The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Any Hasselblad users just use Phocus and nothing else?

Hasslebad

Member
But...out of all the file formats and camera types that I use and have used, those darn Hasselblad files are the only ones I find to be a bear to cull after uploading because PM and PM+ will not render thumbs. Bridge kind of works but is clunky as is LR as a DAM.
I’m not familiar with Hasselblad Raw files. But I have had a good experience with Fast Raw Viewer which swiftly reads through the embedded jpegs in Raw files and is great for quickly culling images. I believe it reads CFV files.
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
I’m not familiar with Hasselblad Raw files. But I have had a good experience with Fast Raw Viewer which swiftly reads through the embedded jpegs in Raw files and is great for quickly culling images. I believe it reads CFV files.
I can confirm that FastRawViewer has no problems with 3FR and FFF files, at least with those produced by my CFV-50c Mk I.
I use it sometimes for culling/copying from the CF card to my work disk.
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
Very late to this thread but now that I have a 100C I thought I would give Phocus a try. If there would be any color advantage I would consider using it exclusively - at least to generate an 'fff' file for further processing in camera raw. I ran a test shooting a DataColor Spyderchecker (light generated from GTI Executive Viewing Station) and processed the 3FR file in Camera Raw and also used Phocus to generate an 'fff' file. I didn't do anything else for processing with either method other than to generate a file that Camera Raw could process to 'tif' format. The only variance I noticed was that the histogram in Phocus showed an almost perfect exposure while Camera Raw showed a slight underexposure. The patch measurements also bore this out but once in Bridge they were identical.

I could not see any difference between the two files for any color patch when brought into Bridge. Clicking on either file and staring at a particular patch was an exercise in 'they look identical'. Measurements in Bridge were so close that any differences, to me, were insignificant. For instance I may get a reading of 155 on the 3FR file and 154 on the 'fff' file. One digit was the most variance in any of the patches.

So for me I intend to use Camera raw exclusively unless I need to generate a scene calibration file. I found Phocus more difficult to work with and with more bugs.

For sure there is amazing color with either method - something I have not experienced with other cameras.

Victor B.
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Very late to this thread but now that I have a 100C I thought I would give Phocus a try. If there would be any color advantage I would consider using it exclusively - at least to generate an 'fff' file for further processing in camera raw. I ran a test shooting a DataColor Spyderchecker (light generated from GTI Executive Viewing Station) and processed the 3FR file in Camera Raw and also used Phocus to generate an 'fff' file. I didn't do anything else for processing with either method other than to generate a file that Camera Raw could process to 'tif' format. The only variance I noticed was that the histogram in Phocus showed an almost perfect exposure while Camera Raw showed a slight underexposure. The patch measurements also bore this out but once in Bridge they were identical.

I could not see any difference between the two files for any color patch when brought into Bridge. Clicking on either file and staring at a particular patch was an exercise in 'they look identical'. Measurements in Bridge were so close that any differences, to me, were insignificant. For instance I may get a reading of 155 on the 3FR file and 154 on the 'fff' file. One digit was the most variance in any of the patches.

So for me I intend to use Camera raw exclusively unless I need to generate a scene calibration file. I found Phocus more difficult to work with and with more bugs.

For sure there is amazing color with either method - something I have not experienced with other cameras.

Victor B.
The Phocus FFF file is NOT processed. Camera RAW sees exactly the same data from the 3FR and the FFF. Export a 16 bit TIFF from Phocus to see how it processes colors and corrections. Otherwise you're not seeing any of Phocus.

(I did the test and the images from 3FR and FFF files viewed in PS agreed to 15 stops.)
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
I repeated the test with Phocus exporting a tif and Camera Raw exporting a tif. No other adjustments were made EXCEPT for white balancing on a white patch in Spyderchecker.

Now differences are more apparent but they are subtle. I would much prefer to do as much processing in RAW than on the TIF file so again my preference would be to process most files in CR vs. Phocus.

Thanks for the clarification......

Victor B.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I repeated the test with Phocus exporting a tif and Camera Raw exporting a tif. No other adjustments were made EXCEPT for white balancing on a white patch in Spyderchecker.

Now differences are more apparent but they are subtle. I would much prefer to do as much processing in RAW than on the TIF file so again my preference would be to process most files in CR vs. Phocus.

Thanks for the clarification......

Victor B.
I do the same. If I shot portraits, I might look more closely at the differences, but for what I do, it just isn't significant.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Try as s I might Phocus V LR raw files I 'see' no difference for most shots. The only difference I have been able to see hs been a a few macro flower shots - with subtle rendition of bright reds and oranges and only at the margin. If I ever need tether capability I will use Phocus.
 

tenmangu81

Well-known member
What I can't understand (by now...) is that histograms of the same file (not any adjustment for fff) opened in Camera Raw are not the same for fff and 3FR on MY computer (MacBook Pro M1 14", Ventura 14.3.1). fff files are a little bit darker, but histograms end in superposing when increasing a little the exposure value of the fff image.
Histograms of the same fff file opened in Camera Raw and in Phocus are a little different (that I can understand, as the demosaicing algorithms of Phocus and Camera Raw are not the same).
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
Every raw developer applies its own demosaicing algorithm and its own set of the base development parameters, which are different from the ones applied by another developer. There are no shared/agreed standards here. It's a jungle. 😀
Regarding the 3FR files, as far as I know they are intermediate files that still need some final processing by Phocus. 3FRs may still miss gamma and color matrix adjustments, just to name two. But since we then play with settings in the raw developer in any case, the only thing that really matters is how close the applied base parameters of a raw developer take to the final result you have in your mind, thus saving a lot of chair-sitting work.
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
What I can't understand (by now...) is that histograms of the same file (not any adjustment for fff) opened in Camera Raw are not the same for fff and 3FR on MY computer (MacBook Pro M1 14", Ventura 14.3.1). fff files are a little bit darker, but histograms end in superposing when increasing a little the exposure value of the fff image.
Histograms of the same fff file opened in Camera Raw and in Phocus are a little different (that I can understand, as the demosaicing algorithms of Phocus and Camera Raw are not the same).
Paste one image into a new layer above the other and select "difference" as the blend mode. You should see solid black. If the data is different, it will be visible. No idea how the histograms are computed. Are they brought in in different color spaces?
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Working on a Tif file processed in Phocus is very different than working on a raw file. Once the file is converted to a Tif processing becomes limited. It would be great if Phocus could process some of the usual steps I go through such as highlight recovery as well as Camera Raw. The recovery tool in Phocus is crude compared to Camera Raw. Shadow recover also is way behind what can be accomplished in Camera Raw. Camera Raw can't read the corrections made to an 'fff' file but if it could that would solve everything for my workflow. So if I need that one step of calibration (Scene Calibration) I'll try to trick Capture One and work on it with that software..... but that sure is a hassle.

Victor B.
 

BigBoy

Active member
The workflow I use is to import the image files to my computer with Lightroom Classic. This allows me to automate exactly where in the original file system I want them to be located, and allows me automation for some IPTC and keyword annotation as well.

LR is completely nondestructive so the raw files on the computer are exactly what was on the card or in the camera's storage. I often just use LR and its supplied lens profiles to render the photos. BUT if I think that Phocus might actually do a better rendering, I start up Phocus, import the selected files, and then do whatever it is I want in Phocus. Once i'm done with Phocus, I output TIFF 16bit files to the original location named "original name.TIFF" rather than .3RF.

Lightroom will then import all the TIFFs with an update on that folder, and I can copy the annotation into the new TIFF renderings.

I've found this to be a pretty useful workflow. And, by and large, Lightroom does a pretty good rendering of Hasselblad 3FR files if you use the lens profiles. There ARE differences, though, so obviously for some things Phocus is the right tool.

Here's a quick example of an image that I rendered in LR with and without the lens profile, and in Phocus, for comparison:


1-LR-no_corrections


2-LR-profile-applied


3-phocus-no_edits

taken with Hasselblad 907x + XCD 21mm f/4
ISO 400 @ f/5.6 @ 1/200 sec @ 21mm

You can download the full resolution images from Flickr if you're so inclined. They're rendered to JPEGs to save space.

G
Phocus looks so much better.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The trick for Capture One use is two steps. Convert to a dng then change the camera name to Fujifilm and camera make to any of the Fuji GF100 MP cameras.
However the image IMO suffers and it hard to get a good color solution at times. All the tools work.
For my workflow Phocus is a no go. Way to slow, tedious import and naming. Toolset is basic.

I have moved to LR for most X2D raw. Color is close at least to me. Enhanced raw conversion is excellent.

Only area I find Phocus is worth the effort is a higher iso image as it seems to do better with noise.

Paul.
 
Last edited:

tenmangu81

Well-known member
Paste one image into a new layer above the other and select "difference" as the blend mode. You should see solid black. If the data is different, it will be visible. No idea how the histograms are computed. Are they brought in in different color spaces?
Sorry Matt for replying late. I had many things and moves to be done recently. I'll check carefully about the colour spaces, but I think they are identical. Some other tests to be done...
 
I finally got an X2D and went out and did some shooting yesterday. It is my first digital MF camera. I also downloaded and used Phocus for the first time. It produces great files with little effort. I’m really pleased with both the camera and its output.

Questions:

1. Apart from Lightroom/PS, can you recommend any other software to convert the TIFFs to small JPEGS for social media?

2. I’m still finding my way around Phocus. Can it convert colour files to B&W? If not, what do you recommend?

thanks for your help,

sean
 

Arjuna

Active member
1. The Export tool in Phocus has some jpeg presets (at least my copy of Phocus v3.8 does) and it allows you to create your own presets, with some control over the parameters.
2. In Phocus, on the Adjust panel, there is Grayscale tool: click to turn it on, and there are Red, Green, and Blue sliders to adjust the conversion.
 
1. The Export tool in Phocus has some jpeg presets (at least my copy of Phocus v3.8 does) and it allows you to create your own presets, with some control over the parameters.
2. In Phocus, on the Adjust panel, there is Grayscale tool: click to turn it on, and there are Red, Green, and Blue sliders to adjust the conversion.
Thank you so much!
 
Top