Reader Comment: Hasselblad Color
re: Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4
re: Discontinued Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4?
Reader David K writes in reference to Examples: Colorado in October:
Such beautiful color in your Hasselblad photos, Lloyd! I’ve always heard that Hasselblad had the best colors right off the bat. Could you please comment about this.
Keep up the good “honest” work. It is greatly appreciated.
DIGLLOYD: since RAW files are just numbers (no color exists!), so color rendition equates to how the RAW file conversion is done. The gross aspects of that are the camera profile, which establishes the color and contrast and all sorts of things having to do with look and feel.
In the case of most of the examples, I actually used the Adobe Color camera profile, which is not Camera Standard eg what the “Hasselblad color” look would be. I used Adobe Color because I liked the rendition better than what the camera matching result would be. Not every image though.
Also, many of the images needed careful tweaks for contrast control, see below.
In other words, the profile is what determines the overall rendition. If you dig that, I strongly suggesting reviewing all my workflow screencasts.
Adobe Camera Raw: Changing Image Look & Feel Using Camera Profile
Fujifilm GFX100S: Camera Profiles in Adobe Camera Raw
Reader Question: Picture Profile for RAW + JPEG
Reader Question: Camera Profile in Adobe Camera Raw
camera profile and post processing
That said, I do believe that Hasselblad takes considerable care in tuning the total image quality numbers coming off the sensor, both with quality of electronics as well as the whole analog to digital imaging pipeline. Hasselblad also takes particular care to protect highlights and trending to underexposure (as well as somehow tuning things for ISO 64). Is this better than the Fujifilm GFX100 II with its ISO 80 and newer-gen sensor? I am unsure, but I would say that Hasselblad X2D color and image quality are superior to the Fujifilm GFX100S. Which I deem inferior to the Fujifilm GFX100 II.
For example, I have not detected the white stripes issue with the Hasselblad X2D, which suggests more attention to image quality. But.. possibly it is there and I’ve not detected it yet.
Reader Fazal M writes:
I know you’ve collaborated with Ming Thein before, you might have noticed this comment of his:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2018/01/31/long-term-review-the-hasselblad-x1d/“All in all, this means that image quality is a known quantity: it matches that of the H5D-50c and H6D-50c, which is to say – short of the 54x40mm 100MP sensor, is about the best you can get today. Like all Hasselblad cameras, sensors used in the X1D are individually profiled to a fixed reference color standard at all ISOs – I shoot the X1D comfortably to ISO 12,800. In fact, each camera has nearly half a gigabyte of calibration data in it. I believe Hasselblad is the only company to do this – it’s one of the reasons output is so spectrally neutral and tonally natural across the sensitivity range, and no dark frame subtraction is required even on exposures up to one hour. Color accuracy is one of the main reasons I switched; those of you who have Workflow III will see that the Hasselblad profiles have almost no adjustments, and by far the least HSL adjustments of any camera included. Individual sensor calibration also means consistency is excellent – my H5D-50c, H6D-100c, CFV-50c and X1D all produce identical tonal response (with the exception of course of the H6D-100c, which has a bit more dynamic range extension at either end)” — Ming Thein
DIGLLOYD: this is what I was alluding to in the comments above, though I had forgotten about this info from Ming, who worked with Hasselbad very closely for a time. All that attention to detail could mean “better” color. But it is better color or just a total higher image quality? Maybe the two cannot be separated. And maybe there is something to it.
OTOH, the camera profile still exerts the main influence, which is why for many of the examples I used Adobe Color. But I also notice quite different white balance and tint betweenthat and Camera Standard. Furthermore, the Fujifilm profiles rock for some situations, making much better clouds with ASTIA for example. These are lacking for the X2D. Which is “better”? I can see arguments both ways. At any rate, the Hasselblad image quality is superb. I just don’t know that it is better than the Fujifilm GFX100 II at this point.
I do not know of a methodology to prove it, given the huge influence of color profiles. Even using the same profile (Adobe Color) does not necessarily prove anything, because it may be sub-optimal for the X2D. I think it comes down to shooting thousands of images and getting a feel for it. I have full confidence in the X2D image quality as superb.I will say that the X2D delivers more pleasing results than the GFX100S. But I also say that the GFX100 II is noticeably better than the GFX100S.
There is also the issue of using Hasselblad Phocus (I am unwilling to do so) versus Adobe Camera Raw.
The Hasselblad X2D might be the best among conventional medium format (PhaseOne IQ4 as good or better), but I do not yet have a sense of the Fujifilm GFX100 II, having had no opportunity to shoot the two concurrently.
The image above could not just be processed trivially, I had to push it, boost the shadows, correct vignetting, etc. The raw conversion adjustments mods are shown in the caption with every image I publish, though I sometimes forget to add a few to the image metadata info.
As shown below, the image above was an ideal ETTR exposure with a very dark hugely underexposed foreground.