Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad file workflow?  (Read 17580 times)
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2008, 07:30:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
Dave,

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.


Jack

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the comments and I am glad you made the switch.

Feedback is a powerful and we do have a large network of beta testers.  Rest assured you are not a lone voice and we are well aware that things like shadow and highlight recovery are a very desired feature.

I am a bit concerned about your comment about the preview though.  What's your specific issue?  It is cropped, colour managed, lens correction applied and so on.  What's missing?

Also, what do you mean by 'User controlled file structures?'

Best,



David
Logged

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

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2008, 07:41:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jecxz
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

Thanks Derek - well put.

It would be great if Adobe and Apple built their respective packages to perhaps allow for a plug in structure, but maybe they feel the market is too small.  After all the 35mm portion will make up the majority of their sales.

Best,


David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2008, 01:06:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far.  This would include of course the changes made for lens correction, tilt, shift, ...  You can then have it flag the metadata so that the raw processor doesn't feel it still has something to do.  Having this as an option would not force anyone to use it.
This is of course not simply a Hasselblad issue.  Forcing people to go to a tiff in order to save changes is something that no camera company should be doing.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2008, 02:33:27 PM »
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.
DNG lets you define and add your own tags....
Logged

yaya
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2008, 02:43:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gss
I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far.

It is not impossible, Leaf Capture allows for moire and gain corrections (colour casts and vignetting) to be embedded in a new raw file that can be then taken into almost any raw converter or DAM software (or to be converted into a DNG file, using Adobe's own engine).

Yair
Logged
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2008, 04:13:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
It is not impossible, Leaf Capture allows for moire and gain corrections (colour casts and vignetting) to be embedded in a new raw file that can be then taken into almost any raw converter or DAM software (or to be converted into a DNG file, using Adobe's own engine).

Yair
I wish all camera companies were as forward-thinking.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2008, 12:38:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gss
I don't see why it impossible to provide an option to save a new raw file which captures all the changes made so far.  This would include of course the changes made for lens correction, tilt, shift, ...  You can then have it flag the metadata so that the raw processor doesn't feel it still has something to do.  Having this as an option would not force anyone to use it.
This is of course not simply a Hasselblad issue.  Forcing people to go to a tiff in order to save changes is something that no camera company should be doing.

In Phocus an export from 3F to DNG is just that, a quick export that takes a couple of seconds.

If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else.  It doesn't make sense to do a half and half approach in two different RAW converters.

Also we do not 'force people to go to a tiff' as any change you make to the RAW file is non destructive and can be saved for a later date.

Best,


David


Logged

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

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2008, 12:40:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gss
I wish all camera companies were as forward-thinking.

I'd say a camera company that manufactures all parts in a system with eleven lenses, three choices of sensor including multishot and advanced technology such as metadata based lens corrections..... is pretty forward thinking.


Logged

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

Posts: 2373


« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2008, 01:09:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else.

David

I would not mind having that option though. At least it would make for a  Hasselblad Raw file that can be stored into LR and catalogued. You would be giving people an option. Granted there are other more elegant solutions but if it is fairly simple why not start with this until a better solution is implemented?

Naturally I would understand this will not be implemented if another solution, that ensures LR/ACR at least can read 3FR/FFF is imminent (preferably has the full ability Phocus has as well whether by plugin or native). You mentioned Hasselblad is closely cooperating with Adobe some posts before. This leads me to the conclusion you guys are working to get a solution?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 01:17:07 AM by Dustbak » Logged
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2008, 02:45:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
In Phocus an export from 3F to DNG is just that, a quick export that takes a couple of seconds.

If we start adding other things into the 'transform' from one to the other then the processing time becomes equivalent to exporting a TIFF, thus doubling your workflow time if you then want to take the DNG into something else.  It doesn't make sense to do a half and half approach in two different RAW converters.
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option.  I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious.  There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Also we do not 'force people to go to a tiff' as any change you make to the RAW file is non destructive and can be saved for a later date.

Best,
David
Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture?  Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus?  You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.
Logged
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2008, 03:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
I'd say a camera company that manufactures all parts in a system with eleven lenses, three choices of sensor including multishot and advanced technology such as metadata based lens corrections..... is pretty forward thinking.
In many ways Hasselblad is forward-thinking.  This is not one of them.

Don't worry; as someone who owns nine of those eleven lenses, I am too invested in glass to be changing platforms any time in the near future.  However, you guys really need to look at how people want to incorporate Phocus into their workflows and help them do it.
Logged
kaimaui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2008, 03:05:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I am in  fully agreement with what gss has to say.
It is all about having the option to take the path you deem best.
In the end it will mean hasslebald will have happier customers which would be beneficial to the botom line.



Quote from: gss
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option.  I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious.  There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.


Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture?  Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus?  You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2008, 07:22:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gss
You have not read the whole suggestion; you missed the word option.  I do not understand why there is so much resistance to providing something so obvious.  There is no single application which will ever be the only one that people will use, so being able to generate a new raw with changes applied rather than in metadata is something you will eventually have to do.


Nondestructive changes that may be carried over into Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture?  Or nondestructive changes that may only be applied in Phocus?  You do "force" people to go to a tiff if they have a need for more than one tool in their workflow.

This would require the changes we make in Phocus to be transformed into a DNG.  As the way we manipulate RAW data in the 3F file is totally different to a DNG file this is not a straightforward process.  The DNG format has a limited amount of colour information it can hold compared to a 3F file - therefore the translation from one to the other might not be equal across both platforms.

However I fully understand that you want as many options as possible.    

What Dustbak is suggesting about being able to catalogue and modify metadata in a 3F file through Lightroom I believe is the initial way to go.

Best



David
Logged

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

Posts: 377


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2008, 07:56:39 AM »
ReplyReply

David,

Obviously these guys are skipping my post or ignoring what I have said.

I have a very serious and simple solution for Hasselblad: Include the data they want in the DNG as private tags.

Then they can petition Adobe to use it.

When Adobe ignores them because they don't have the SOFTWARE (or because it's a tiny market), they can complain about Adobe and it will no longer be a complaint about Hasselblad. This should take your programmers all of about three (3) hours. Could have it done by noon tomorrow and then order them another pizza pie.

For those of us whom understand the real issue (the difference between SOFTWARE and METADATA), we'll wait until Adobe defines plugin standards for LR and ACR so manufacturers can work on the image stream directly.

Trust me on this. They are not listening.

Kind regards,
Derek
Logged

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

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2008, 08:29:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jecxz
David,

Obviously these guys are skipping my post or ignoring what I have said.

I have a very serious and simple solution for Hasselblad: Include the data they want in the DNG as private tags.

Then they can petition Adobe to use it.

When Adobe ignores them because they don't have the SOFTWARE (or because it's a tiny market), they can complain about Adobe and it will no longer be a complaint about Hasselblad. This should take your programmers all of about three (3) hours. Could have it done by noon tomorrow and then order them another pizza pie.

For those of us whom understand the real issue (the difference between SOFTWARE and METADATA), we'll wait until Adobe defines plugin standards for LR and ACR so manufacturers can work on the image stream directly.

Trust me on this. They are not listening.

Kind regards,
Derek

Ha ha.  Thanks Derek for understanding.  ;-)

I hope Adobe and Apple do something constructive for plug ins... would make life a whole lot easier rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Best,


David

Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2008, 08:48:36 AM »
ReplyReply

David,

I see little humor in the fact that the Phocus software developed by the leader in digital hardware is not the premier product.
My point is that it's lacking in numerous ways and Hasselblad needs to devote resources to bring it up to the standard of Capture One, or even better, exceed it!

I'm not going to waste my time listing all of the features lacking in Phocus that you can find for yourself by a quick study of Capture One given the fact the I've previously learned Hasselblad suffers from NIH.

I'd like to see this thread returned to what I posted it as:
Forget what Phocus is missing, how do we as photographer find work arounds!

Jack


Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
Ha ha.  Thanks Derek for understanding.  ;-)

I hope Adobe and Apple do something constructive for plug ins... would make life a whole lot easier rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Best,


David
Logged

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

Posts: 1007



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2008, 09:39:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
David,

I see little humor in the fact that the Phocus software developed by the leader in digital hardware is not the premier product.
My point is that it's lacking in numerous ways and Hasselblad needs to devote resources to bring it up to the standard of Capture One, or even better, exceed it!

I'm not going to waste my time listing all of the features lacking in Phocus that you can find for yourself by a quick study of Capture One given the fact the I've previously learned Hasselblad suffers from NIH.

I'd like to see this thread returned to what I posted it as:
Forget what Phocus is missing, how do we as photographer find work arounds!

Jack

Jack,

While you are not 100% happy with Phocus I can also say that many users are.  This is the feedback I receive a lot of the time.

However, that does not mean the development has stopped.  Quite the contrary, and as such and you will see rapid releases of improvements.

Best,


David



Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2008, 10:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jecxz
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.
...
Derek
Derek, if indeed the metadata truly did nothing but sit in the file forever, it would be completely useless.  At some point the metadata must be used by Phocus to modify the image.  The question is simply when.
Logged
gss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2008, 10:32:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Grover / Hasselblad
This would require the changes we make in Phocus to be transformed into a DNG.  As the way we manipulate RAW data in the 3F file is totally different to a DNG file this is not a straightforward process.  The DNG format has a limited amount of colour information it can hold compared to a 3F file - therefore the translation from one to the other might not be equal across both platforms.

However I fully understand that you want as many options as possible.    

What Dustbak is suggesting about being able to catalogue and modify metadata in a 3F file through Lightroom I believe is the initial way to go.

Best
David
Do you have a way to save these changes back to a 3F file with the changes actually applied rather than sitting in the metadata?  Surely a 3F file has enough "color information" to hold the changes.  When you create a tiff does it not have the color and lens corrections applied?  Does a tiff file have more "color information" than a DNG?
Logged
Carsten W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 605



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2008, 10:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gss
Do you have a way to save these changes back to a 3F file with the changes actually applied rather than sitting in the metadata?  Surely a 3F file has enough "color information" to hold the changes.  When you create a tiff does it not have the color and lens corrections applied?  Does a tiff file have more "color information" than a DNG?

DNG is a variation of TIFF, so that seems a bit unlikely. David, perhaps you can list the capability that DNG lacks?
Logged

Carsten W - Recent Photos
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad