• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / X2D / Hasselblad X2D color with various Adobe and Hasselblad development

Hasselblad X2D color with various Adobe and Hasselblad development

October 18, 2022 JimK 9 Comments

This is the 26th in a series of posts on the Hasselblad X2D 100C camera and the XCD lenses. You will be able to find all the posts in this series by looking at the righthand column on this page and finding the Category “X2D”.

I’ve been doing a lot of quantitative work on the X2D color for the past few days. I’ll show you that soon. But first I’d like to show you what happens when you used four different development methods:

  • Lr Classic, Adobe Color Profile
  • Lr Classic, Adobe Standard Profile
  • Lr Classic Camera Standard Profile
  • Phocus, Standard Profile

All of these images were white balanced to the second gray patch from the left on the Macbeth card. You can see that the Phocus white balance algorithm is quite different from Lightroom’s (which I believe is Bradford).

Adobe Color

 

Adobe Standard

 

Camera Standard

 

Phocus Standard

 

Adobe Color

 

Adobe Standard

 

Camera Standard

 

Phocus Standard

Now a scene with highly mixed lighting.

Adobe Color

 

Adobe Standard

 

Camera Standard

 

Phocus Standard

 

And finally, an indoor scene, lit by a high clerestory window.

 

Adobe Color

 

Adobe Standard

 

Camera Standard

 

Phocus Standard

 

I’ll refrain from commenting. Tomorrow I’ll post some quantitative data.

 

 

 

 

X2D

← Hasselblad XCD 38, Fuji GF 45 light falloff X2D and GFX 100S color accuracy with various profiles →

Comments

  1. stepan kana says

    October 20, 2022 at 12:32 pm

    my take is, on my HP Z30i screen (quite old now, but highly regarded at its prime) is that adobe colour is good, adobe standard is poor, camera standard is questionable (esp. in the shadows) and phocus is best. Your sensor is dirty – see first pic. Are these all srgb? how do they look in wide gamut? Especially the greens which are a problem for any digital camera. My impression is that not’s much been done here for the past decade or so.

    Reply
  2. stepan kana says

    October 20, 2022 at 3:46 pm

    perhaps I should have clarified: both of the ‘adobe’ profiles are too yellow, but the ‘standard’ is poor because it is too dull. The ‘camera standard’ is poor also because the highlights become pink. ‘Phocus’ seems to make the colours just right and the contrast also. But ultimately these differences don’t amount to much as any person buying this cam is presumably doing post-production on the shots and the colour ‘accuracy’ will be heavily skewed to their preferences anyway.
    I’d still love a cam which could do ‘good’ greens – ie as I see them…. Not that that was ever an option with film.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 20, 2022 at 4:30 pm

      When you say they are too yellow, do you mean the square that I white balanced too is too yellow?

      Reply
      • stepan kana says

        October 21, 2022 at 1:20 am

        I mean that the overal scene seems rendered too yellow (compared to phocus)

        Reply
        • JimK says

          October 21, 2022 at 6:04 am

          I’m working on a study of the effects of white balance in Lr and Phocus.

          Reply
  3. Erik says

    October 28, 2022 at 1:25 am

    I like the more vivid Adobe Color profiles for the first two outdoor scenes. The Phocus Standard is the clear winner to me in the mixed light and indoor scenes, though Adobe Standard also looks good to me for the mixed light shots.

    I’m very curious to see how color rendition compares between Hassy and GFX.

    Reply
  4. Anthony says

    November 10, 2022 at 1:12 am

    I have found that gfx 100s colours are very interesting and pleasant however they require fiddling to be as close to what the eye saw in reality as with my X2D, it is quite magical at how it renders light and colour differently with the same sensor. This is especially true with skin tones of humans. I have noticed that Phocus does the best job at converting X2D raw so I don’t bother with doing it in other software. To load and export takes little time as I do not spray and pray for my work. The examples above are rather subtle but it can be far more pronounced in areas at times as if adobe were to be crushing colour range soo I stopped trying to match the output of Phocus and just use Phocus for basic raw editing. Phocus has gotten soo much better with its revision soo I don’t mind. Why spend that much on a camera too then limit its output because of a single step to retain its fantastic starting point.

    Reply
  5. Dave says

    November 12, 2024 at 2:24 pm

    Late to the party but I wonder if you can share these files in greater definition? I would like to attempt repro’ing the color rendition by Phocus in Lightroom.

    Reply
  6. Dave says

    November 12, 2024 at 2:29 pm

    I also noticed greater amount of vignetting in the adobe processed version than Phocus’s version. Have you turned on lens correction on both software?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.