Is Phocus all there is

[CanNik]

what else can I use

Thanks

[tjelt]

Lightroom.  Phocus is a generation or 2 behind Lightroom (and Capture One) and Hasselblad is either unable or unwilling to devote the resources to Phocus to improve it.  Lightroom fully supports Hasselblads lens lineup for lens corrections.  And, Hasselblad worked with Adobe to make the RAW file conversion in Lightroom and ACR as good as Phocus in nearly all circumstances.  My primary reason for using Phocus is for tethering simply because there is no alternative. 

[Georg Kovalcik]

,,... Hasselblad worked with Adobe to make the RAW file conversion in Lightroom and ACR as good as Phocus ..." - a claim that is mentioned quite often but no one has provided evidence so far.

[jerome_m]

what else can I use

If you have a mac, Hasselblad files can be read by OS X (not all cameras, I am not sure). That means that Preview and Apple own "Photos" will work.

[mtclearwave]

Does anyone use Apple's Photos app to edit Hasselblad raw (or otherwise) files.

[CanNik]

what else can I use

If you have a mac, Hasselblad files can be read by OS X (not all cameras, I am not sure). That means that Preview and Apple own "Photos" will work.

SORRY my fault, PC

[jerome_m]

Well... I said it is possible, but I did not say it is a great idea. I just tried with a file and preview. The file can be displayed but needs to be converted to tiff for editing and the conversion is limited to 8 bits per channel.

[stephanbruehl]

Lightroom.  Phocus is a generation or 2 behind Lightroom (and Capture One) and Hasselblad is either unable or unwilling to devote the resources to Phocus to improve it.  Lightroom fully supports Hasselblads lens lineup for lens corrections.  And, Hasselblad worked with Adobe to make the RAW file conversion in Lightroom and ACR as good as Phocus in nearly all circumstances.  My primary reason for using Phocus is for tethering simply because there is no alternative. 

the Adobe lens corrections are not totally satisfying. Although the distortion correction of the brand new zoom 20-35mm is okay the vignetting correction is poor. For a picture taken with settings 20mm and f/3.2 I need to increase the vignetting correction of ACR manually to about 200% to get a result close to what I get  with Phocus.

[NickT]

Lightroom fully supports Hasselblads lens lineup for lens corrections.

Not quite
Phocus corrects using more specific data than Lightroom, aperture, (approximate) focus distance, and if using the HTS, tilt/shift amounts, so essentially a more accurate correction.

[fredfoto]

Lightroom.  Phocus is a generation or 2 behind Lightroom (and Capture One) and Hasselblad is either unable or unwilling to devote the resources to Phocus to improve it.  Lightroom fully supports Hasselblads lens lineup for lens corrections.  And, Hasselblad worked with Adobe to make the RAW file conversion in Lightroom and ACR as good as Phocus in nearly all circumstances.  My primary reason for using Phocus is for tethering simply because there is no alternative. 

Not exactly.

Phocus uses a matrix correction on the Hasselblad zoom lenses taking into account the focal length selected in the zoom range, whereas Lr uses a single correction for all focal lengths in the zoom range.

The colour science is also different, but as I don't use Lr at all for my own reasons, I wouldn't know. I did one comparison conversion and that was enough to convince me to stay with Phocus for converting to TIFF.

My advice to any new user, and if you haven't already done so, is to watch the webinar on Phocus provided by Hasselblad to learn the app and what it can do for your files.

To be clear, I process in Phocus first, then in Ps as a TIFF.

You can also preview the RAW in Finder on a Mac, very useful, and export to Phocus directly from there.

Hope this helps.

[tenmangu81]

I use Lightroom (or ACR), but in some cases, Phocus can't be avoided 

[larks]

I have used Ligtroom for years with all sorts of files, including the X2D. I was not even going to use phocus when I got the camera until I tried it. There is definitely something about certain color scenarios where the phocus files simply look better. There is also a tendency for LR to pump more green into the files (always using camera color, not adobe color). There is for sure some sort of tradeoff that happens with lightroom on high iso files, I see less noise and no splotches like in phocus, but the colors seem sort of "thin".

I would say that lightroom makes the hasselblad files feel like more malleable and higher resolution sony a7rV files, while phocus gives them a signature that is recognizable as something different when a bunch of small prints are on the table side by side. Obviously this is all subjective but the feeling comes from starting at so many files I have processed in Lightroom vs Phocus.

[JCM-Photos]

For me Phocus is simply much more efficient than any other software for Hasselblad files and the image quality has less digital appearance being more organic.

Ergonomics are also better, mainly for tethered shooting with on the fly automatic treatment.

Most of big professional photos studios working with Hasselblad gear I know also use Phocus.

[thehotshoeproject]

So to retain HNCS the image file has to pass through the gates of Phocus first. To process further in LR or C1 or others, is it recommended to export as TIFF or DNG? Especially, if I want the final file to have the highest resolution.

[fredfoto]

So to retain HNCS the image file has to pass through the gates of Phocus first. To process further in LR or C1 or others, is it recommended to export as TIFF or DNG? Especially, if I want the final file to have the highest resolution.

I export as TIFF always.