Hi,
I work with Lightroom all the time, in Lightroom i have enabled the conversion during importing from 3FR to DNG, my question; is there any information lost from the raw file once the conversation is done ? thanks.
Hi Alkaabi,
The short answer is YES!
This subject is covered extensively in this forum, however, before you search you should have already come across this description and warning in the Hasselblad Manual which I will quote for you here:
Ultimate Image Quality
Phocus combines Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution (HNCS) with Digital Auto Correction (DAC) to provide high digital image quality in the images you create. With Phocus, the moiré effect that can occur on even extremely high resolution images is effectively removed automatically and directly on the raw data, leaving the image quality intact and saves time in post production work.
"PHOCUS AND HASSELBLAD CAPTURE FILES
The HxD can capture files and store them as Hasselblad RAW format files or Hasselblad RAW + JPEG formats simultaneously. (not applicable to 60 Mpix / 50MS/200MS models).
Hasselblad RAW files are initially stored in the 3FR format which is a proprietary Hasselblad format for the temporary storage
of captures. A 3FR file contains the complete digitized raw image exactly as it was captured by the camera. 3FR information requires further computing power (typically by way of Phocus) to obtain complete development. If developed in Phocus, 3FR files become Hasselblad 3F files – denoted by each file now bearing the suffix ".fff". If developed by other RAW processors, the 3FR files are not converted to 3F but can be exported directly to TIFF, PSD etc. according to requirements.
However, when working tethered – which necessitates using Phocus – 3FR files are automatically processed and stored in the background on a computer appearing as 3F files on the hard disk ready for selective adjustment and export. 3FR files stored on a CFast card can be processed to completion using:
● Hasselblad Phocus
● Adobe Camera Raw
● Adobe Lightroom
● Apple Aperture
Capture files can be stored as 3FR files (from a CFast or SD card) for later processing in Phocus or other software, or they can be stored as 3F files (as a result of tethered shooting or 3FR files processed and converted in Phocus). In all cases if you keep the original 3FR/3F files, you will also retain the possibility of reprocessing them in the future in later versions of Phocus or other software to take advantage of eventual improvements and developments.
Mixed formats
Phocus can also process most other capture formats, generic and proprietary. This means you can include other formats in your normal Phocus work flow if you choose. Or if you prefer, you can include Hasselblad files in Adobe / Apple work flows as stated above.
Note!
Using Phocus is the most comprehensive method. The Phocus and Adobe methods can produce almost identical results (in most cases, but not all) regarding RAW conversion so it is a matter of personal choice regarding which method would best suit your preferred ways of working. Alternatively you can use Apple Aperture though you should take note that the benefits of DAC and HNCS etc., will be lost in this case.
Cheers,
Hi Hassilistic,
is there anything i miss storing 3F files instead of 3FR files (or both) also considering possible future development of Phocus and/or other SW?
Is it in other words unsafe discard the 3FR files after conversion to 3F ?
I always catalog all my raw and edited files in Lr which can handle also the 3FR files (without lens correction, at the moment).
I am new to Hasselblad and to Phocus and I am still trying to set up my worfklow for the X1D files.
TIA,
Ario
Hi Ario,
You are on the right track. Personally I save only the 3F files, but that is subject to your work flow. In mine I process RAW 3FR via PHOCUS Software which in turn makes them 3F, a RAW propriety of PHOCUS, but RAW nevertheless. If your workflow is to process your 3FR files via a 3rd party software, then I would advise you to save those files.
Keep in mind 3F, are none destructive RAW files, which when processed in Phocus remains all saved Under the Adjustment preset menu up on the control bar, and you can go back to any point of significant change even to time of import which you'll find between brackets.(Import)
*Important Note for workflow development:
Industry professionals recognise what they refer too as the Hasselblad Look and that is primarily due to Phocus applying the HNCS & DAC to your Extraordinary RAW files, all the while allowing to make your own tweaks and Adjustments to that RAW capture hence the 3F stage point prior to your exporting your RAW files into a workable Image Format [JPG - TIFF - PSD] which has a Color Profile [Adobe 1998 - sRGB - etc.] attached to it, To be Edited in an External Editor like Adobe or Coral software apps or even newer none photoship apps, ones like Affinity.
Quote from: Hassilistic on March 22, 2017, 07:42:35 PM
Hi Ario,
You are on the right track. Personally I save only the 3F files, but that is subject to your work flow. In mine I process RAW 3FR via PHOCUS Software which in turn makes them 3F, a RAW propriety of PHOCUS, but RAW nevertheless. If your workflow is to process your 3FR files via a 3rd party software, then I would advise you to save those files.
Keep in mind 3F, are none destructive RAW files, which when processed in Phocus remains all saved Under the Adjustment preset bar up on the control bar, and you can go back to any point of significant change even to time of import which you'll find between brackets.(Import)
*Important Note for workflow development:
Industry professionals recognise what they refer too as the Hasselblad Look and that is primarily due to Phocus applying the HNCS & DAC to your Extraordinary RAW files, all the while allowing to make your own tweaks and Adjustments to that RAW capture hence the 3F stage point prior to your exporting your RAW files into a workable Image Format [JPG - TIFF - PSD] which has a Color Profile [Adobe 1998 - sRGB - etc.] attached to it, To be Edited in an External Editor like Adobe or Coral software apps or even newer none photoship apps, ones like Affinity.
Couldn't say any better!
Do all your processing in Phocus for the best results! Finish and catalogue your exports (tifs) in LR.
Learn Phocus, it's worthwhile !
Hi guys, I am learning Phocus to deal with my X1D pictures, but I found there are some problem, looks I cannot control light ratio, when I try to adjust high light or deep black part in picture through repair function, it looks not as good as LR, because I cannot get the same level as LR at the phocus, it will cause distortion. Please see the attached two files. Looks cannot reach LR level in phocus. Phocus is much bright colored, but cannot see more detail.
Hi Lim71,
Hasselblad unlike other DSLRs has a massive ability to pull highlights when blow out, as demonstrated by the Video link below were it will challenge the infamous Nikon D800 in ahead to head comparison, and its not even the H6D we are talking about, not even the H5D.. Just watch for your self: https://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk?t=11 (https://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk?t=11)
Which is why when shooting in Hassy be sure to shot to the Right. Expose for Highlights not for Shadows. (Vice Verse - See Correction and explanation in msgs below)
Cheers,
I think these two statements are contradictory. Wouldn't you want to expose for shadow if you are shooting to the right, and that the highlights in RAW can be easily pulled back as in the case with H?
Alex
Quote from: Hassilistic on March 23, 2017, 10:27:47 AM
Which is why when shooting in Hassy be sure to shot to the Right. Expose for Highlights not for Shadows.
Yep, I think that's what he meant. For example when shooting tethered with the H4D50 (native ISO 50), we overexposed it by up to 1.40EV and then pulled it back to 0 in Phocus (using Reproduction Mode), to get even more sample data into the shadows. On a side-note, preferring a NR PS plugin like Topaz DeNoise over & whilst reducing Phocus's the Noise Reduction can easily rescue 1EV of shadow detail.
There are 2 ways to work with Hasselblad DNGs in LR. One directly importing the RAW file as DNG to LR, the other: open the file in Phocus and export as DNG. Then open in LR. I found that the results are different, as regards colors and highlights/shadows recovery (I prefer the second method). In both methods you do not have lens corrections (at least until LR implements this for XCD lenses)
Personally I didn't like the highlight/shadow tool in Phocus so I prefer to make adjustments in LR.
Quote from: lim71 on March 23, 2017, 01:41:10 AM
Hi guys, I am learning Phocus to deal with my X1D pictures, but I found there are some problem, looks I cannot control light ratio, when I try to adjust high light or deep black part in picture through repair function, it looks not as good as LR, because I cannot get the same level as LR at the phocus, it will cause distortion. Please see the attached two files. Looks cannot reach LR level in phocus. Phocus is much bright colored, but cannot see more detail.
Hi,
Can you provide the raw file for this and I'll try to match that look in LR. but using Phocus.
Sometimes it pays to reduce the EV to negative values then recover shadows with fill light or just the curves. Don't use the recovery in Phocus, or Brightness, it is a useless control. Focus on EV, curves and contrast.
Ben
Quote from: rent on March 23, 2017, 11:28:21 AM
I think these two statements are contradictory. Wouldn't you want to expose for shadow if you are shooting to the right, and that the highlights in RAW can be easily pulled back as in the case with H?
Thanks "rent" for catching that, just as "Alex" stated and obviously from the video I have attached its exactly what I meant, I just skewed these two [Highlights & Shadows] invertedly. To be specifically exact 'Expose To The Right' ETTR.
For all those new to this, in a nut shell, ETTR and subsequently ETTL was a technique from the days of Film which really was directly related to what type of film you used. So for 'Negative Film' you would ETTR, and for 'Slide Film' you would ETTL which was due to the chemistry of the film and the processing, slide film would tend to lose detail in the highlights more readily than the shadows.
Almost all DSLRs today mimic 'Slide Film' which is why you are constantly told to expose for Highlights, not in the case of Hasselblad as the video just showed, is able to pull back details which my appear lost and can do it better than the best highest dynamic range 35mm DSLR today which is the Nikon D800. [Although come to think of it... As I am having an "Aha" moment while writing this, that this may only pertain to CCD sensors on Hasselblad cameras and might react differently on CMOS bodies... if someone can please verify that and do a test!]
A camera's dynamic range is dependent on the camera not the file processor, however the choice of file processor will determine how you can best manipulate that full range. In other words newer / specialised RAW processors will most probably do a better job of creating a nicer out-of-the-box result of what's been captured, but they still can't bring back that which is beyond the limits of the sensor. Unlike with film where one couldn't remove the "process for" element out of the "expose for XX and process for YY" equation for find optimal exposure, with digital we can remove the Raw processor element and thereby measure the sensor for what its true capabilities are and hence start creating capture files at optimum quality:
Download a 30 day trial of Rawdigger and follow the linked guide in order to find out what the true dynamic range of your camera/s are and therefore the exposure compensation that should be dialled in whilst shooting.
http://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/how-to-use-the-full-dynamic-range-of-your-camera
I think the problem I say is that Phocus' adjustment limitation compare with LR, looks it is easy to get right adjustment through LR but difficult to use Phocus to get same result... like reduce the light ratio. Whatever make the focus at shadow or light. LR looks much powerful that Phocus. Is it right?
Quote from: lim71 on March 24, 2017, 01:48:12 AM
I think the problem I say is that Phocus' adjustment limitation compare with LR, looks it is easy to get right adjustment through LR but difficult to use Phocus to get same result... like reduce the light ratio. Whatever make the focus at shadow or light. LR looks much powerful that Phocus. Is it right?
The only limitation I see is the badly exposed photo. Photoshop is even better than lightroom if that is what you are looking for. Each application has its strengths and weaknesses, I have already explained above what you get with Phocus in text and video.
Now what you can do so that you don't lose the HNCS & DAC benefits is at least try to make minor Exposure Adjustments to the RAW file to prepare it for LR edits, so that you have a good starting point.
I've just started importing 3FR files into LR, and my workflow has always been converting to DNG. I took the original DAM course at the Santa Fe Institute with Peter Krogh, the author of The DAM Book and one of the advisors on the DNG standard and Adobe Lightroom from pre-beta -- we used 1.0 beta in the course in 2007. I am a huge fan of DNG as the archival format with XML envelope preserving edits as metadata in a non-destructive way. I've immediately noted how a 110MB 3FR file would become 80MB lossless DNG, so a 16GB card would shrink to 10GB. Following Peter's workflow I always keep the originals as Virgin Backups, so if I do have humans in a photo and I want to try HNCS or Phocus I can always do so. But I would advocate for the majority of the shots to use DNG with its tremendous advantages of carrying all edits and metadata together if needed. The DNG files can also be validated against the internal checksum that is preserved even across edits, where standard OS tools like diff fail. You can then validate your whole library against corruption and replace disks if you notice any (you should do backups of course). Overall, DNG offers much better strategy to keep your library OK fo decades and hand it off to your children.
Can you clarify please? If I want to use LR, is there any advantage in:
1) importing 3FR files into Phocus, with a simple adjustment (eg Nature) so they then become 3F files (correct?)
2) then exporting those files (as DNG) so they can be imported into LR
... or is that no better than importing them straight into LR (converted to DNG)?
Thanks
I've not tried Phocus except for kicking the tires and generally do very basic edits in LR so far. It's hard for me to judge the claims of proprietary color handling. So my solution is very simple -- I import as DNG and upload to Lr Mobile to see everything on iPhone/iPad/laptops and anywhere in the world I can use Lightroom CC. If I really really like an image and would want to try it into Phocus, my original ingestion preserves the 3FR. I'd need to study more but from the Lightroom standpoint it doesn't matter whether it's 3FR or DNG since its own rendering will be the same. So for Lightroom there should be no difference, and the advantage of having 3FR would be easier editing in Phocus.
Essentially Lightroom lets you sync to LrCC for viewing/rating/DAMming everywhere. You can keep 3FR unconverted on the desktop for editing in Phocus if you like, it's still lossy DNG in the cloud (Smart Preview).