3FR files.

[fti9748]

I am trying to get my head around why 3FR files exist and what todo with them. I think I understand that 3FRs are Hasselblad's poison pill to prevent other software editors to be used from the get go.  But...

If I take my 3FR files and simply convert them to DNG. What am I losing? I am happy to use Phocus ( once it is stable ), but I would like to be able to use PhotoMechanic or CaptureOne cataloging tools. Which I can't do until my images are in a format that contains an accessible preview.

Does anybody simply convert to DNG using Phocus and throw away the 3FR files? Since Affinity can open an FFF file I am assuming the FFF file is simply a sort of TIFF File. So do people store FFF files or DNG's?

I guess my main question is really what workflow are people using? To cull, catalog, and process their files? 

[mar-ko]

From the Phocus user guide:

Q. Why are there 3FR and 3F files? Why can't captures be saved directly as 3F files?
A. 3FR files consist of native Hasselblad raw data that contains a huge amount of information, particularly when compared to 35mm digital files. This is essential to produce the level of quality expected from Hasselblad products. It follows that a good deal of computing power is required to extract the maximum in the shortest pos- sible time. To avoid diverting the camera's activities to image processing, the combined advantages of Phocus and a workstation are used instead. 3FR files are then processed into a complete and workable raw format that can be saved, adjusted and exported, namely, 3F.

Q. What's the difference between 3FR and 3F files? Should I keep them all?
A. A 3FR file is the native raw file created by Hasselblad cameras and remains in that format when stored on a CF card. When loaded into Phocus, however, various corrections take place based on the hardware configuration
of the camera used. This processes the 3FR file into a 3F format file and creates a high quality preview (size according to settings in Preferences). As this is an improved and specifically-tuned file, the original 3FR file can be discarded. You may, of course, export 3F files to TIFF, PSD, JPEG etc., and just keep those but if you have the space, retaining the 3F files could be good insurance to be able to re-process sometime in the future.

[mar-ko]

You should use FFF; DNGs do not contain all "improvement corrections".

I convert to (and keep) FFF, delete 3FR.

[SrMi]

3FR and FFF files can be read by other post-processing tools, e.g., Adobe and DxO. Capture One could support the 3FR or FFF format, but they do not want to support the Hasselblad.

Converting to DNG does not bring you any advantage, but probably embedding a preview for cataloging purposes. For DNG conversion, I recommend using the free Adobe DNG Converter instead of Phocus unless you want to keep the losslessly compressed FFF files (created upon import to Phocus). I would not discard 3FR/FFF files.

Do FFF files contain a preview JPG?

[tenmangu81]

1) As far as I know, Hasselblad is under discussion with Capture One (which is now separated from Phase One), and, hopefully, a coming version of Capture One would support .3FR or .fff files (but when ? And what about HNCS and lens corrections ?).
2) I have tried to export my .fff files into .dng, and it works quite well. Once you have the .dng, you can open them in Capture One. The problem is you loose the Hasselblad RGB (or Hasselblad L* RGB) colour space when exporting. And you get an Adobe RGB 98 instead......

[fti9748]

Thanks for all the responses. From those I now realize why Hasselblad off-loads the conversion 3FR onto the computer and it makes sense. I retract my conspiratorial comment about using the 3FR to fff as a poison pill.. 

My complication is that my first step for a long time was to use PhotoMechanic to import (ingest) files. The main purpose is to get them named correctly and placed into folders based on capture date etc. From there I would use CaptureOne Pro, to catalog and make a first pass. PhotoMechanic now has cataloging as a feature so I was thinking about moving to that. But PhotoMechanic doesn't support FFF files. I have written to them to ask if there is a way to ingest the FFF files, but I am not holding out hope. They were first asked 12 years ago.

So what do people use for that first step? What do people use to catalog. I have scanned negs, Canon, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Sony raw files. I can use Phocus for editing, or DXO or multiple other apps. But ingesting and cataloging is trickier.

[man-overboard]

I plan to do the following: For every photographic event create a set of folders for that event and day.

1) make a folder named eventname-date and within that 3 folders, 3FR, FFF, TIFF

2) On an External drive after import into Phocus, eventname-date and move the 3FR files.

3) Edit images in Phocus, export to TIFF folder mentioned in 1) above.

If any images need further edits I would use Capture One on the TIFF.

[tenmangu81]

My workflow is to open (import) .3FR into Phocus and export them as .dng, thus without corrections, and knowing that I lose the Hasselblad colour space. Then, I import my .dng into Capture One after some trick, and use the Capture One catalogue. When I want to print pictures that I think are worth to be, I restart with .3FR from Phocus and export them as .TIFF, that I import into my Capture One catalogue (and delete the previous .dng, then), and finally print using Photoshop.
I have checked that .fff, .dng, and .TIFF are identical, as far as colours are concerned, on my calibrated display (Adobe RGB).
The reason why I work with Capture One is that I am used to it, and that I need a catalogue.

[fti9748]

Does anybody know of the FFF file has a preview?

[JCM-Photos]

When 3FR files or 3f files contain respectively Phocus mobile or Phocus desktop Raw post-treatment they are no more compatible as 3FR or 3f  with any other software without loosing the post treatment.
The only solution is then to export as a 16 bit TIFF and go further with Photoshop or Affinity.

Phocus is so much better than any other software with Hasselblad files (I have to use C1 Pro for my Nikon and Leica files) that I finish all my Hasselblad pictures in Phocus with exports as JPEG for screen or print, or 16bit TIFF when compositing or specialized treatment are necessary.

Phocus is the champion in sharpness (no oversharpening), colors, gradations and better  X lens corrections including older Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad C, H lenses, X-Pan lenses, on X cameras

[SrMi]

My workflow is to open (import) .3FR into Phocus and export them as .dng, thus without corrections, and knowing that I lose the Hasselblad colour space. Then, I import my .dng into Capture One after some trick, and use the Capture One catalogue. When I want to print pictures that I think are worth to be, I restart with .3FR from Phocus and export them as .TIFF, that I import into my Capture One catalogue (and delete the previous .dng, then), and finally print using Photoshop.
I have checked that .fff, .dng, and .TIFF are identical, as far as colours are concerned, on my calibrated display (Adobe RGB).
The reason why I work with Capture One is that I am used to it, and that I need a catalogue.

Why do you use Phocus instead of Adobe DNG Converter to create DNGs?
I assume you used the trick to change the camera model name. If that is the case, I do not expect the files to look as good as they should, but it does not matter for cataloging.

[tenmangu81]

Why do you use Phocus instead of Adobe DNG Converter to create DNGs?
I assume you used the trick to change the camera model name. If that is the case, I do not expect the files to look as good as they should, but it does not matter for cataloging.

Yes, you are right, I should give it a try.
Otherwise, I can't understand why changing the EXIF should degrade the files.

[David Mantripp]

My complication is that my first step for a long time was to use PhotoMechanic to import (ingest) files. The main purpose is to get them named correctly and placed into folders based on capture date etc. From there I would use CaptureOne Pro, to catalog and make a first pass. PhotoMechanic now has cataloging as a feature so I was thinking about moving to that. But PhotoMechanic doesn't support FFF files. I have written to them to ask if there is a way to ingest the FFF files, but I am not holding out hope. They were first asked 12 years ago.

I don't know why CameraBits/PhotoMechanic are so stubborn about this. They claim (on support site) that FFF files do not have embedded previews, but this is manifestly untrue. For me it damages their reputation to repeat this - are they dishonest or incompetent? One or the other.  But I guess very few photo journalists use Hasselblad, so they don't care. They've lost me as a customer.

PhotoSupreme reads FFF files and displays the preview.  Actually what I do is this:

1. Import from card into Phocus, converting to FFF in a designated capture folder
2. Import from that folder into PhotoSupreme, saving to my custom file structure (Phocus can't do this. Phocus import is very crude), then clearing the capture folder
3. Open the FFF files in Phocus at their new location. Season to taste. Optionally export to TIFF, maybe work further in Photoshop.
4. Import the TIFFs to PhotoSupreme and stack with their parent FFFs

Since PhotoSupreme allows me to directly open files in Phocus, in then acts as my hub/catalogue for Hasselblad files.

A bit convoluted to start with, but it becomes a matter of habit.  One minor issue is that for some reason PhotoSupreme does not recognise orientation in FFF files.  I need to raise a ticket about that...

[SrMi]

Why do you use Phocus instead of Adobe DNG Converter to create DNGs?
I assume you used the trick to change the camera model name. If that is the case, I do not expect the files to look as good as they should, but it does not matter for cataloging.

Yes, you are right, I should give it a try.
Otherwise, I can't understand why changing the EXIF should degrade the files.

I assume that a raw processor demosaics and applies colors specifically to a certain camera model. If you fake the camera model or remove it, C1 will apply suboptimal, generic settings.
Also, with C1 demosaicing, you cannot apply lens corrections.
If you want to use C1, it is best to use it on TIFFs exported by Phocus.

[tenmangu81]

I completely agree with you. The TIFFs generated from Phocus are the best way to print without any restriction, as they keep all the colour space and lens corrections. This is what I do when I want to print "seriously". However, for your information, I have compared, on my calibrated display (Adobe RGB 98), the pictures demosaiced by Phocus from .3FR, those opened with the Adobe softwares from .3FR or .fff, and the .dng obtained from Phocus and opened, after a trick, in Capture One. The colours (measured with the eyedropper) and the general aspect are the same !! Which means that very few colours are beyond Adobe RGB 98 in "real life". Of course, lens corrections are not kept by the .dng. And of course, this is not the good way of proceeding for a perfect print.