Export as DNG

[pflower]

Playing around with Phocus 3.01 - I normally use Lightroom.  If I modify a file in Phocus and then export as a .dng the file that is exported does not reflect the modifications - i.e. the exported .dng file is exactly the same as the unmodified 3fff file. Interestingly on my iMac the little thumb nail in Finder does suggest that the modification has been recognised.  I suppose that the lack of modification into the .dng file is to be expected but given that H6D-50 16 bit Tiffs are about 250mb I was interested to see if I could use Phocus to get a modified Phocus .dng into Lightroom for further processing and printing.  It would seem not.  But am I missing anything?

Thanks

[NickT]

I never do the DNG thing. My workflow (for what it's worth) is to import to Phocus do any major tone/colour correcting there and then export a Tif (with lens corrections applied) The Tif gets imported (at same location) into lightroom where I add more key words and export to various other sizes.

[Chris Gahran]

Why would you not use Phocus?

Hasselblad has spent millions of dollars writing FlexColor and now Phocus to get the best quality they can out of an imaging chip that their competitors also buy and use. Hasselblad profiles the chips, writes noise filters, sharpening routines, lens corrections and Phocus removes hot pixels. (FlexColor didn't handle hot pixels well.)

DNG is a base level version of the image file without any enhancements applied by the camera manufacturer.

[Cirillo]

Phocus offers the best quality for Hasselblad files and it's a part of camera system,so if you export DNG directly to Lightroom you loose the advantages (Hasselblad's natural colour solution, digital lens correction etc...) the software gives you. The best way I.M.O is to do adjustments in Phocus then export a 16 bit TIFF to Lightroom or Photoshop if necessary.

[pflower]

Why use .dng?  It was a bit of wishful thinking - could I get the advantages of Phocus without having to export a 16 bit Tiff?  I suppose I should have realised that was not going to work.  But to answer your question - storage space.  I already have close 8TB of files backed up on 2 separate systems from my main drive.  With Tiffs coming in at 250MB and keeping the Raws we're looking at 300MB per file( 350MB until there is a firmware update to the H6d).  I have already committed to buying a CFV-50c and will probably buy an H6D (and maybe even upgrade to the 100c) so storage is going to be something I will have to address.  But I suppose hard disks are much cheaper than anything from Hasselblad. 

So anyone got any tips on how to deal with all those megabytes?

Why would you not use Phocus?

Hasselblad has spent millions of dollars writing FlexColor and now Phocus to get the best quality they can out of an imaging chip that their competitors also buy and use. Hasselblad profiles the chips, writes noise filters, sharpening routines, lens corrections and Phocus removes hot pixels. (FlexColor didn't handle hot pixels well.)

DNG is a base level version of the image file without any enhancements applied by the camera manufacturer.

[NickT]

Unless you plan on making significant tone moves then you really don't need to work on 16bit files. For that reason all my Photoshop/Lightroom work is done on 8 bit tiffs (Unless working on Nikon RAW files). If I do get into a situation where I need major tone moves I can always go back to the RAW files in Phocus.

Storage wise I'll start another thread so we don't get lost!

[pflower]

Great I would be interested in storage solutions.  I bought an Apple II in the 1970s and then spent a fortune on a 10MB external drive which I thought would solve all my needs - in those days no photography and WordStar files were about 2K.  Now I have nearly 8TB of files and since I do not throw my negatives away I am hugely reluctant to throw my digital files away - even though I know that I will be unlikely to revisit them frequently.  So with the huge sizes of files now storage and storage practices seem to me to be of interest.  So I would be interested to hear what other people do.

[NickT]

Storage thread started here:

http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com/index.php?topic=4575.0

[Chris Gahran]

I'm working on location shoots with an associate photographer. He owns and has always used Canon gear.

We do the photography together using my multi-shot Hasselblad and split the post-production. I output TIFFs from Phocus (which are sometimes Layered PSD TIFFs) and do any retouching necessary. He outlines the subjects (which can be very time cosuming) and delivers final images to the client.

On our first project collaberation he insisted I deliver 16-bit TIFFs in a huge color space. He wanted those Fat Files because of his experience using Canon images.

I said no, you're getting 8-bit files in a moderate color space. I told him he could push the subject's color into the next county if he wanted to do so using 8-bit files but I assured him he will only need to make minor corrections if any are needed.

He was amazed with the quality of the TIFFs and their malleability if changes were necessary. He no longer asks for 16-bit files and is saving his pennies to buy a Hasselblad system.

I suggest you test to see if 8-bit files work for you. When post-production is finished you can gather the fff Files and Zip them to save space.

Heresy Alert: I do not understand—maybe I should say appreciate—the need for ever larger megapixel digital backs. I get the competitive race for the latest and greatest by Hasselblad but I don't get the need for 100mp images. 50mp multi-shot backs possibly... I use 1/4/16 shot 22mp CF series backs with the Fabled Fat Pixels and they are amazing image capturing devices. Even using my 22mp back, our last project resulted in capturing 60GB of fff Files.

(A 100mp multi-shot back [if there is such a beast] would put the fff Files from that last project at somewhere between two and three Terrabytes! IMHO, that's crazy! We're delivering 8.5x11 and 11x17 inch final images @ 300ppi. Not five foot wide fine art prints.)

Chris