X2D import Phocus or LR

[fcarucci]

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.

For critical printed landscape work for galleries, I go through Phocus, then tiff, then LR, then PS. It works for me because my volume is low, once an image has been selected, I can focus on it.

For higher volume portrait work for clients, I generally just go LR only, unless I have an absolute keeper that the client wants to print and I use the same workflow as for my gallery work.

The difference in colors between LR and Phocus is definitely small, but it's noticeable, so I'm happy to take the slightly longer route for work that needs the best IQ I can achieve.

[MGrayson]

If you're using the XCD 28P on an X2D, be aware that Phocus and LR apply the lens corrections differently.

Here is the uncorrected image through a piece of white plexiglass at f/4.8. All images white balanced and levels corrected at the center.


Here it is the LR correction.


And here is corrected in Phocus and exported as 16-bit TIFF.


Matt

[David Mantripp]

I have been pretty much on the Phocus side of the fence up until now, but recently I'm trying to use Lr for convenience. Some recent updates to Lr have convinced me, especially the saturation adjustment slider on the curve tool, which turns it into a variable-strength Luma curve. But I don't much care for the Camera Standard profile. I've invested in the Cobalt profiles for X1DII, and, cautiously, I think they do a bettEr job. There is extended range in reds and yellows, and the -0.5EV difference between Lr Camera Standard and Phocus has gone.   Of course this may not apply to the X2D.

[mjhillsc]

I have done some tests and found that the best, albeit slow, workflow is to import the RAW files into Phocus, make no edits, and export them as a DNG. Then open the DNG folder in LR and make edits or open the DNG files in ACR/PS and Bob's Your Uncle. I have achieved the best results in shadows with this workflow.

[SrMi]

I have done some tests and found that the best, albeit slow, workflow is to import the RAW files into Phocus, make no edits, and export them as a DNG. Then open the DNG folder in LR and make edits or open the DNG files in ACR/PS and Bob's Your Uncle. I have achieved the best results in shadows with this workflow.

I am surprised by that suggestion, as the DNG generated by Phocus contains no additional (Phocus-specific) information. It is the same as when generated by the Adobe DNG Converter. No Phocus modifications are propagated to the generated DNG file.

[tenmangu81]

I have done some tests and found that the best, albeit slow, workflow is to import the RAW files into Phocus, make no edits, and export them as a DNG. Then open the DNG folder in LR and make edits or open the DNG files in ACR/PS and Bob's Your Uncle. I have achieved the best results in shadows with this workflow.

I did it for a while (one year or more).... until I could check (eye and eyedropper) that some colours were missing or altered when converting the Blad RAW files into DNG. You loose the HNCS colours, at least, and don't get any advantage going through Phocus. As suggested by SrMi, it's then faster using Adobe DNG converter if you want to follow that way.

[mjhillsc]

I have done some tests and found that the best, albeit slow, workflow is to import the RAW files into Phocus, make no edits, and export them as a DNG. Then open the DNG folder in LR and make edits or open the DNG files in ACR/PS and Bob's Your Uncle. I have achieved the best results in shadows with this workflow.

I am surprised by that suggestion, as the DNG generated by Phocus contains no additional (Phocus-specific) information. It is the same as when generated by the Adobe DNG Converter. No Phocus modifications are propagated to the generated DNG file.

This is not my experience. A Phocus generated DNG is not the same as a DNG generated from Adobe Camera Raw. I determined this by putting one DNG over the other as layers in PS and setting the top layer to difference mode.  Logically, to me, it would make sense that the DNG from Phocus and ACR could be different as they are different algorithmic interpretations of the RAW data from the sensor.  The DNG standard is little more than a universally readable interpretation of RAW data with the emphasis being placed on "universally readable."  Similar in intent to the PDF standard.

[SrMi]

I have done some tests and found that the best, albeit slow, workflow is to import the RAW files into Phocus, make no edits, and export them as a DNG. Then open the DNG folder in LR and make edits or open the DNG files in ACR/PS and Bob's Your Uncle. I have achieved the best results in shadows with this workflow.

I am surprised by that suggestion, as the DNG generated by Phocus contains no additional (Phocus-specific) information. It is the same as when generated by the Adobe DNG Converter. No Phocus modifications are propagated to the generated DNG file.

This is not my experience. A Phocus generated DNG is not the same as a DNG generated from Adobe Camera Raw. I determined this by putting one DNG over the other as layers in PS and setting the top layer to difference mode.  Logically, to me, it would make sense that the DNG from Phocus and ACR could be different as they are different algorithmic interpretations of the RAW data from the sensor.  The DNG standard is little more than a universally readable interpretation of RAW data with the emphasis being placed on "universally readable."  Similar in intent to the PDF standard.

Are you certain that you use the same color profile for both DNGs. The default is different for the two files. Also, Adobe's file has different tags that show a slightly darker image in the post. Checking them with PS layers would be difficult.
In addition, Phocus-generated DNG seems to be a real raw file, not a linear DNG. That means that all raw data is unchanged.

[ashdown]

Isn't Phocus working in Hasselblad's own colour space as part of their HNCS? It's quite a bit larger than the default Adobe RGB used in Lightroom.

[SrMi]

Isn't Phocus working in Hasselblad's own colour space as part of their HNCS? It's quite a bit larger than the default Adobe RGB used in Lightroom.

The raw data does not have a color space applied.

[jwillson]

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.

For critical printed landscape work for galleries, I go through Phocus, then tiff, then LR, then PS. It works for me because my volume is low, once an image has been selected, I can focus on it.

For higher volume portrait work for clients, I generally just go LR only, unless I have an absolute keeper that the client wants to print and I use the same workflow as for my gallery work.

The difference in colors between LR and Phocus is definitely small, but it's noticeable, so I'm happy to take the slightly longer route for work that needs the best IQ I can achieve.

Same for me. For 90% of my work, I import straight into LR Classic and use the "Camera Standard" profile in LR. The only catch with this approach, is that "Camera Standard" is not available in LR or LR Mobile, so if I need the image available in a sync'd gallery on my phone or iPad for whatever reason, I will either change the profile to "Adobe Standard" and slightly re-process (if the exact colors in the original file weren't critical to how I intend to use the photo), or I export it as a TIFF using Adobe 1998 and bring it back into LR Classic into a sync'd gallery. That's a real pain in the neck, but it works OK.

I have been trying to stay away from using Phocus as much as possible just because the photos that would most benefit from the improved color processing (or, at least, more "pleasing" colors in Phocus since I doubt they are actually more accurate per se) are also the photos where I want the new AI based noise reduction processes in Lightroom, and those won't work off a TIFF.

I had zero luck with exporting DNG's from Phocus and then bringing them into LightRoom Classic--no improvement whatsoever over just working straight from the raw file in LR.

- Jared

[tenmangu81]

You'll never have the same rendering on an iPad or iPhone (using LR, then) as on a calibrated display when using LR Classic or Photoshop.

[JCM-Photos]

Curve tool is much more powerfull in Phocus than LR or PS. (it can also only affect luminosity).

In Phocus a curve modifying point works as a "Bezier curves" point what is not the case in other sorfware. ( it works like a pen tool selection).

One point (outside the curve) can give a massive correction over the whole spectrum with a perfect progressivity without breaking the curve.

As Peter Coulson says, what he does with one point in a Phocus curve needs 3 or 4 points long tuning in  Adobe software.

[MGrayson]

Curve tool is much more powerfull in Phocus than LR or PS. (it can also only affect luminosity).

In Phocus a curve modifying point works as a "Bezier curves" point what is not the case in other sorfware. ( it works like a pen tool selection).

One point (outside the curve) can give a massive correction over the whole spectrum with a perfect progressivity without breaking the curve.

As Peter Coulson says, what he does with one point in a Phocus curve needs 3 or 4 points long tuning in  Adobe software.

LR added a luminosity-only curve which, I agree, is a very important tool. Actually, you can interpolate between RGB and Luminosity, though that ability sounds less essential. "Refine Saturation" set to zero is luminosity only. At 100, it is standard RGB.


I didn't know about the off-the-curve functionality in Phocus. That's great!

[jwillson]

You'll never have the same rendering on an iPad or iPhone (using LR, then) as on a calibrated display when using LR Classic or Photoshop.

Wouldn't expect to. The color gamut varies from one device to another. However, that doesn't mean I have no use for displaying images on an iPad or a mobile phone, or that I want an obvious shift in brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue! Every other camera I own the "camera standard" profile works in LightRoom Mobile and regular LightRoom, not just Classic. The Hasselblad? Nope. It literally does not work. If for any reason you want to work in Lightroom rather than in Classic (as I will often want to do when traveling), you need to use one of the Adobe profiles such as "Adobe Standard" or "Adobe Color". That, or you go through Phocus and export a TIFF. Very annoying. My calibrated monitor at home is, obviously, the best choice for critical editing, but when I'm not at home I would like to be able to start with my iPad and not be forced to rework everything later since I can't start with the desired color profile.

- Jared