Other Software

tenmangu81 · March 31, 2025, 10:58:11 PM

Quote from: CanNik on March 30, 2025, 10:51:55 PMWhat is wrong with GIMP

Any other software than Phocus and, to a less extent, Lightroom and ACR/Photoshop won't let you keep HNCS colours.

o2mpx · April 27, 2025, 03:35:06 AM

I've seen many mentions of losing HNCS if steps aren't taken through Phocus to TIFF before using a 3rd party editor. Can someone post what exactly is lost or different with a couple of examples?

Presumably the impact is more relevant on skin tones? Have gone through a quick compare of landscapes between Phocus/TIFF/LR vs LR directly on 3f's post import of 3fr's into Phocus; and on a monitor, admittedly not calibrated, not finding obvious differences. Or does the untouched 3f's after import to Phocus that LR is editing already has HNCS?

tenmangu81 · April 27, 2025, 09:04:24 PM

There has been an extensive comparison by Matt Grayson on GetDPI forum, which shows that there are not so many differences between Phocus and Adobe ACR (Photoshop/Lightroom). He compared TIFF files obtained from Phocus and Lightroom:

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/phocus-adobe-lightroom.75030/#post-898574

I think he did about the same on this forum, but I couldn't find it out.

About the comparison between Phocus/TIFF/LR vs LR directly, you are right, there are not significant differences. But Lightroom doesn't edit HNCS. Actually, LR ignores HNCS, but gives very, very close results.

o2mpx · April 28, 2025, 04:22:00 AM

@tenmangu81 many thanks for the GetDPI link. Based on that thread, settling on importing to Phocus to generate 3f's for LR as a regular workflow; then jpgs for sharing.

This may mean abandoning HNCS, a key differentiator using HB gear; but if the consequences are not significant, it's an acceptable tradeoff vs the more complex and time consuming workflow of Phocus/TIFF/LR...at least until Phocus UI gets a rewrite...

David Mantripp · April 28, 2025, 06:56:11 AM

Er, logically you're then saying that HNCS isn't significant. Despite being a key differentiator? Well then you might as well save a stack of cash and buy a GFX!

(My personal experience is that there is a significant difference between Adobe and Phocus. Adobe gives a rather dull interpretation by default. You can get close to Phocus default, but it takes time, it's not quite there, and seems rather pointless. But certainly if you're processing large numbers of photos Adobe and Lr in particular is very attractive. Again, personally, I detest Lr's abysmal UI, so putting up with Phocus is less of a pain

SrMi · April 28, 2025, 08:00:21 AM

Quote from: David Mantripp on April 28, 2025, 06:56:11 AMEr, logically you're then saying that HNCS isn't significant. Despite being a key differentiator? Well then you might as well save a stack of cash and buy a GFX!

HNCS is not the only reason to choose X2D over GFX. Many, including me, use Adobe software instead of Phocus most of the time.

Quote(My personal experience is that there is a significant difference between Adobe and Phocus. Adobe gives a rather dull interpretation by default. You can get close to Phocus default, but it takes time, it's not quite there, and seems rather pointless. But certainly if you're processing large numbers of photos Adobe and Lr in particular is very attractive. Again, personally, I detest Lr's abysmal UI, so putting up with Phocus is less of a pain

tenmangu81 · April 28, 2025, 11:09:37 PM

Quote from: David Mantripp on April 28, 2025, 06:56:11 AMEr, logically you're then saying that HNCS isn't significant. Despite being a key differentiator? Well then you might as well save a stack of cash and buy a GFX!

(My personal experience is that there is a significant difference between Adobe and Phocus. Adobe gives a rather dull interpretation by default. You can get close to Phocus default, but it takes time, it's not quite there, and seems rather pointless. But certainly if you're processing large numbers of photos Adobe and Lr in particular is very attractive. Again, personally, I detest Lr's abysmal UI, so putting up with Phocus is less of a pain

I love HB colours, and this is one of the reasons (among others) why I chose Hasselblad X rather than Fujifilm GFX. I am very happy that Adobe softwares can keep almost completely these colours.
My experience is that there is no significant differences between Adobe and Phocus for a large majority (more than 95% ?) of my pictures. And, no, it doesn't take time to get close to Phocus. Actually, for me, it doesn't take time at all !! Most of the time, I don't need to process my pictures in Lightroom. Just open them. All depends on how you open your files in Adobe softwares.

o2mpx · April 29, 2025, 02:08:01 AM

We're lucky to have so many choices to define our approaches to photography. I've been a LR avoider for a long time, specifically LR Classic. And used Affinity, Luminar Neo, On1, DXO Photo Lab, Apple Photo, but never truly enjoyed the post edit experience.

Luck has it that Smugmug raised prices and sent me looking for cheaper alternatives and found Adobe Portfolio actually comes free with LR subscription. No debate that AP is bare bones but it served my needs sharing travel photos with friends. Dreaded another change to LR but went ahead, tried LR Desktop - not Classic - and actually liked the simplicity. Still not using LR Classic or Photoshop which comes with the LR subscription.

Again preface that I'm not an editing expert, my main workflow is select profile (often Adaptive) and cropping. Minimal as needed tweaks with white balance, masking on exposure, color, detail, clarity, erase etc., then export to jpg. I have to say I've grown to like LR Desktop and haven't used anything else.

SrMi · April 30, 2025, 04:38:17 AM

Quote from: o2mpx on April 29, 2025, 02:08:01 AMWe're lucky to have so many choices to define our approaches to photography. I've been a LR avoider for a long time, specifically LR Classic. And used Affinity, Luminar Neo, On1, DXO Photo Lab, Apple Photo, but never truly enjoyed the post edit experience.

Luck has it that Smugmug raised prices and sent me looking for cheaper alternatives and found Adobe Portfolio actually comes free with LR subscription. No debate that AP is bare bones but it served my needs sharing travel photos with friends. Dreaded another change to LR but went ahead, tried LR Desktop - not Classic - and actually liked the simplicity. Still not using LR Classic or Photoshop which comes with the LR subscription.

Again preface that I'm not an editing expert, my main workflow is select profile (often Adaptive) and cropping. Minimal as needed tweaks with white balance, masking on exposure, color, detail, clarity, erase etc., then export to jpg. I have to say I've grown to like LR Desktop and haven't used anything else.

The desktop-only version is called Lightroom Classic. There is also cloud-based Lightroom (formerly known as Lightroom CC). I assume you use and like the cloud-based Lightroom.

o2mpx · April 30, 2025, 10:01:10 AM

@SrMi you're absolutely right, the preferred version is simply called Lightroom. Unfortunately since that has full local folder capability, as well as mobile and web, it's confusing vs the non cloud version is the Lightroom Classic.

It does seem LR Classic has a more extensive UI, but the newer desktop/mobile/web version UI is more updated.

SrMi · April 30, 2025, 11:39:48 AM

Quote from: o2mpx on April 30, 2025, 10:01:10 AM@SrMi you're absolutely right, the preferred version is simply called Lightroom. Unfortunately since that has full local folder capability, as well as mobile and web, it's confusing vs the non cloud version is the Lightroom Classic.

It does seem LR Classic has a more extensive UI, but the newer desktop/mobile/web version UI is more updated.

Here is a list of feature differences between the two versions of Lightroom. I use only Lightroom Classic, as cloud-based Lightroom misses features that are important to me.

https://photographylife.com/lightroom-classic-vs-lightroom-cc