Using DXO Photolab with Hasselblad files?

[Matt2134]

Hi, nice to have the forums back!

I wondered if anyone is using a Hasselblad and primarily using DXO photolab for editing?

I primarily use Capture One and have often used Fuji MF cameras partly with editing software in mind - but I just managed to pick up an extremely well priced X2D (the new model pricing strategy has hit the used market prices hugely it seems, enough to sway me back ) and have to make some decisions around editing strategy. I do have lightroom and may end up just using that, but for landscape I really enjoy the way DXO PL works, and wondered if many people were using it, and if they were doing initial conversion in Phocus first.

It remains an ongoing irritation that Hasselblad and C1 won't just work together!

 

[Mads Bjerke]

If you want the most out of your X2D files, you should first import into Phocus, do the basic adjustments there and then export as a 16 bit TIFF to your preferred software.
If you bypass Phocus you will not get the HNCS that Hasselblad is famous for.

 

[avalvo]

I used DXO with my x2d 100c and it was great. They have not updated yet for the new x2d ll. I'm sure it will be good when that happens.

 

[Matt2134]

I used DXO with my x2d 100c and it was great. They have not updated yet for the new x2d ll. I'm sure it will be good when that happens.

Did you do the initial upload to Phocus for the HNCS or just go straight to DXO? I'll do some comparisons in due course, but interested to see if others found the benefit was worth the extra steps / file sizes to go Phocus and exported 16 Bit Tiff. I can't decide how much of a convolution it will be in a regular workflow.

 

[AndersC]

I use DxO PL 8 for my Hassy files, straight from camera since I prioritise a quick workflow. I am happy with the results, but I have not made a comparison yet with Phocus. I really should.

 

[avalvo]

Did you do the initial upload to Phocus for the HNCS or just go straight to DXO? I'll do some comparisons in due course, but interested to see if others found the benefit was worth the extra steps / file sizes to go Phocus and exported 16 Bit Tiff. I can't decide how much of a convolution it will be in a regular workflow.

I process the Raws directly in DXO.

 

[kmonroe99]

For the new X2Dii, I use Phocus and export TIFF to DxO. For the previous X2D, I went straight to DxO. When DxO starts supporting the X2Dii, I plan to compare the straight-to-DxO method to the Phocus method.

 

[Matt2134]

I process the Raws directly in DXO.

Thanks - have you ever made a comparison to Phocus? I have done it with Lightroom only so far, and there is a clear difference in the colours, although of course you only notice when doing side by side comparisons! I see it clearly in sky colours though. I am waiting on delivery of a lens, as soon as it arrives I will run some tests and see how they compare, I was just curious if anyone has already done so.

 

[Matt2134]

For the new X2Dii, I use Phocus and export TIFF to DxO. For the previous X2D, I went straight to DxO. When DxO starts supporting the X2Dii, I plan to compare the straight-to-DxO method to the Phocus method.

did you do any comparisons previously?

 

[AndersC]

I did a brief comparison between Phocus and DxO PL 8 using DxO camera profile for Hasselblad X1D m2. Raw converting with no adjustments. Exporting as TIFF to Apple Photos app and viewing on a Macbook Pro M1. Yes there is a difference, where Phocus seems to keep colours more as I remembered when taking the shot, whereas the DxO rendered file came out as punchier or more vivid, if you decide to put a positive spin on it, where red and blue was slightly exaggerated compared to Phocus. Perhaps not a bad thing in landscape photography but I suspect could be a concern in portraits. I have not tried to tweak the rendering from DxO.