Setting up an X2D workflow with Lightroom Classic to preserve file integrity

[tenmangu81]

I doubt DxO Photolab would keep the HNCS colours. Only Phocus does that, and, to some extent, Lightroom which almost does it.

[acg69]

Be aware that anything you do in Phocus to your fff file will be stored in the fff for further use in Phocus but will not be taken in account when imported in LR.

Not sure this is true. I work on fff files in Phocus, export them as tiff to Lr and, of course, the changes I have made to the fff files are preserved.

[acg69]

What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be a definite answer as to the retention of HNCS if you stray from Phocus... As stated by some other users, I also prefer Lr because I know it better and I like some of the tools more, especially dealing with the removal or spots and perspective change to name a few. If I knew for a fact that I am not losing anything by going straight to Lr, I would skip Phocus altogether. If I knew that Phocus is the only way to maintain the integrity of HNCS, I would invest in learning Phocus. I wish that Hasselblad itself would chime in and let us know...

[tenmangu81]

Clearly, the only way to be sure you keep HNCS is developing with Phocus. HNCS is an integrated system using a profile made with multiple illuminants, as far as I read, while Lightroom profiles are built using only two illuminants. But, provided you use the Adobe "Camera standard" profile (to be set in preferences), you'll get results very close to the ones you get with Phocus in most cases. Only very few captures (for instance multiple lightings, or pieces of art reproduction) would need to use Phocus for a better result.

[AReid]

What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be a definite answer as to the retention of HNCS if you stray from Phocus... As stated by some other users, I also prefer Lr because I know it better and I like some of the tools more, especially dealing with the removal or spots and perspective change to name a few. If I knew for a fact that I am not losing anything by going straight to Lr, I would skip Phocus altogether. If I knew that Phocus is the only way to maintain the integrity of HNCS, I would invest in learning Phocus. I wish that Hasselblad itself would chime in and let us know...

For what it's worth, this was just posted on Hasselblad board on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hasselblad/comments/1eall0d/hasselblad_raw_files_lightroom_vs_phocus_2024/

[tjelt]

I read the review on Reddit.  His conclusion that Lightroom is better at highlight recovery than Phocus is the exact opposite of my experience.  One of the few reasons for me to use Phocus over Lightroom is in fact highlight recovery.  His analysis does not take into consideration the color space.  In my experience converting an image to the large Hasselblad color space will give you greater recovery with Phocus.  A use case for this is photographing sunsets. 

[AReid]

Be aware that anything you do in Phocus to your fff file will be stored in the fff for further use in Phocus but will not be taken in account when imported in LR.

Not sure this is true. I work on fff files in Phocus, export them as tiff to Lr and, of course, the changes I have made to the fff files are preserved.

This seems to be the consensus way of doing it but aren't the tiff files immense?

[acg69]

Somebody in this forum (cannot remember who or in which thread) wrote this:

My workflow is as follows:
- Import all captured images in 3fr format to my hard drive
- Within Phocus I
  - Review and "import" the 3fr images I want to process, which     
    converts them to fff
  - Adjust the import standard setting (portrait, nature or standard)
  - Select the Hasselblad RGB color space
  - Apply lens corrections
  - Adjust the shadow and recovery
  - Export as 16 bit TIFF to LR/Photos for all remaining adjustments
- Periodically backup and remove the 3fr and fff images from my drive

This seems to make sense according to everything that is being said, so I kept it and tried to implement it. However I got stuck at "Select the Hasselblad RGB color space" part. As I am importing the 3fr images to Phocus (to get the fff files) there isn't any option to choose which color space to use, or at least I cannot find it. Can someone please help?

Again, the ultimate ask for me is to be able to preserve Hasselblad's colors (i.e. HNCS) when editing. I prefer Lr just because I know it better but I have no problem going through Phocus, doing some stuff there and then exporting tiff16 files to Lr for the rest.

So, where is this Hasselblad RGB color space?

Thanks!!!

[tjelt]

In Phocus under the 'Adjust' tab.  Click on the little menu button (the 4 little lines) to the right of the Adjust tab.  Make sure that the 'Reproduction' subpanel has a check mark in front of it. 

Click on the Reproduction panel to open it.  You will see a line item that says 'Working Space'  You then have the option to select either the Hasselblad RGB or the Hasselblad L*RGB (a larger color space).  After that you have to click on the menu button to the right of 'Reproduction' and click on the Modify option. 

Hope this is clear enough. 

T

[acg69]

In Phocus under the 'Adjust' tab.  Click on the little menu button (the 4 little lines) to the right of the Adjust tab.  Make sure that the 'Reproduction' subpanel has a check mark in front of it. 

Click on the Reproduction panel to open it.  You will see a line item that says 'Working Space'  You then have the option to select either the Hasselblad RGB or the Hasselblad L*RGB (a larger color space).  After that you have to click on the menu button to the right of 'Reproduction' and click on the Modify option. 

Hope this is clear enough. 

T

Thanks, it works!

[David Mantripp]

FWIW, I can't name names, but I have it extremely good, first hand authority that Hasselblad and Adobe worked very closely together to optimise the colour reproduction, HNCS, whatever you want to call it, in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom. My own experience bears that out. Even so, I was very reluctant to abandon Phocus, but a recent 600+ shot session tipped me over the edge.  Life is too short for Phocus.

[AReid]

FWIW, I can't name names, but I have it extremely good, first hand authority that Hasselblad and Adobe worked very closely together to optimise the colour reproduction, HNCS, whatever you want to call it, in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom. My own experience bears that out. Even so, I was very reluctant to abandon Phocus, but a recent 600+ shot session tipped me over the edge.  Life is too short for Phocus.

I hope this is true. I'd like to avoid 16-bit TIFF files. They're humonguous.

[Georg Kovalcik]

... HNCS, whatever you want to call it ...

It's a multi-illuminant system for one thing (and more) and Phocus is the only raw converter on the market that implements this. Lightroom uses dual illuminants (StdA and D65). It's technically very different and while the results can be similar (if not the same) for "standard" lighting conditions they certainly aren't always.

... Life is too short for Phocus. ...

Now, no one is forced to use Phocus. Personally, I like it and think life is too short to waste time with Adobe products, but then I'm not forced to use them.

[tobefree]

What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be a definite answer as to the retention of HNCS if you stray from Phocus... As stated by some other users, I also prefer Lr because I know it better and I like some of the tools more, especially dealing with the removal or spots and perspective change to name a few. If I knew for a fact that I am not losing anything by going straight to Lr, I would skip Phocus altogether. If I knew that Phocus is the only way to maintain the integrity of HNCS, I would invest in learning Phocus. I wish that Hasselblad itself would chime in and let us know...

Yep I agree. So many postings that just say this is what I do, which is fair enough, but actually no one seems to really know what is happening. When you spend this much on a camera ecosystem this seems an absolutely ridiculous situation. The key thing is that library choice is not just about editing it's also about Asset Management. Lightroom is significantly better for this and that is the first stage of any batch processing, to be able to assign keywords, General ratings and so forth. Once you have gone through that process then you start to deal with the editing of a particular image. It is at that point then you start to consider the rendition of colors, contrast Etc.. In that respect you're starting point needs to be Lightroom. However the consensus here seems to be that you start ith Phocus and then export to Lightroom. It would be much better if it was the other way around.

[o2mpx]

What gets me is that there doesn't seem to be a definite answer as to the retention of HNCS if you stray from Phocus... As stated by some other users, I also prefer Lr because I know it better and I like some of the tools more, especially dealing with the removal or spots and perspective change to name a few. If I knew for a fact that I am not losing anything by going straight to Lr, I would skip Phocus altogether. If I knew that Phocus is the only way to maintain the integrity of HNCS, I would invest in learning Phocus. I wish that Hasselblad itself would chime in and let us know...

Yep I agree. So many postings that just say this is what I do, which is fair enough, but actually no one seems to really know what is happening. When you spend this much on a camera ecosystem this seems an absolutely ridiculous situation. The key thing is that library choice is not just about editing it's also about Asset Management. Lightroom is significantly better for this and that is the first stage of any batch processing, to be able to assign keywords, General ratings and so forth. Once you have gone through that process then you start to deal with the editing of a particular image. It is at that point then you start to consider the rendition of colors, contrast Etc.. In that respect you're starting point needs to be Lightroom. However the consensus here seems to be that you start ith Phocus and then export to Lightroom. It would be much better if it was the other way around.

Agree. Unfortunately it seems a lost cause as presumably HB would want to sell more gear than worry about improving an archaic piece of SW.

The minimal workflow I've signed up for: cull best I can once the original 3fr's are imported into Phocus, then export only keepers to TIFF16, then it's LR all the way to finish.

I did watch one episode of the HB guys from the UK (Mark and Chris, I believe) reviewing the HNCS basics which they said Phocus will apply the color and corrections when images are imported. My assumption based on what's said, is the fff automatically has HNCS incorporated during importing, so I just send the image straight out to TIFF16 for LR, without needing to use Phocus for any changes.

BTW, I found out LR doesn't allow lens profile changes, it's greyed out, presumably TIFF's already has that embedded.

Not sure if this is the best workflow, but it's the least involving Phocus.

Would appreciate anyone pointing out if any of this is wrong. Thanks.