Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad file workflow?  (Read 16068 times)
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« on: November 12, 2008, 07:47:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I've recently "converted" from a Phase P45+ to the Hasselblad H3DII-39.
Totally pleased with my new direction but seeking advice on the optimum software processing sequence for the Hasselblad 3fr files.

Note that the H3DII writes a 3FR file to the CF, then Phocus Imports it as a 3FFF.

I'm currently using Phocus to do the initial RAW conversion of 3FR to a 3fff, then Tiff, then into LR2 for fine tuning as I find Phocus lacking in features that I was used to in Capture One software, then into CS4 for final adjustments.  Unfortunately, in LR I'm working with a Tiff rather than the original RAW with it's extra data.

Tried Aperture but could never get it to accept the 3fr files without crashing and displaying magenta preview images, even though Hasselblad claims it supports their RAW format!

Subjects are landscape with the occasional portrait shot.

Interested in learning hat others have found to be their best workflow.

Thanks
Logged

jecxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2008, 08:36:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Congrads on your switch. I too am using the H3DII39. Very happy.

I do not shoot tethered. I shoot landscape to CF card.

I backup the 3FRs from CF card to DVD, then copy to hard drive and review in Phocus. Each CF card is assigned a folder with 4 sub-folders: 3FR, FFF, TIF and JPG. All the 3FRs go into the 3FR folder obviously and as I find images I consider keepers, they go into the FFF folder -- I can always go back to the original 3FR.

I am pleased with Phocus, very stable and easy to use. They are still working on the PC version and they are making improvements regularly. Hasselblad has been very responsive to needs and issues.

I select my "keepers" in Phocus, do color edits, save the versions in the FFF that Phocus creates. I like how Phocus saves different versions in one FFF. I then export to 16-bit TIF and find that I need very little color edit in PS. I find no need to use ACR, the TIFs that Phocus produces are fine for me and I do not subscribe to DNG probably because of DAC in Phocus, something you won't have in PS. I can do it faster by skipping ACR.

Once my TIFs are created, I move to PS, do spot removal for sensor dust or maybe some layer work and then I export to JPG or print.

That is my workflow. I hope it helps.

I have also discovered http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com - a great place where other digital H shooters are very helpful. I've learned a lot over there. Good luck.

Kind regards,
Derek
Logged

hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 727


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 10:16:36 AM »
ReplyReply

My workflow with Phocus is essentially the same as Derek's. However, I do not use the sharpening tool in Phocus. I turn off  the sharpening completely, and when I open an exported TIFF in Photoshop, I use Focus Magic with a radius of either 1 or 2, depending upon the subject matter. I have also tried Raw Developer and Aperture with the Hasselblad files. While I do appreciate the more extensive tool sets in those programs compared to Phocus(and the "stacks" feature in Aperture), I still find that the raw conversions out of Phocus are just better.
Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2008, 10:22:05 AM »
ReplyReply

What is Focus Magic?

I checked in CS4 and it's not listed as one of the tools.

Thanks,
Jack


Quote from: hcubell
My workflow with Phocus is essentially the same as Derek's. However, I do not use the sharpening tool in Phocus. I turn off  the sharpening completely, and when I open an exported TIFF in Photoshop, I use Focus Magic with a radius of either 1 or 2, depending upon the subject matter. I have also tried Raw Developer and Aperture with the Hasselblad files. While I do appreciate the more extensive tool sets in those programs compared to Phocus(and the "stacks" feature in Aperture), I still find that the raw conversions out of Phocus are just better.
Logged

hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 727


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2008, 11:42:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
What is Focus Magic?

I checked in CS4 and it's not listed as one of the tools.

Thanks,
Jack

Sorry, Jack. It's a third party plug-in for PS that I have come to prefer for the "capture sharpening" that I do to all my TIFFs out of Phocus immediately upon opening them in PS at the native, 16 bit file size, before any downrezzing or uprezzing for print. I do a second pass of sharpening for print at the output size using Photokit Sharpener, another plug-in. Focus Magic came highly recommended to me by Joseph Holmes, who knows way more about digital imaging than I ever will. The one drawback to it is that it not a universal binary, so I have to run PS in Rosetta when I use it.
Logged

mazma
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2008, 10:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

i recently moved from P25 to h3dII39. very happy about it, apart from the same problems on figuring out the best workflow...

since we are talking about it, i have a couple of problems:
1- small previews on phocus do not appear to be sharp at all. i have to zoom the image to see it well. this is limiting for tethered workflow, as i cannot see it immediately if i am sharp or not. any idea on why it is like this?

2- i shoot both tethered and non, and i also use nikons. so LR2 is my best do it all. is there any way to have an automatic creation of DNG on import? export on import?? i'd loose most of phocus features, but i'd gain in workflow speed at times. i don't want to do tiff necessarily, because of size and lack of future flexibility.

3- i find phocus very nice, but also very limiting. more similar to aperture than LR2. selection of images, history of adjustments, presets. am i doing something wrong?

thanks,
alberto
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2008, 01:07:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mazma
i recently moved from P25 to h3dII39. very happy about it, apart from the same problems on figuring out the best workflow...

since we are talking about it, i have a couple of problems:
1- small previews on phocus do not appear to be sharp at all. i have to zoom the image to see it well. this is limiting for tethered workflow, as i cannot see it immediately if i am sharp or not. any idea on why it is like this?

2- i shoot both tethered and non, and i also use nikons. so LR2 is my best do it all. is there any way to have an automatic creation of DNG on import? export on import?? i'd loose most of phocus features, but i'd gain in workflow speed at times. i don't want to do tiff necessarily, because of size and lack of future flexibility.

3- i find phocus very nice, but also very limiting. more similar to aperture than LR2. selection of images, history of adjustments, presets. am i doing something wrong?

thanks,
alberto

Hi Alberto,

Check in the Phocus preferences that you have set embedded preview size to 'Large' that can help some customers.

If you do export to DNG you will lose a great deal of image quality.  No lens corrections, poor performance at higher ISO and generally less accurate colours.  What do you feel you are missing in Phocus?

Best,


David


Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
kaimaui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2008, 01:46:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice to have somebody from Hasselbald answering questions.
I am also somebody who has an array of cameras. Lightroom is my preferred work flow and what I am familiar with.
It would be great if you could put one more voice towards hasselblad transferring lens corrections  when exporting DNG files.

What do I feel that i am missing when using Phocus versus Lightroom.
1.) still no pc version
2.) I sometimes shoot and sort but not work on files for weeks. Having the files in a database is a huge help finding work.
3.) I simple prefer light room controls and features. My goal is to be in one software from import to print. When I do test prints i may decide to make small changes and it is great to not have to go back trough the whole process but simple be able to make my change and go straight to print.

I am sure you have heard this before and it is not meant to offend.
My believe is that adobe simple puts more resources into its application then an other company.
I believe most camera manufacturers would be better served working in cooperation with software company's rather then locking them out.
Canon is doing the same with its digital photo professional. The software is not bad but no competitor for Lightroom. Yet if I want their lens correction I am forced into their software which i am completely unfamiliar with. The end result are images that are not as good as they could be and more time in front of the computer for me.

 



Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Hi Alberto,

Check in the Phocus preferences that you have set embedded preview size to 'Large' that can help some customers.

If you do export to DNG you will lose a great deal of image quality.  No lens corrections, poor performance at higher ISO and generally less accurate colours.  What do you feel you are missing in Phocus?

Best,


David
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2008, 01:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I would also welcome the support of Hasselblad Raw files in ACR/LR. The question what am I missing in Phocus that is in LR is assuming the 2 programs serve a common purpose which for me at least they do not.

LR is a DAM program that has some basic manipulation/editing tools. Even as a DAM program LR is lacking some stuff, eg. true network support.
Phocus is a Raw converter.

I catalogue all my Raw files (the ones I would like to keep that is) in LR. It is impossible to catalogue Hasselblad Raw files unless they are in DNG (at this moment).
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 01:59:54 AM by Dustbak » Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2008, 02:33:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kaimaui
Nice to have somebody from Hasselbald answering questions.
I am also somebody who has an array of cameras. Lightroom is my preferred work flow and what I am familiar with.
It would be great if you could put one more voice towards hasselblad transferring lens corrections  when exporting DNG files.

What do I feel that i am missing when using Phocus versus Lightroom.
1.) still no pc version
2.) I sometimes shoot and sort but not work on files for weeks. Having the files in a database is a huge help finding work.
3.) I simple prefer light room controls and features. My goal is to be in one software from import to print. When I do test prints i may decide to make small changes and it is great to not have to go back trough the whole process but simple be able to make my change and go straight to print.

I am sure you have heard this before and it is not meant to offend.
My believe is that adobe simple puts more resources into its application then an other company.
I believe most camera manufacturers would be better served working in cooperation with software company's rather then locking them out.
Canon is doing the same with its digital photo professional. The software is not bad but no competitor for Lightroom. Yet if I want their lens correction I am forced into their software which i am completely unfamiliar with. The end result are images that are not as good as they could be and more time in front of the computer for me.

No problem!

I am afraid it is the DNG format that does not allow us to put in the data for the lens corrections.  It is extremely important to make the point that we are not blocking anybody out!  Plus Lightroom does not have a way to access the 57,000 plus lens tables for all the H lenses.

There is the ability to tag and sort files in Phocus.  Have you tried this?

Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers.  Only natural I guess.  Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.

I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.

Best


David


Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2008, 02:35:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
I would also welcome the support of Hasselblad Raw files in ACR/LR. The question what am I missing in Phocus that is in LR is assuming the 2 programs serve a common purpose which for me at least they do not.

LR is a DAM program that has some basic manipulation/editing tools. Even as a DAM program LR is lacking some stuff, eg. true network support.
Phocus is a Raw converter.

I catalogue all my Raw files (the ones I would like to keep that is) in LR. It is impossible to catalogue Hasselblad Raw files unless they are in DNG (at this moment).

Excellent point there Ray.  There is two different philosophies going on with the software packages.

But, I agree it would be extremely nice to catalogue 3F files in LR.  This would indeed be a first step in support.

David


Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2008, 02:56:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers.  Only natural I guess.  Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.

I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.

Just to clarify:

1. Is it possible for camera manufacturers to enable the corrections to be 'written into' DNG now? Are they doing so?
2. If the manufacturers are doing so, has Adobe devised Lightroom in a way that disregards these corrections?
3. Or are the camera manufacturers adding a secret sauce into the DNG, not disclosing the nature of the sauce, and then saying that Lightroom isn't good enough?

I'm not saying that the manufacturers should necessarily disclose everything to Adobe. Perhaps some proprietory stuff could be "hardcoded"? There has to be a way out of this mess of formats and compatibility!

Cheers,
Kumar
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 02:57:32 AM by Kumar » Logged

kaimaui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2008, 03:01:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for your reply. I do not see DNG being the solution for everything.
My preference would be for Light room to be able to read native hasselbald raw files.
I no there is talk of plugins coming for Light room.
That would be a great solution if in some way psooible.
KAI


Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
No problem!

I am afraid it is the DNG format that does not allow us to put in the data for the lens corrections.  It is extremely important to make the point that we are not blocking anybody out!  Plus Lightroom does not have a way to access the 57,000 plus lens tables for all the H lenses.

There is the ability to tag and sort files in Phocus.  Have you tried this?

Certainly Adobe being a multi billion pound company will no doubt put resources into its own software than working with third party suppliers.  Only natural I guess.  Again, We are not locking anybody out and there is ongoing constructive dialogue with Adobe at this time.

I am told that both Aperture and Lightroom do not offer an easy way to provide plug ins to the software (ie Hasselblad Colour Engine, Lens Corrections, Phase One Colour Engine for example) so working with the software in an intuitive manner for a company like us is not easy.

Best


David
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2008, 03:42:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kumar
Just to clarify:

1. Is it possible for camera manufacturers to enable the corrections to be 'written into' DNG now? Are they doing so?
2. If the manufacturers are doing so, has Adobe devised Lightroom in a way that disregards these corrections?
3. Or are the camera manufacturers adding a secret sauce into the DNG, not disclosing the nature of the sauce, and then saying that Lightroom isn't good enough?

I'm not saying that the manufacturers should necessarily disclose everything to Adobe. Perhaps some proprietory stuff could be "hardcoded"? There has to be a way out of this mess of formats and compatibility!

Cheers,
Kumar

1.  I am not 100% sure.  But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway.  It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.

2.  I don't believe so.  DNG is a RAW format as is 3F.  Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections.  There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.

3.  No!


Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
kaimaui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2008, 04:03:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that correcting vingjeting and distortion is something that you could apply to the file before outputting to dng.
The main reason for not doing so in camera would be due to computing power and processing time. You mentioned in your previous post that hasselbald has a large lookup table / file for all its lenses.
I do not see how this could not be applied to the dng output.
How is outputting to dng different to outputting to tiff or any other format.
It is translating one format to another. How many changes are applied in that process is up to the translation engine.
It is late here so I hope I am making sense.


Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
1.  I am not 100% sure.  But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway.  It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.

2.  I don't believe so.  DNG is a RAW format as is 3F.  Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections.  There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.

3.  No!
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 635


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2008, 04:20:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
1.  I am not 100% sure.  But if we were to convert the file to include lens correction then you are close to processing it anyway.  It would require a lot of work in our case to export a different level of DNG.

2.  I don't believe so.  DNG is a RAW format as is 3F.  Except we have extra data within the RAW file relating to lens information which Phocus can use to perform the corrections.  There is no supporting infrastructure in Lightroom to support this.

3.  No!

The 'extra data' is not the secret sauce? If you gave Adobe the information about the extra data, they would/could add support in Lightroom/ACR?

Kumar
Logged

David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2008, 05:11:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kaimaui
Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that correcting vingjeting and distortion is something that you could apply to the file before outputting to dng.
The main reason for not doing so in camera would be due to computing power and processing time. You mentioned in your previous post that hasselbald has a large lookup table / file for all its lenses.
I do not see how this could not be applied to the dng output.
How is outputting to dng different to outputting to tiff or any other format.
It is translating one format to another. How many changes are applied in that process is up to the translation engine.
It is late here so I hope I am making sense.

You could to some extent but that is heavy interpolation already combined with the de-mosaicing of the sensor.  So that would need to be split.  It is not as easy as it sounds I am afraid!  Correct doing so in camera would be far too processor heavy.

Then applying it to the DNG output would result in processing times similar to going straight to TIFF.  Therefore increasing your workflow time extensively.

Best.



David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2008, 05:12:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kumar
The 'extra data' is not the secret sauce? If you gave Adobe the information about the extra data, they would/could add support in Lightroom/ACR?

Kumar

No.  The extra data is lens type, aperture and focal distance.  None of which have available tags in DNG.
Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
jecxz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2008, 06:30:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
No.  The extra data is lens type, aperture and focal distance.  None of which have available tags in DNG.
I believe most photographers have a difficultly grasping the difference between metadata and software. This is not a slight against them. It's just a misunderstanding.

The Phocus software alters the image using the camera and lens information (metadata) and gives the photographer control over it. The metadata does not alter the image, it does nothing but sit in the file.

Adobe does not have this software. The Hasselblad programmers invented it, not the Adobe programmers. So just including this metadata in the "secret sauce" in a DNG does nothing, because it's software that does the magic, not the metadata. As suggested above, if Hasselblad just altered the DNG so the image is "corrected" for Photoshop - I'd scream bloody murder for taking the control away from me, and so would everyone else.

Fact is, Adobe does not offer plug-ins for ACR. Perhaps the best solution would be for Adobe to offer a defined software interface for ACR so companies such as Canon and Hasselblad could create plug-ins that operate, in ACR, on the stream of image data. This would probably satisfy everyone. Perhaps this is the next step for Adobe.

Obviously, from a photographer's perspective, wanting everything in one program is the goal.

From a manufacturer's perspective, this goal is close to impossible.

I think Hasselblad has done a fantastic job going from camera company to camera/software company. Phocus is a nice product and while it's inconvenient to switch from one software to another, it's better than losing the control over the features Hasselblad has given us with Phocus, that are not available in PS or LR. Trust me, you get used to working in two or three different software products very rapidly.

There is always a learning curve. Right now I find most of my work is done in Phocus with little editing in PS; I am not alone in this. This is directly attributed to the quality of Phocus.

Kind regards,
Derek
Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2008, 07:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Dave,

When I started this thread it was to learn how others had developed "work arounds" for the "short comings" I see in Phocus.  
Seems it's going in another direction that may provide some valuable input for Hasselblad - that's good!

Well, here are a few of my thoughts starting with a bit of history:
I shoot landscapes and abstracts.

I actually worked as a "consultant" to Hassie and Nikon when they were developing their first digital cameras.  From that experience I learned Nikon is craving input/feedback, Hasselblad listens then does goes back to their own thoughts.  Now that was quite a few years ago but seemed rather ingrained in the culture.
It is also interesting to note that Nikon's work promptly produced a camera, Hassies did not for many years.  I put that down to their NIH attitude to input (Not Invented Here).

That said, I stuck with 4x5 and 503cw film and my Howtek Hi-Resolve 8000 drums scanner until the Phase P45 plus arrived on the scene.  With the advent of this back I could no longer technically justify staying with film.  Thus I made the full jump to digital mating a P45 to the 503cw and CFI lenses that I owned.  Upgraded to the P45+ when it came out then to the H1 and H2 bodies for my P45+.

Part of my decision to stick with the P45+ rather than go to the H-39 back on the H1/2 was based on two simple elements - P45+ was bought and paid for AND the Capture One software was far better in my opinion than the Hasselblad offering.  (I feel I have some authority on what constitutes quality software as my company developed various graphics and machine control software products on the SGI platform.)

This combination of the H2 and P45+ with the Phase software was excellent.  However, earlier this year it appeared as thought I was not going to get the opportunity to travel/photograph as I had planned so several months back I sold the gear rather than let it depreciate in the closet.

Through good luck, I was able to restructure my time and return to my "Mistress of Photography" just prior to the time that PhotoKina occurred this year.  
In the weeks prior to PhotoKina I tested the Leaf AFi and the Phase/Mamiya P45+ offerings.  My conclusions from those test were that neither company could match the camera features (Profiles and User Definable camera presets) of what I had with the H2 camera body.  Additionally I found the Phase/Mamiya 28mm lens lacking in quality that I felt should be there.

Quite a dilemma for me:  Liked the Leaf lenses but missed the H2 users presets and lens quality, plus had little use for the Leaf RAW developer; Had no use for the Phase camera body and felt the 28mm was lacking BUT felt their RAW developer was far better than any in the market;  Hassie prices were just not in line and the concept of supporting a closed system was not to my liking.

Well, PhotoKina and Hassie's new price structure hit me right.  I tested the H3DII with the 28 and 80 lenses and wrote my check for the new price structure.
Screw my concerns about closed system, I was not going to cut off my nose to spite my face!  

With my photography obsession being a non-profit venture this was the path that did the least financial damage to my reserves and yet gave me what I felt was superior hardware.

The caveat is that it gave me what I feel is an inferior software RAW developer when put in comparison to Capture One.

From my experience the criteria to judge our camera choices are:
1.  Quality of the lens - if the lense are not superior then you're just pissing away your money and time.
2.  Camera body, it's internal processor and internal control software - must be able to push the lens to the limit in a user preferred method.
3.  RAW developer - if this is not an excellent tool in taking the above two elements electron gather capabilites and generating a near perfect TIFF file to work with in PS, they why bother.

It is on issue 3 that Hassie fails to make the grade, in my opinion, and thus what is requiring the user to find "work arounds"!
Not because we want to but because we have no choice if we are going to produce the image our passion demands.

Thus, I suggest that the manager of your software development team should take an indepth look at what the winning tool is, Capture One, and get to work.
If this has already been done, then do it again and this time from a users perspective.

My strong belief is that the RAW developer must produce an excellent TIFF file, and Phocus does not.  Pull out the shadow and highlight details in Phocus, not.  Give me an excellently rendered Preview image in Phocus, not.  Give me totally user controlled file structures, not. Etc., etc, etc.

In short, with the price adjustments made at PhotoKina, the software is the only major negative issue left for Hasselblad to conquer! You have a great marketing machine, excellent hardware/lenses, historical reputation, etc.  Just a marginal RAW developer, and that enough to drive perspective buyers to the other offerings, or to be frustrated trying to find work arounds.

Jack



Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad