Phocus versus Lightroom

[Dennersten]

In what software do you develop your X2D pictures? I am using Lightroom, i guess i should be using Phocus. I have read the marketing, but is there a real world difference? Has anybody done a comparison?

[marcwick]

I had the same problem. I was always working with LR but now I use Phocus for the first adjustments. I do not know all tricks with Phocus, but it I like the program. For the rest, I export the photo to LR

[ashdown]

Lightroom is fine but Phocus will get the very best out of your images with regard to colour, noise and lens corrections. Every Hasselblad is calibrated from the factory and loaded up with data about the sensor and lenses. There is lots of this data within the raw files which Phocus uses to produce images. Lightroom in comparison takes the standard meta data and uses off-the-shelf lens corrections.

Using Phocus can be slow and annoying, particularly at first but it's worth persevering

[Andy Miller Photo UK]

I have consistently used Phocus 3.7 to import and process my files and then export them as 16-bit TIFs before importing them into LRC.

I remember that I could not open the 3FR files originally. But now I can -- so... the real question is can I spot the difference.

Well -- there is utility in using Phocus import to convert the 220MB 3FR image files into the smaller 170MB fff files. I use the Standard import profile in Phocus for that step. Then I delete the 3FR originals. Since both the 3FR and fff files can be adjusted non-destructively in LRC - I am now very clear that a process that converts a 170MB image file into a 600MB 16-TIF file is simply wasteful unless there is a fundamental difference in outcomes between completing the RAW edit in phocus 3.7 rather than LRC -- and as is stands I cannot see the difference.

LRC seems to have the lens profiles for the current generation XCD lenses. So perhaps one will have to wait for it to also receive the profiles for new V design versions, in the meantime one can choose to use the lens data built into into the image.

Has anyone noticed a difference between the raw processing (ignoring the far better masking tools in LRC and quite a few other tools LRC has) compared to images processed in Phocus 3.7 ?

Clearly tethering needs to be done in Phocus 3.7 and will be better when the firmware update is delivered to the X2D which enables live view and camera control when tethered.   

[Photon42]

What I do presently:
1. Import 3FR into Phocus converting them into 3F files.
2. Do the culling in Phocus
3. Do the main image processing in Phocus (usually not too much)
4. Mark the files I want to keep as 3Fs
5. Export all files to JPGs
6. Remove the ones not marked in 4
7. Import all remaining files into the LR catalog (Some only JPGs at this time, some 3Fs)
8. Mark the 3F files from step 4 with a color (so I know to use the Phocus produced JPG)

I then keep editing 3Fs in Phocus und update their JPG counterpart, if required.

[fcarucci]

Has anyone noticed a difference between the raw processing (ignoring the far better masking tools in LRC and quite a few other tools LRC has) compared to images processed in Phocus 3.7 ?

You can definitely see a pretty remarkable difference in how colors are treated, if you do a side by side comparison, especially with greens. Colors from Phocus look more natural and easier to post process further. There's also a really big difference in how tonal gradients in out of focus areas are preserved and smoothen out in Phocus compared to LR. For my type of work (landscapes) and the number of images per session I need to process (very few), the slightly more cumbersome process, if the workflow is optimized, is very well worth the better IQ.

[SrMi]

Has anyone noticed a difference between the raw processing (ignoring the far better masking tools in LRC and quite a few other tools LRC has) compared to images processed in Phocus 3.7 ?

You can definitely see a pretty remarkable difference in how colors are treated, if you do a side by side comparison, especially with greens. Colors from Phocus look more natural and easier to post process further. There's also a really big difference in how tonal gradients in out of focus areas are preserved and smoothen out in Phocus compared to LR. For my type of work (landscapes) and the number of images per session I need to process (very few), the slightly more cumbersome process, if the workflow is optimized, is very well worth the better IQ.

What is your adjustment setting when importing to Phocus and which profile do you use in LrC?

[fcarucci]

Has anyone noticed a difference between the raw processing (ignoring the far better masking tools in LRC and quite a few other tools LRC has) compared to images processed in Phocus 3.7 ?

You can definitely see a pretty remarkable difference in how colors are treated, if you do a side by side comparison, especially with greens. Colors from Phocus look more natural and easier to post process further. There's also a really big difference in how tonal gradients in out of focus areas are preserved and smoothen out in Phocus compared to LR. For my type of work (landscapes) and the number of images per session I need to process (very few), the slightly more cumbersome process, if the workflow is optimized, is very well worth the better IQ.

What is your adjustment setting when importing to Phocus and which profile do you use in LrC?

I use Phocus as much as possible as a pure debayer, with very minimum corrections, and import the tiff with "Camera Settings" and "None". Not sure if I answered your question.

[SrMi]

Has anyone noticed a difference between the raw processing (ignoring the far better masking tools in LRC and quite a few other tools LRC has) compared to images processed in Phocus 3.7 ?

You can definitely see a pretty remarkable difference in how colors are treated, if you do a side by side comparison, especially with greens. Colors from Phocus look more natural and easier to post process further. There's also a really big difference in how tonal gradients in out of focus areas are preserved and smoothen out in Phocus compared to LR. For my type of work (landscapes) and the number of images per session I need to process (very few), the slightly more cumbersome process, if the workflow is optimized, is very well worth the better IQ.

What is your adjustment setting when importing to Phocus and which profile do you use in LrC?

I use Phocus as much as possible as a pure debayer, with very minimum corrections, and import the tiff with "Camera Settings" and "None". Not sure if I answered your question.

You compared colors between the TIFF generated by Phocus and 3FR files imported by LrC.
Those colors depend greatly on the Phocus import setting (Adjustment: Standard, Nature, Portrait, ..) and the color profile used in LrC.

[disposable@tx.rr.com]

Quoting from the Phoocus User Manual:
"The Phocus and Adobe methods can produce almost identical results (in most cases) regarding RAW conversion so it is a matter of personal choice regarding which method would best suit your preferred workflow.".  Since they did include the wording "almost" and "in most cases" I interpreted that to mean there's some wiggle room to argue whatever case you choose.

My suggestion would be that if you personally, for your own work shot and processed to your personal taste, whichever program you find easier and more feature rich might be the best solution.

[JCM-Photos]

Phocus import setting are not fixed import profiles, they only work as postprocessing presets that are non destructive and can be tuned as your personal presets are.
Many professional Phocus functions are completely missing in LR are or much better in Phocus such as subject dedicated camera profile build even with a target calibration file, file dedicated automatic color vignetting correction, much finer lens correction for most of all Hasselblad lenses on X cameras such as Zeiss C, CF, F lenses, X-Pan lenses, automatic with H lenses, only Capture One does this with Phase One gear. You can even set in Phocus an automatic screen calibration for your Eizo automatic calibrating CG screen, or controlling directly in Phocus you Broncolor studio flashes.
Phocus is a high end professional tool with many hidden functions. It does not duplicate post processiong function allready existing in Photoshop or Affinity what can seem as a lack to people that work with a all in one solution like LR. Phocus is a 2 steps solution not meant to be followed by LR but by PS

[mmanesh]

I bought into the X system for its colors and ergonomics and left the Fujifilm ecosystem (at least for now). In terms of workflow, CaptureOne was perfect for me. So the primary reason remains image quality and differences in rendering output. Hence, I stick to Phocus.

[tenmangu81]

Phocus is a 2 steps solution not meant to be followed by LR but by PS

Definitely. Or even a three steps solution for those who would like to have an associated DAM.

[JCM-Photos]

Phocus is a 2 steps solution not meant to be followed by LR but by PS

Definitely. Or even a three steps solution for those who would like to have an associated DAM.

imo lightroom cataloging is a lot of work for a poor asset management compared to a real DAM like eagle or similar.
I don't need cataloging, I work in session mode with C1 and file for Phocus in a C1 session copied similar structure.

[tenmangu81]

I did try Eagle. Lightroom catalogue suits my needs. I could work in sessions, too (I did it with Capture One in some occasions), but they are not really adapted to most of my usual works.