Adobe, after experiencing a myriad of problems, sometime this year.

 

[ndwgolf]

Hasselblad held a webinar last week on using Phocus. Now I feel a bit more comfortable processing files there. Before I only used it to download my files before exporting to PS.
I'm trying to get more familiar with Phocus as I plan on ditching Adobe, after experiencing a myriad of problems, sometime this year.

You don’t happen to have a link do you. I’ve watched all of Karl’s YouTube videos and they are good but don’t get into the nitty gritty
Neil

 

[docmoore]

Neil,

I cannot imagine giving up the depths of Phocus with a Hasselblad camera.

Not to mention the lens corrections ... however the color consistency and clarity slider are
so much better than anything else for these cameras.

As a suggestion ... look at ImageIngesterPro 3 ... it allows you to import from any camera to a specific place ... different for each camera.
Naming and folders are specific and you can define them. Also allows import to two different sites ... such as a primary and backup hard drive.
It does a check to insure that the file size is equivalent after the import. So I drop all the files into a folder on the desktop and then allow IIP
to copy them to different drives ... I now have three copies. It does this faster than the Mac OS will make one copy. File structure is nested ...
camera ... year .... month ... day.

I open the primary folder with Phocus ... import the files and do most of my corrections. The TIFs from Phocus are saved in a subfolder
of the Primary ... named Phocus Output.

Open LR and import without moving the files ... they are TIF at this point. Here I work on the best of the better pictures and then do
a final edit in PS for specific filters and layers ... sharpening and output sharpening. The final edit is stored in the same folder as the
primaries from Phocus.

LR is for me primarily a picture cataloging program ... I may do a little development like curves but most has been done in Phocus.

With LR I can look at all the X1D files ... or just those from the week before Christmas that I edited in PS that were take with the XCD 30 ...
or from my ALPA and Hasselblad scanner from 7 years ago.

I cannot stress enough how good the output is from Phocus ... worth the effort and time.

Sorry for the run-on but Adobe in spite of having a few lens corrections is pretty generic ... nothing like all the profiles that are found in
Phocus. Ming Then commented that each Hasselblad camera is calibrated for color to its specific sensor ... all of this information is available
to Phocus.

Your pictures look great ... not sure if you are willing to submit to a large change in process. Worth it to me but may not
matter to you.

Regards,

Bob

 

[docmoore]

Bob, I also use ImageIngester, Ingestamatic and ExifChanger, all apps from Marc Rochkind. Unfortunately he's no longer supporting them as of December 31, 2017 and the apps have been removed from the Apple App Store and from his website.

Joe

That would be a major loss ... hopefully ImageIngester will stay active for the near future.

ShotPutPro is a program that I use for video and I might see if it can be adapted for stills ... it is not as seamless as Marc's program.

Thank you for the heads up.

Regards,

Bob

 

[ndwgolf]

Okay so I just did this edit in Phocus...........after watching the Phocus webinar

Neil

 

[DB5]

Native software is always the best option and it's always best to take the time to learn to how to use it or at least bring it into your workflow to some degree.

But if you're happier using Photoshop or Lightroom and get what you want from it then just use that.

 

[bab]

Okay so I just did this edit in Phocus...........after watching the Phocus webinar

Neil

I think you need to buy Peter video series it explains in extreme detail how to capture images using Phocus and gives many reasons why it’s supieri to PS or LR when using a Hasselblad. He is also a genius with lighting and posing models you will learn invaluable lessons from him I did.

peter coulson photography

 

[ndwgolf]

I think you need to buy Peter video series it explains in extreme detail how to capture images using Phocus and gives many reasons why it’s supieri to PS or LR when using a Hasselblad. He is also a genius with lighting and posing models you will learn invaluable lessons from him I did.

peter coulson photography

Ive contacted him already............he is using PScc but says he can put together a Phocus video as well

Neil

 

[jvpictures]

you could also read the manual...probably not so sexy though, watching instructional videos is more convenient these days.

But anyways, Phocus is not so complex as e.g. Capture One and thus it is pretty easy to get the basics. And IMO forget about all that stuff of dodging&burning with layers etc. etc. I'd do that all on PS, much better there. Just use the basic tools under "Adjustments" in Phocus: exposure, curves, WB, color adjustments (if needed), keystone corrections, sharpening, cropping, lens correction always activated...then export to 16 bit TIFF and import into PS and work from there if needed. A question of one's personal workflow. Btw, when using Phocus to import you can set immediately all IPC and personal information as Exif for all imported images. But this you can also do later under the "Info" tab.

 

[dougpeterson]

But anyways, Phocus is not so complex as e.g. Capture One and thus it is pretty easy to get the basics.

I strongly disagree with this.

Capture One can be reduced down to absolute simplicity. If you wanted you could remove every tool and every icon from the interface and turn it into a folder browser. The "complexity" is there (if you want it) because it is so powerful and has so many things you can do (if you choose).

 

[ndwgolf]

you could also read the manual...probably not so sexy though, watching instructional videos is more convenient these days.

But anyways, Phocus is not so complex as e.g. Capture One and thus it is pretty easy to get the basics. And IMO forget about all that stuff of dodging&burning with layers etc. etc. I'd do that all on PS, much better there. Just use the basic tools under "Adjustments" in Phocus: exposure, curves, WB, color adjustments (if needed), keystone corrections, sharpening, cropping, lens correction always activated...then export to 16 bit TIFF and import into PS and work from there if needed. A question of one's personal workflow. Btw, when using Phocus to import you can set immediately all IPC and personal information as Exif for all imported images. But this you can also do later under the "Info" tab.

Read the manual...........now that would be a first I thought thats what forums are for??
Neil

 

[ndwgolf]

I strongly disagree with this.

Capture One can be reduced down to absolute simplicity. If you wanted you could remove every tool and every icon from the interface and turn it into a folder browser. The "complexity" is there (if you want it) because it is so powerful and has so many things you can do (if you choose).

Not with fff files
Neil

 

[jvpictures]

I strongly disagree with this.

Capture One can be reduced down to absolute simplicity. If you wanted you could remove every tool and every icon from the interface and turn it into a folder browser. The "complexity" is there (if you want it) because it is so powerful and has so many things you can do (if you choose).

yes, I fully agree. By complexity I mean it has more possibilities and flexibilities and thus will take more time and efforts for a newbie to get around, no doubt. Can be used simple or with full options. But as you say, can be self-customized to a minimum as well. I am using C1 since 2003 for NEF files. It is a great tool and would be my only raw converter (besides PS) if it supported 3FR-files (without any kind of trickery...).

 

[dougpeterson]

yes, I fully agree. By complexity I mean it has more possibilities and flexibilities and thus will take more time and efforts for a newbie to get around, no doubt. Can be used simple or with full options. But as you say, can be self-customized to a minimum as well.

That's fair.

 

[jduncan]

I’ve become so so competent in Phocus but just find PScc *quicker* and more intrusive to use. Over on the Hasselblad forum I’m told that I’m missing out by not using Phocus but when I process a picture in photoshop and then do the same photo in Phocus I just can’t see any in your face differences
What do you guys think
Neil

I could be the only software that is slower than Adobe's.

Hasselblad works with Adobe for Lightroom, I don't know if it's the same for Photoshop.
Best regards,

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

AFAIK, the raw conversion stuff is common to Lightroom and Photoshop, that is ACR.

Best regards
Erik

I could be the only software that is slower than Adobe's.

Hasselblad works with Adobe for Lightroom, I don't know if it's the same for Photoshop.
Best regards,

 

[RobbieAB]

I strongly disagree with this.

Capture One can be reduced down to absolute simplicity. If you wanted you could remove every tool and every icon from the interface and turn it into a folder browser. The "complexity" is there (if you want it) because it is so powerful and has so many things you can do (if you choose).

Like run it on Linux?

Not wishing to sound like a troll here, but for me, this is the biggest gap in all of these discussions. Personally, I would not consider an OS with forced updates as a credible candidate for a workstation that plays a key part of my workflow, as an update can break software without warning, so that rules out Windows 10. The fact they haven't broken your software yet is not a guarantee they won't in the future.

MacOS is an option, or at least would be, if they produce an actual credible workstation system again.