Hasselblad X1D ii workflow

DxO PhotoLab
1

Hi everybody. I am new to photolab and had read that the X1D ii and the lenses that I have were all supported so I expected to be able to import the Hasselblad images into PL8. That seems not to be the case - PL8 does not recognize the format or the DNG exports from Phocus.

I am therefore hoping that somebody could suggest a workflow between Phocus and DxO PhotoLab 8? I would be greatly indebted to if you could as I have tried output in all formats from focus and had no luck getting raw images for noise reduction in photolab.

Thanks, Garth

2

DxO’s support of DNG files is limited mostly to Adobe created DNG files and their own linear DNG files. I don’t believe there is any support for DNG files from Hasselblad software. However, you should be able to process Hasselblad native raw files from that camera body in PhotoLab.

Mark

3

And why do you want Phocus → PL and not PL → Phocus ?

4

Probably he would loose some Phocus strong points, which work only with raw data. Alas, demosaicking can be done only once – there’s no turning back (possible in theory but possibly with unusable results?). The PRIME family denoising is integrated with demosaicking and so it works only on truly raw sensor data (required to get high quality, workable “noise model”), at least that’s the current state of affairs.

5

Thank you for your feedback everybody. Yes my preference would be to open the raw Hasselblad image in PL8, but it does not recognize the format. Perhaps I need to download the Hasselblad integration? But I don’t see how one does that and PL seems to automatically download others for older Nikon shots, etc. I would of course like to have the raw Hasselblad image in PL8 so that I can do denoising there. I would appreciate any advice on how to open the raw Hasselblad images in PL8. Thanks so much.

6

When I checked the DxO database it seemed that raw files from that body are supported. Are Hasselblad raw files available in different compression formats? If so that might be the issue.

Mark

7

It seems that PL8 does not recognize FFF or DNG format from Phocus, but 3FR files are supported – at least I had success with https://cdn.hasselblad.com/samples/x1d-II-50c/x1d-II-sample-06.3FR . PL8 treats it like a real raw, with all PL features applicable, including DeepPRIME denoising, distortion correction, RAW white balance, etc.

There is a rather big difference between ‘DxO camera profile (X1D II 50C)’ and ‘Neutral color’ renderings, btw.

8

Thanks - yes all my native images are fff I am unclear how to get 3FR images

Screenshot 2024-10-02 at 09.33.18
Screenshot 2024-10-02 at 09.33.18344×614 53.6 KB

9

Your camera files should be 3fr files, they are converted in Phocus to fff files. So you can just skip the Phocus importation and work directly on the camera files.

From the Phocus manual:

Q. Why are there 3FR and 3F files? Why can’t captures be saved directly as 3F files?
A. 3FR files consist of native Hasselblad raw data that contains a huge amount of information, particularly when compared to 35mm digital files. This is essential to produce the level of quality expected from Hasselblad products. It follows that a good deal of computing power is required to extract the maximum in the shortest pos- sible time. To avoid diverting the camera’s activities to image processing, the combined advantages of Phocus and a workstation are used instead. 3FR files are then processed into a complete and workable raw format that can be saved, adjusted and exported, namely, 3F.

Q. What’s the difference between 3FR and 3F files? Should I keep them all?
A. A 3FR file is the native raw file created by Hasselblad cameras and remains in that format when stored on a CF card. When loaded into Phocus, however, various corrections take place based on the hardware configuration
of the camera used. This processes the 3FR file into a 3F format file and creates a high quality preview (size according to settings in Preferences). As this is an improved and specifically-tuned file, the original 3FR file can be discarded. You may, of course, export 3F files to TIFF, PSD, JPEG etc., and just keep those but if you have the space, retaining the 3F files could be good insurance to be able to re-process sometime in the future.

10

Thank you – This is great information and is something I am just learning about (my first Hasselblad).

I wanted to use Phocus in order to utilize the Hasselblad lens correction and color. Correction before going to photolab. So ideally one would utilize Phocus (which produces an FFF file) and then be able to import that into photolab, or print the changes made in Phocus back to a 3FR file in order to import into photolab. Perhaps I am getting myself in knots here, but there seems to be some good reasons to use Phocus first?

11

I have also searched for a convertor fff → 3FR. but have not found one. any ideas?

12

Those two options are unfortunately exclusive, either you use the lens corrections from Phocus, or you use the ones from Photolab. The only option to work on fff files in Photolab is to export them as tiff files in Phocus, but then these files are huge (500MB) and you cannot profit from any Photolab denoising technology.

So basically you have to compare which images you like better and make a decision, either Phocus fff images or Photolab 3fr images, both is not possible. Lightroom is able to work on fff files.

About the conversion of fff to 3fr, I doubt that that is possible. If you do not have the 3fr files anymore, then your only option is to use tiff files if you want to do any editing in Photolab.

13

Disclaimer: I’m NOT a Hasselblad user.

It seems there is yet another way to treat FFF files and make PL DeepPRIME denoising work – use Adobe DNG Converter to convert FFF file to DNG (and you don’t have to choose ‘embed the original raw’ option). In the case I tried, PL8.0 recognized this dng as a raw file, but did not recognize the XCD 135 lens (No Optics module found), although it’s on a supported list and probably would be recognized in 3fr file. With lens not recognized, you don’t have ‘Lens Softness Corrections’ tool available, and other optical corrections have to be done manually. But PL8 DeepPRIME denoising works for DNG files produced by Adobe DNG Converter from FFF files.

EDIT: FFF file I tried was downloaded from this page:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4624263236/hasselblad-x1d-ii-50c-sample-gallery-dpreview-tv/1533825576

You may ask DxO support why it does not recognize the lens in a DNG file from Adobe DNG Converter processing FFF file, although it recognizes the file to be RAW – maybe it’s a bug, maybe optical corrections were applied in FFF. What’s funny, DNG produced by Adobe converter from 3FR files look to be fully supported in PL8.0 – lens is recognized and file type is shown to be RAW. I would have to look at the metadata more closely. Anyway, 3FR files seem to be what is currently fully supported.

1 Like
14

ideally you want original in camerA raw .3FR → PL → linear DNG with only NR ( and may be optics correction ) applied → Phocus for color transform ( does Phocus support linear DNG ? ) → whatever else …

15

If you intend to keep using Phocus first, PhotoLab may not be the best choice of software for your needs. In order for the output of Phocus to be usable in PhotoLab, you would have to first convert it to .tif or .jpg. However, those formats cannot take advantage of PhotoLab’s raw demosaicing or noise reduction.

Mark

1 Like
16

There’s one point to add here, namely PL ‘Lens Softness correction’ (aka LSC, you may think of it as a sharpening tool with minimal artifacts), which is perhaps better than what Phocus can do. It’s not clear from their docs if they do lens softness correction, and their sharpening tool looks too similar to PL ‘Unsharp Mask’, which is a classic leftover to be used only with non-raws in case of emergency (too many artifacts). I would advice to test LSC starting with Global=-1.50 setting, which looks like halo-free for the examples above, and increase it to balance the perception. My guess is that other PL/Phocus optical corrections are on similar quality level. Maybe you’ll find PL SmartLighting, ClearVision, FilmPack-licensed fine contrast adjustments useful too, but that depends on your genre. About the color, it’s up to your taste and experience to choose the workflow.

If your photos will be susceptible, be sure to test moire reduction tools – Phocus may be better or worse, and PL has no local moire corrections. Test DP and DPXD2s to see the difference. It may depend on the particular case, so don’t rush into quick conclusions.

To summarize, denoising and probably sharpening will be better in PL, while tonal and color edits are for you to decide.

Look at dpreview and Hasselblad forums for advice before deciding on your workflow. You may end up with two or more of them, depending on subjects. One of the key questions is whether you will use tethering. Anyway, you should start with 3FR files and keep the originals in a safe place.

One more point to take care of: PL can export files in an (uncompressed) RGB TIFF format, or Linear DNG format (also 16-bits). I don’t think Phocus supports Linear DNGs, so if you plan to feed Phocus with PL output, you’ll probably be left with the TIFF version, perhaps loosing some Phocus goodies (?). PL can also export JPEGs, but it’s hard to imagine you will want to edit them in Phocus.

Now, about FFF files. Let ADC stand for ‘Adobe DNG Converter’ and DP = ‘DeepPRIME’ (PL denoising suite) for a while. The path 3FR → Phocus → FFF → ADC → DNG → PL produces files which can be denoised with DP (they have PhotometricInterpretation=CFA and are considered by PL to be RAW) but for some reason LSC cannot be applied, although Camera/Lens combination is officially supported by PL. You’ll get one PL strong point (DP denoising) but you’ll loose another (LSC). This may be a bug in Phocus, ADC, PL, or an intended feature. On the other hand, the path 3FR → ADC → DNG → PL leaves you with all options available (but then you should use the direct path 3FR → PL, of course, so what follows is for pseudo-scientific purposes only). For the first processing path, exiftool reports a problem reading the DNG MakerNotes (might be exiftool problem too), but still PL opens the file, although it complains about the missing module afterwards. The problem seems to be buried deeply in glory details. Only Hasselblad/Adobe/DxO bermudian trio can solve it (there was nothing obvious in metadata, other than exiftool errors). Try to file support tickets to them, if you have enough time :wink: