Picture This! wrote:
Sure, will try one out to have first hand experience but in the interim could you educate me ?
Have you done a side by side comparison of both systems and do you have any photos to share showing out of box differences ?
I've owned the 50R, 100S, 100S II, and X2D. I didn't do A/B testing, though I didn't need to, my eyes know how color work And my fingers know that I have to edit my Hassy files a hell of a lot less than the GFX files.
To me, accurate is not necessarily exciting and having shot several systems with calibrated wb, I still tend to work on the images toward a certain look. Now for someone who wants to shoot and is lazy enough to go through a few clicks and wants accurate textbook color out of the box, I can see how that can be a timesaver.
Picture This! wrote:
Apologize in advance if I'm derailing this thread. Happy to start a new thread on this... Let's please put aside ergo and menu differences (where I absolutely think the x2d ii is amazing). Would like to talk about image quality and output (to me that is the #1 criteria but ymmv). I keep hearing how the lovely the HB color fidelity and tonality are. Several adjectives have been used in this thread to describe the Hassy. - mesmerizing, terrific, accurate, etc etc ... I've searched and looked at images and I simply don't see it.. There's a lot of talk/text but very little by way of portraits with the x2d in general across the board.
Here's a shoot I did recently with the "boring" "Yuck" "Black Box" called gfx100 sII and the gf 80/1.7 and gf55. Based on what I'm hearing from x2d owners I could have probably gotten better output had I used the Hassy. Or are there any meaningful differences at all ? Please post any portraits you may have.. Genuinely interested in seeing more especially w.r.to skin tones and portrait rendering. Not looking for a war of words but images and let your eyes be the judge
No. You don’t get better final output. 90% of that is you, anyway. A reasonably skilled photographer can get amazing results with almost any modern camera. With gear we’re very much into the law of diminishing returns when we move to 44x33.
HNCS (Hasselblad Natural Colour Science) is a fully colour managed workflow. Each sensor is calibrated and there are profiles for every lens etc, right through the imaging pipeline. If you use Phocus you’ll have a fully colour managed workflow from capture to output. HB does work with Adobe for colour but the workflow is designed around Phocus, for that last 1%.
And you plain out of luck if you use C1. Phase isn’t letting HB into that walled garden. Too much animosity between them.
HNCS is designed to give a single pleasing starting point for processing. I’ll note that HNCS doesn’t actually send perfectly accurate colours. That’s a bit of a myth. Colours are true but also a tiny bit hot to give a pleasing outlook. The accuracy bit comes with HB’s superb implementation of white balance profiles. They genuinely are class leading. Tones are very accurate. Density is a bit heavy for a more punchy look.
Assuming you’re already using a colour managed workflow you’re already doing 95% of this anyway. And I’ll bet over half of X2D shooters aren’t using a managed workflow (it’s near impossible on a Mac without an external screen so that’s an easy bet) anyway.
Hasselblad’s approach is to give you a single consistent starting point that’s extremely pleasing. It works because most (not all but definitely most) really do like it. I think it’s pretty clear by how passionate most of the HB. users are here and pretty much elsewhere about it. I won’t say it’s better but most people do see it and prefer the initial output of HB files over the Fuji versions.
Fuji’s approach is different. They use their film history and experience to leverage colour profiles that *mimic* film stocks. They’re not really relying on colour accurate starting data or even perfect WB implementation to achieve their initial outlook. It’s not a worse of better approach than Hasselblad but it does mean you’re always somewhat further from a natural colour output initially.
I use both systems side by side. Colour wise I’m absolutely in team HB. To me the starting point for processing is vastly better. The reality is that my vast is likely 5% at best. But I’m already pushing the diminishing returns of miniMF so I may as well push a bit harder. I also wish they had a b&w profile or even a viewfinder simulation for compositional purposes. So it’s not all perfect in HB land either.
Now, I’m not saying you’ll like it more but I do think you’ll see it if you try it.
To me, accurate is not necessarily exciting and having shot several systems with calibrated wb, I still tend to work on the images toward a certain look. Now for someone who wants to shoot and is lazy enough to go through a few clicks and wants accurate textbook color out of the box, I can see how that can be a timesaver.
Lazy, is a cheap shot, frankly….
It’s not about being lazy. It’s a better starting point. And more consistent. Potentially a time saver. It’s like saying AF is lazy. You don’t need that either from the examples you showed.
So much investment bias in this thread Rather than be engulfed in a sea of words and argue with people that won't post images to show what they're claiming, I'll try to source some x2dii raw files or rent one to shoot
For me, all edited in Lightroom. Whatever I see, it is a combined Lightroom profile chosen with target sensor CFA. Rest is just a number for each pixel. I don’t have a fixed receipt for what is good color. In majority not light controlled shooting, It depends on so much on light and WB along with shooting condition even before talk about camera. Another problem is my best color may not be your best color anyway.
I respect anyone’s personal opinion on this kind of stuff like what cameras color you like the best as I have my answer there too but it could be just that particular Lightroom's profile match your/my preference better. From Hardware POV, if there is any difference, it is just CFA, rest are all software. I can’t imagine I will use phocus for myself even on paper it is the way to go.
I guess I didn’t contribute much on Hasselblad vs Leica IQ but maybe my point is really Hass and Leica are not necessarily the peak IQ in their respective format as those long saturated now. They are all pretty much the same if you talk about IQ. Then if you talk about hardware design, premium user feeling, OK, I agree mostly but thinking it is not 1 side as depict in this thread for Hasselblad vs Fuji. Even price is not that different compare X2D 2 vs GFX1002 and those lovely Hasselblad lenses (I really want to buy) are just have too many compromises to me.
In this particular case, Fuji GFX fit me better at this moment and Leica M11p and Panasonic S1Rii fit my need better but that is about it. I just don’t buy the Black and White narrative that “one” is “better”.
Can you say Kodachrome vs. Ektachrome vs. Fujichrome.
The film profiles start from different places. If you wanted to accept those profiles via standard processing, life was easy, as it matched to your taste. If you wanted to revise them, going to print, it took more skill and assistance from the lab tech.
Today, we are our own lab tech. Fuji and Hassy (and Leica, et al) have different starting points with their profiles. If you like one vs. the other, then you don't have much to do to get it where you like it. Some folks dig on the Fuji approach. Others, dig on the Hassy approach ... which is rooted in calibrations to 6500K consistency that we don't see from the other mfrs.
If that is something you appreciate ... gravy For those who couldn't give a rat's backside and want to play with the others (not better / worse, just different starting point), have a party, if it works for you and takes it to where you want to be.
AFAIK, one has to use Phocus to take advantage of HNCS. Based on samples I saw, LR /Adobe's interpretation of Hasselblad's colors looks vastly different to Phocus.Looks like Adobe did a very good job getting close to Fujifilm's film simulations but didn't do as good a job with Hasselblad. Maybe that has changed I dont know. Anyways, off to take pics with my gfx
I’m probably the only person who consistently thinks HB colors are too saturated and don’t look "natural" at all, but they’re still pleasing to the eye. At the same time, this doesn’t lead to any loss of data, so why not. After seeing how some photographers I like edit their images, I’ve started pushing sliders in C1 much further, and probably get similar results.
AFAIK, one has to use Phocus to take advantage of HNCS. Based on samples I saw, LR /Adobe's interpretation of Hasselblad's colors looks vastly different to Phocus.Looks like Adobe did a very good job getting close to Fujifilm's film simulations but didn't do as good a job with Hasselblad. Maybe that has changed I dont know. Anyways, off to take pics with my gfx
HNCS. Sorry. You are correct. Wrong word popped into my head.
Hasselblad have stated they work with Adobe, so it’s known to not be just reverse engineering but as I said it’s not quite the complete system (maybe 5% or so as I already stated). AFAIK ( I may be misled) it’s more the profiles for the lenses which aren’t quite as accurate or complete as the Phocus ones. I wouldn’t say vast but sometimes definitely noticeable. HB’s noise reduction is also slightly better than Adobe’s for HB files.
Generally I work in LR, but I’ll round trip an image I think will benefit from Phocus. Really though that’s one in 50 or so. Phocus does a noticeably better job, somewhat but it sure is clunky. In also rely on LR’s database management.
To me, accurate is not necessarily exciting and having shot several systems with calibrated wb, I still tend to work on the images toward a certain look. Now for someone who wants to shoot and is lazy enough to go through a few clicks and wants accurate textbook color out of the box, I can see how that can be a timesaver.
As Gordon said, any final look is down to your skills. Any camera can get you that. You seem awfully made up about a camera you have no experience with. I'm sure a Hasselblad could get you blue-veiny skin just as easily as your GFX, maybe even bluer!
Quality is similar enough since my color grades are extreme and both files hold well (I use Luminar and not Phocus, C1, or LR). But dimensionally GFX doesn't fit in my favorite bag with my holy grail adapted lens (e-shutter works for my needs). For video now I prefer open gate full frame global shutter boxes, but I did use the OG GFX100 (about 4,000 hours) with great results when it did have a unique advantage.
It just comes down to personal ergos/haptics preference, it's why different design philosophy exists for specific channels. This is the case whether people own a single camera or use multiple systems.
As for Leica vs. Hasselblad, I think they are awesome complementary systems.
olegkin wrote:
I’m probably the only person who consistently thinks HB colors are too saturated and don’t look "natural" at all, but they’re still pleasing to the eye. At the same time, this doesn’t lead to any loss of data, so why not. After seeing how some photographers I like edit their images, I’ve started pushing sliders in C1 much further, and probably get similar results.
No. I agree with you. Colours are accurate but saturation is high. I called them *hot* earlier. If you pull the saturation down a few points they do look more *natural*, whatever that is..
You missed the point once again. That is not a retouched photo that got sent to the client. Happy to show that version but sharing a fully edited photo after color grading and skin retouching in a thread about out of box color defeats the purpose. These photos were after wb (5500 which i forgot to set in camera) and exposure adjustment only for purposes of whats being discussed here.
But please go ahead and show us how its done. Do you have portraits to share or comments only ? 😊
RoamingScott wrote:
As Gordon said, any final look is down to your skills. Any camera can get you that. You seem awfully made up about a camera you have no experience with. I'm sure a Hasselblad could get you blue-veiny skin just as easily as your GFX, maybe even bluer!
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point in terms of color. Phocus doesn't fit into my workflow and LR's interpretation of Hassy colors looks different to my eyes (not in a good way). Phocus just looks way better in tests people have posted.
Honestly, this has been such an energy drain. Some of you certainly talk the talk, yet unable to come up with anything factual, just "expert" opinions and a lot of commentary. The best answer some of you came up with is "go rent one". When you make bold claims about a camera's performance (especially saying one in better than the other) without providing any data or comparison shots, it offers very little value to the community and ultimately undermines you own authority on the subject.
This is my last post in this thread. Over and out.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point in terms of color. Phocus doesn't fit into my workflow and LR's interpretation of Hassy colors looks different to my eyes (not in a good way). Phocus just looks way better in tests people have posted.
Honestly, this has been such an energy drain. Some of you certainly talk the talk, yet unable to come up with anything factual, just "expert" opinions and a lot of commentary. The best answer some of you came up with is "go rent one". When you make bold claims about a camera's performance (especially saying one in better than the other) without providing any data or comparison shots, it offers very little value to the community and ultimately undermines you own authority on the subject.
This is my last post in this thread. Over and out....Show more →
Got it. Nothing to prove. Those of us that own the X2D/X2Dii found value in the purchase. You do not. The world turns round.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point.
One thing (among others) is to ask something like:
Where is the starting point of Leica M240 vs. M10 vs. M10R vs. M11 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. SL2 vs. SL3 vs. M9 vs. etc.
To what degree do all these models share / differ from having the same starting point?
Rinse and repeat for Sony, Nikon, Canon model variants.
Now ... ask that same question of Hassy.
Take a look through the measured values for temp / tint of the various mfr's ... and the way they do not match the source. Granted they may be off by a little, but it is inconsistent. Same for tint. Then look at the Hassy. Particularly note how the temp / tint matches, consistently throughout the temperature range.
Whether or not someone considers that consistency a "better" starting point or not ... well, simply put some folks prefer the bias that different cameras provide, and they may have their fav's. But, I do think that the consistency that Hassy brings to the table shows the degree of excellence they have aspired for at a different level than others (i.e. data test points).
Hassy, not your jam ... no worries. It's there for folks who appreciate it. It's not a matter of proving / disproving (subjective) "better" ... it's (imo) a matter of understanding the consistency associated with your tool(s). I think the data presents the perspective that the Hassy provides more consistency of recording color ... as that color ... throughout a broad range of whichever color is being thrown at it (compared to other mfr's).
Hassy just seems to have a pretty tight ship (comparatively) in this regard. What folks do with it (or not), their call.
And for those who will suggest this is a technical thing, not an artistic preference thing ... well, Hassy did call it out with "Science" in the namesake.
I take that to mean, that they will use scientific, in camera calibration, to record the natural color (whatever it was), as it was. That rather than having a cadre of temp / tint shifts throughout the color range.
None of the film profiles (Koda, Ekta, Fuji) noted could do that. Imo, what Hassy has done is the essence of what we envisioned digital photography would be. We're free to make the changes to our artistic heart's desire, but having as close to a "true color capture" as possible (saturation adjustments notwithstanding) was part of the vision. I just think that Hassy has achieved it at a level that is a notch above the others. Many folks will be in the "horseshoes and hand grenades" territory (i.e. close enough) with other mfr's (I have both Hassy and non-Hassy bodies).
Again, not your jam ... no worries. Some folks dig it.
Picture This! wrote:
I was genuinely trying to understand the claim that Hassy produces a better starting point in terms of color. Phocus doesn't fit into my workflow and LR's interpretation of Hassy colors looks different to my eyes (not in a good way). Phocus just looks way better in tests people have posted.
Honestly, this has been such an energy drain. Some of you certainly talk the talk, yet unable to come up with anything factual, just "expert" opinions and a lot of commentary. The best answer some of you came up with is "go rent one". When you make bold claims about a camera's performance (especially saying one in better than the other) without providing any data or comparison shots, it offers very little value to the community and ultimately undermines you own authority on the subject.
This is my last post in this thread. Over and out....Show more →
Do your own damn tests. We’re not here to do your research for you. Colour is subjective. There are no *facts*, except that *I* like Hasselblads colours better than Fuji’s. That’s it. YMMV.
I, and I assume others who chose Hasselblad over Fuji, did so for ourselves. Because we like the workflow, handling etc, etc. No one has preached that it’s the best. Just the best for us, individually. We didn’t do it to prove anything to you. Why should we?
We were here having pleasant chat about Hasselblad and Leica colours and you dropped in all puffed up, derailed the thread and have a crack at us because we won’t do your research for you. Sad.
You want data? Do the research. If you really want to know if your bum is clean you need to wipe it yourself.
Today I looked through my M9 archive files and simply compared them with files shot with the M11 and X1D. Without any processing, the M9 files are magnificent. And it's not even the color, but the color rendering: the transitions between colors are airy, human skin breathes, and the greenery is truly lifelike. And this despite the M9's narrow dynamic range and a real-world ISO of up to 800. I don't see the X1D being superior to the M9, given its color rendition. But I definitely like the X1D more than the M11. What do you think?
And my fingers know that I have to edit my Hassy files a hell of a lot less than the GFX files.
For those who couldn't give a rat's backside and want to play with the others (not better / worse, just different starting point), have a party, if it works for you and takes it to where you want to be.
