X2D import Phocus or LR

[ALAIN]

Hello,

I'm starting to get to grips with my brand new X2D.

I want to develop in LR quite often.
I notice that .fff imports from Phocus weigh less than .3FR imports from LR: around 136MB/.fff compared to 212MB/3FR.

Wouldn't the best import be done in two stages:
- Import of the case to the Mac by Phocus in .fff
- Import into LR always in .fff
?

Alain (from France)

[acg69]

That's what I do. Import to Phocus, work on colours there and then go to Lr to do some more mundane stuff that is done easier there, e.g. straightening, watermark etc.

[tenmangu81]

That's what I do. Import to Phocus, work on colours there and then go to Lr to do some more mundane stuff that is done easier there, e.g. straightening, watermark etc.

I suppose you mean exporting TIFF with your colours adjustments from Phocus. Colours adjustements made on .fff within Phocus are not transmitted to (and thus not read by) Lightroom, if not converted into TIFF or JPEG.

[MGrayson]

Wouldn't the best import be done in two stages:
- Import of the case to the Mac by Phocus in .fff
- Import into LR always in .fff
?

Alain (from France)

This is what I do. Storage may be cheap, but the space savings are significant.

[tenmangu81]

So do I.
But I save all my .3FR on a separate external disk, just in case....

[MGrayson]

So do I.
But I save all my .3FR on a separate external disk, just in case....

I never overwrite my CFExpress cards, so that's my extra .3FR backup.

[flash]

I do 95% of my processing straight in lightroom. Very very occasionally I'll push a file through Phocus for the colour work and then back to LR. Mostly though, because HB gave some info to Adobe, there's bugger all differences. Occasionally there's a small difference.

As for backups, I but some new drives each year as they continue to get larger and cheaper. I also rotate old files onto new drives regularly as old drives fail and sometimes file formats become obsolete.

Gordon

[Andy Miller Photo UK]

Hello,
I'm starting to get to grips with my brand new X2D.
I want to develop in LR quite often.
I notice that .fff imports from Phocus weigh less than .3FR imports from LR: around 136MB/.fff compared to 212MB/3FR.
Wouldn't the best import be done in two stages:
- Import of the case to the Mac by Phocus in .fff
- Import into LR always in .fff
Alain (from France)

There is another option - which is to use DxO Pure Raw 3, which is what I do. The output from PR3 is a linear DNG file which LRC treats like a RAW file but has the DXO processing built in. [I have DxO Photo Lab 7 but really see the most benefits from using PR3 as a raw converter then editing in LRC/PS].  Capture One will not work on the 3FR or FFF files and since LRC 13 I find I no longer need the colour/skin benefits that C1 provides.

The key issues for me in making these choices are:

a) for general shooting (so nothing really special) - speed and flexibility - LRC is most definitely the way to go. Phocus lags vastly in its masking tools and far far quicker than Phocus

b) using a RAW converter that delivers a far better (in my eyes at least) quality result -- well Phocus is great but the best output comes from a 16-bit TIF file in the largest color space - the files are very very large - same photo in a range of file options:

• FR 211.5mb
• fff 137.6MB
• 16-bit TIF file from Phocus 610.2MB
• DXO Pure RAW 3 DNG 255.2MB
• Camera JPEG 29.7MB

I save developing in Phocus this "option" for select shots that deserve the best treatment.

Optical corrections - Initially I assumed that Phocus was the only route to the best results -- but DxO does a really great job. LRC now has OC for all the lenses including the 28P

Colour -- well this is somewhat subjective -- YES I do enjoy the colours from Phocus, but I find I also enjoy colors from DXO PR3.  Here the question is about time and storage space.

Summary - smallest footprint/quickest - just use LRC. Best result - 60/40 Phocus vs PR3. Lower quality (marginally) LRC but this is very marginal.
I edit every image in LRC and on rare occasions in PS (via LRC). LRC

For comparison here are downsampled examples of a simple boring image processed in different ways:
Phocus --> 3RF -> fff --> TIF --> LRC --> Out
LRC (3FR) --> OUT
DxO PR3 (Deep Prime XD) --> LRC -->OUT
JPG from Camera --> LRC --> OUT

All images have as Shot WB and the same corrections/cropping to remove distractions

[acg69]

That's what I do. Import to Phocus, work on colours there and then go to Lr to do some more mundane stuff that is done easier there, e.g. straightening, watermark etc.

I suppose you mean exporting TIFF with your colours adjustments from Phocus. Colours adjustements made on .fff within Phocus are not transmitted to (and thus not read by) Lightroom, if not converted into TIFF or JPEG.

Right, I export the files in JPG format, which is the final format for me anyway (for web use).

[Juansphotos]

I've decided to use Phocus for all color and exposure work, then export to .tiiff/16 to use in PS for retouching. Lightroom's demosaicing takes all of the "punch" out of the skin colors in portraits.

I had an X1Dii and compared it to my Leica SL2, M10, Q3, and Sony A7RV. Using LR, the X1Dii was barely distinguishable from the other cameras when using Adobe's profiles on all.

I returned the X1Dii. Sometime after I returned it, I opened Phocus and reviewed a portrait session I'd tethered and was floored. So much so that I bought the X2D...

I wish Leica made their own RAW editor as well. Sony and Canon do. I always feel the Adobe profiles are just missing something. Adobe's profiles need to play it safe and be consistent across many platforms.

[tenmangu81]

Do you use an Adobe input profile with Lightroom, or specifically the "Camera standard" for X1D ?
I can't make any difference in colours (by eye and with the eyedropper) between Phocus and Lightroom, when using "Camera standard" instead of the Adobe profiles set.

[pflower]

A number of  points from this discussion which I'll jump in on.  I have been using Hasselblads for some 14 years now starting with an H3D, then the CFV50, X1D and now X2D.  My go to has always been to go to Lightroom with some exceptions.

I don't understand the 3FR vs 3fff file size difference. Up until the H5 (I think) 3FRs were compressed and the uncompressed 3fff files were about 15-20% larger.  Now it's the other way around in that 3fff files are smaller than the 3FRs.  I was told by a Hasselblad rep that was because the compression algorithm hadn't been activated but it would be in the future - now with the X cameras there is still no compression for 3FRs.  I can see no reason not to import the 3FRs and convert them to the smaller 3fffs.

  Phocus does offer some colour advantages. With my H3D back in 2008 LR didn't handle saturated reds and greens nearly as well as Phocus.  In 2023 LR now comes pretty close.  There are those who swear that exporting 3fff files to Tiffs from Phocus produces significantly better colour.  Maybe their eyes and colour vision is better than mine but for the most part there is little significant difference - Caveat - I don't do portraits so I can't talk about skin tones but for urban and landscape there are some differences but slight.  I don't like the canned Adobe profiles in Lightroom so made my own with the Color Checker system - with those I can get very close to matching a 3fff file to a Tiff exported from Phocus. 

However there are some files which do benefit from Phocus.  But unless you intend to do major surgery on them in Photoshop I would have thought that an 8 bit Tiff (300MB compared to 600MB) would suffice.  I tend to do no more in Photoshop than some colour, exposure adjustments etc.  So 16bit is probably overkill.

The final point to consider is what are you going to do with your files?  I print mine on an SC-P5000 with custom paper profiles.  Comparing A2 prints made from the same file exported from Phocus as a Tiff and a 3fff file printed directly from Lightroom (which I have tried to match as closely as I can to the Tiff) there are slight differences but nothing significant. But you'll have to try both ways for yourself.  What I consider a slight difference might to you be a glaring deal breaker. But what I compare is the final print and not what is on the screen.

So for 90% of what I do 3fff files edited in Lightroom and printed directly from Lightroom works for me (particularly with the new masking features).  If I know or think I am going to have to go to Photoshop then I export from Phocus as a Tiff (again 90% of the time as an 8 bit Tiff), edit in PS, import into Lightroom, finish it off and print it from LR.

[Juansphotos]

Do you use an Adobe input profile with Lightroom, or specifically the "Camera standard" for X1D ?
I can't make any difference in colours (by eye and with the eyedropper) between Phocus and Lightroom, when using "Camera standard" instead of the Adobe profiles set.

I tried a portrait I shot using each of the Adobe profiles and the colors shift and were flatter compared to Phocus using the standard or nature profiles. I didn't see much of a difference with landscape or flowers, but skin in portraits made a huge difference.

[Photon42]

Did you also try the embedded camera profile in Adobe Lightroom? I like it best so far from all the available standard options in Lightroom. It does not however sync to the mobile versions (at least it did not some months back). That can be annoying depending on the workflow.

[tenmangu81]

Do you use an Adobe input profile with Lightroom, or specifically the "Camera standard" for X1D ?
I can't make any difference in colours (by eye and with the eyedropper) between Phocus and Lightroom, when using "Camera standard" instead of the Adobe profiles set.

I tried a portrait I shot using each of the Adobe profiles and the colors shift and were flatter compared to Phocus using the standard or nature profiles. I didn't see much of a difference with landscape or flowers, but skin in portraits made a huge difference.

All Adobe profiles are very bad for colours, as far as Hasselblad is concerned. You should use the "Camera standard", the only one keeping HNCS.