How do people here process their 3F files? I absolutely HATE Flexcolour and immediately convert to DNG so I can use ACR/Lightroom. Lightroom 2 now supports 190 cameras but the CFV is not one of them. It's a pity there isn't an option to capture directly to DNG. Phocus doesn't seem to be much of an improvement either, but how would I know, I use a PC. Just my moan for August in a rainy UK.
Medium Format Family
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
CFV 3F files and ACR/Lightroom
- Thread starter Pete_G
- Start date
jotloob
MFF-Patron
Pete
PHOCUS is an improvement . The user surface is very much like LR .
I do not convert to DNG but to TIFF 16 bit and then work with PSCS3 , as PSCS3 can do much more than LR can .
If you do not have any of the required GCs in your PC , you can only use FLEXCOLOR .
But it is the same process , to convert to DNG or TIFF and then use PSCS3 .
PHOCUS is an improvement . The user surface is very much like LR .
I do not convert to DNG but to TIFF 16 bit and then work with PSCS3 , as PSCS3 can do much more than LR can .
If you do not have any of the required GCs in your PC , you can only use FLEXCOLOR .
But it is the same process , to convert to DNG or TIFF and then use PSCS3 .
As a PC user I'll have to wait for Phocus but it seems to me that LR is becoming an extremely popular product, and I imagine it will be as pervasive as PS, it's a pity the CFV is not supported natively. I prefer to do initial adjustments to the image in LR then export tiffs to CS3 as you've said, in CS3 I can use layers and brushes to paint and dodge etc. I suppose at least Flexcolor allows batch conversion of 3F to DNG. I suppose the CFV can't write DNG as it miust be hardware dependent but Hassleblad and Adobe could get there heads together over LR support, I just can't stand proprietry file formats. Although 3F is uncompressed and DNG is compressed, I wonder what the real world image quality issues are.
vandevantersh
New Member
Phocus is a lot more fun than Flexcolor but requires a lot more computer resources. LR2 1.0 now has local corrections and good output sharpening..the library database functions are also much better. With LR2 there is much less need to go to CS3, IMO.
A 30 day free trial is available.
A very good LR2 video tutorial (7.5 hours) is available here.
A 30 day free trial is available.
A very good LR2 video tutorial (7.5 hours) is available here.
vandevantersh
New Member
"I wonder what the real world image quality issues are."
I don't know but there is a lot of opinion and disagreement on that subject. There is probably little or no difference. LR2 can use the new beta Adobe camera profiles and profile editor. DNG will probably be the way to go, especially if ISO adopts it as a standard.
Steve
I don't know but there is a lot of opinion and disagreement on that subject. There is probably little or no difference. LR2 can use the new beta Adobe camera profiles and profile editor. DNG will probably be the way to go, especially if ISO adopts it as a standard.
Steve
The main improvement with Phocus is a full resolution preview. But that came at a price. With Flexcolor, the thumbnail images loaded immediately. With Phocus the jpg previews load quickly for initial editing of junk, but you have to then import them before further work.
Many of the Phocus advantages over Lightroom are designed for the integrated HD cameras ... like DAC, which only work with the H cameras/backs/lenses, but not the CFV.
Hasselbald experimented with a native DNG file format with the H2D/22 integrated camera (I had one.) In-camera compression slowed the capture rate and the DNG format was abandoned with the advent of the much larger 39 meg 3F files.
Many Hasselbald digital shooters agree that there IS a difference between 3Fs processed in Phocus/Flexcolor verses conversion to DNGs and use of a third pary RAW processor such as Lightroom. That difference is mostly in color rendition.
If you are Mac based, direct loading and processing of Hasselbald RAW files is possible with Aperture. I do not know if it is Hasselbald or Adobe that blocks direct processing of 3F in Lightroom/PSCS3.
Personally, when I have a lot of images to process ... like for a wedding ... I immediately convert all the images to DNGs, which is a relatively swift process in either Flexcolor or Phocus, and process in Lightroom or PSCS3. I think Flexcolor is faster for this task because you do not have to load the images to convert to DNG. However, you cannot go back to use Phocus if you open the files in Flexcolor.
I use Phocus because if there are some special images I want to get the most out of, I will go back and use Phocus for those.
For many automated functions, Lightroom is much faster than PSCS3 ... so is usually the software I use for these type of mass processing tasks.
Many of the Phocus advantages over Lightroom are designed for the integrated HD cameras ... like DAC, which only work with the H cameras/backs/lenses, but not the CFV.
Hasselbald experimented with a native DNG file format with the H2D/22 integrated camera (I had one.) In-camera compression slowed the capture rate and the DNG format was abandoned with the advent of the much larger 39 meg 3F files.
Many Hasselbald digital shooters agree that there IS a difference between 3Fs processed in Phocus/Flexcolor verses conversion to DNGs and use of a third pary RAW processor such as Lightroom. That difference is mostly in color rendition.
If you are Mac based, direct loading and processing of Hasselbald RAW files is possible with Aperture. I do not know if it is Hasselbald or Adobe that blocks direct processing of 3F in Lightroom/PSCS3.
Personally, when I have a lot of images to process ... like for a wedding ... I immediately convert all the images to DNGs, which is a relatively swift process in either Flexcolor or Phocus, and process in Lightroom or PSCS3. I think Flexcolor is faster for this task because you do not have to load the images to convert to DNG. However, you cannot go back to use Phocus if you open the files in Flexcolor.
I use Phocus because if there are some special images I want to get the most out of, I will go back and use Phocus for those.
For many automated functions, Lightroom is much faster than PSCS3 ... so is usually the software I use for these type of mass processing tasks.
vandevantersh
New Member
"Many Hasselbald digital shooters agree that there IS a difference between 3Fs processed in Phocus/Flexcolor verses conversion to DNGs and use of a third pary RAW processor such as Lightroom. That difference is mostly in color rendition."
Does using a camera profile in LR2 equalize the color rendition..DNG LR2 and 3Fs Phocus/Flexcolor?
steve
Does using a camera profile in LR2 equalize the color rendition..DNG LR2 and 3Fs Phocus/Flexcolor?
steve
These folks I'm semi-quoting are dead serious about faithful color because they are commercially shooting products and fabrics etc.
The color rendition probably has a great deal to do with propritary information specific to the Hasselblad backs ... just like Capture One for Phase One backs is touted as producing better color than 3rd party RAW processors. I don't think color profiles for Lightroom are that specific ... although it is now possible to create your own ...
Unfortunately, the information and corrections compiled in Phocus or Flexcolor do not migrate with the files when converting to DNG. DAC correction with H cameras doesn't either.
vandevantersh
New Member
"The color rendition probably has a great deal to do with propritary information specific to the Hasselblad backs ... just like Capture One for Phase One backs is touted as producing better color than 3rd party RAW processors. I don't think color profiles for Lightroom are that specific ... although it is now possible to create your own ..."
Using the "beta" profile editor, the camera profiles are quite easy to create. I was just wondering if a profile created for a specific camera and possibly modified could replicate using DNGs, the "look" of Phocus/Flexcolor?
Steve
Using the "beta" profile editor, the camera profiles are quite easy to create. I was just wondering if a profile created for a specific camera and possibly modified could replicate using DNGs, the "look" of Phocus/Flexcolor?
Steve
Pass that on to me when you get it all figured out Steve ... LOL.
Seriously, some folks are really good at doing that ... like some of the color profiles written for the M8 for use in Capture One. Way better than the ones provided.