How Hasselblad Phocus for Mac Handles Highlight Recovery, Shadow Fill, and White Balance - And Why It's Worth the Effort

When I started digging deeper into Hasselblad Phocus 4.0.1, the behaviour of its tonal controls caught me off guard. Highlight Recovery, Shadow Fill, and White Balance don't behave like the equivalents in Lightroom or Capture One. In many cases, they seem to perform better - but understanding why took some experimentation.

My Hasselblad workflow started simple: pull images into Phocus for HNCS colour rendering and HNNR noise reduction, export to 16-bit TIFF, and do everything else in Capture One. That's still the core of what I do, and I documented that process in my earlier post on understanding Phocus workflows.

But as I spent more time with the X2D II, I kept noticing that certain adjustments just looked better when done in Phocus. Highlight recovery that didn't invent detail. Shadow lifts that felt natural rather than HDR-processed. And after some recent side-by-side testing, I've added white balance to that list - when WB needs adjusting, the HNCS-integrated result in Phocus consistently looks more natural to my eye than the same adjustment in Capture One.

I'll be honest: I don't love working in Phocus. The UI feels laggy - not slow exactly, but like wading through treacle compared to Capture One's responsiveness. HNNR processing takes its time too, though that appears to be the Neural Engine doing its thing rather than the app being inefficient. And Phocus simply lacks many of the features I rely on in Capture One. But if certain adjustments produce genuinely better results when tightly integrated with HNCS, I'll use Phocus for those - even if it means a less fluid editing experience.

This post breaks down what these tools appear to be doing, why they behave the way they do, and what seems to be going on behind the scenes. Everything here is based on observable behaviour, Hasselblad's own statements, and community-documented tests. Where I'm drawing conclusions from my own testing rather than documented sources, I've tried to make that clear. Footnotes at the bottom point to source material.

Highlight Recovery in Phocus: How It Compares to Lightroom and Capture OnePhocus

What Highlight Recovery Actually Does

Based on my testing and comparisons with other RAW processors, Phocus's highlight recovery appears to operate conservatively. It seems to focus on genuinely recoverable highlight data rather than attempting to reconstruct completely blown areas. The Phocus manual describes highlight recovery as reclaiming "data from the raw file to repair burnt out highlights."[^1]

In my experience, Phocus only restores highlight detail when real RAW information still exists, using per-channel data rather than attempting to "fill in" clipped regions. This contrasts with what I've observed in Adobe and Capture One, which sometimes appear to interpolate or smooth missing detail more aggressively[^2].

This approach keeps results looking natural and avoids the crunchy, over-processed look that can appear when software tries to invent texture in blown-out areas.

Algorithm Versions

Phocus provides multiple algorithm versions for its Exposure tools. The Phocus 3.x manual notes you can select between V1, V2, or V3:

• V2 includes improved recovery, shadow fill, and clarity algorithms
• V3 adds improved contrast and brightness algorithms and is the default for new images[^1]
• V4 (introduced in Phocus 4.0) brings further improvements to highlight recovery and dynamic range handling, and is required for HDR processing[^3]

If you're working with images edited in an older version of Phocus, the original algorithm remains available for compatibility.

How It Performs Compared to Lightroom and Capture One

In my testing and based on community comparisons I've read:

• When highlights are not actually clipped, Phocus appears to reconstruct them cleanly and with accurate colour
• Capture One sometimes appears to "recover" more highlight detail in clipped areas, though this may involve interpolation from single channels or smoothing[^2]
• When highlights are fully blown, Phocus simply lets them go - Adobe and C1 tools may attempt to salvage smooth gradients, but I'm not convinced the recovered detail is real

One detailed comparison on Photos of Arkansas noted that Phocus showed "much better shadow recovery" and maintained more detail in high-contrast scenes compared to Lightroom with Camera Standard profile applied.[^4]

Phocus Highlight Recovery: The Bottom Line

• Properly exposed highlights: In my experience, Phocus produces natural rendering and good colour accuracy
• Blown highlights: LR/C1 may appear to recover more, but in my testing this often looks like interpolated or smoothed data rather than genuine detail. Phocus doesn't attempt to fabricate what isn't there

Shadow Fill in Phocus: A Different Approach to Lifting Shadows

How Shadow Fill Works

The Phocus manual describes Shadow Fill as improving "the quality of shadow areas."[^1] In my testing, Shadow Fill behaves more like raising a luminance curve than a deep-shadow extraction tool. When you increase Shadow Fill, Phocus appears to:

• Lift a broad portion of the lower tonal range
• Open up low midtones and shadows together
• Maintain consistent colour (likely via the HNCS pipeline)
• Avoid the HDR-like flattening that I sometimes see in Adobe/C1

This makes shadow areas feel naturally brighter, rather than digitally inflated.

How It Differs From Lightroom and Capture One

Based on my comparisons:

• Lightroom/C1 shadow tools seem to target the deepest blacks more aggressively
• Phocus lifts a wider tonal band - more like a smooth upward bend in the left side of a luma curve

In my testing, this produces images that feel more natural and avoid the "HDR mush" that can happen when aggressively pulling deep shadows in other applications.

Phocus Shadow Fill: The Bottom Line

• Shadow Fill = wide, natural luma lift.
• Lightroom/C1 Shadows = deep black extraction

Different tools, different priorities. Which you prefer may depend on your subject matter and aesthetic goals.

White Balance in Phocus: Why HNCS Integration Matters

Why WB in Phocus Feels Different

White balance in Hasselblad Phocus is tied into the Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution (HNCS). According to Hasselblad, HNCS involves colour data undergoing "a series of transformations that remap the captured values" and "adapts to any illumination."[^5]

In my testing, adjusting white balance in Phocus triggers a noticeable GPU spike similar to what happens with Highlight Recovery and Shadow Fill. This suggests HNCS is being reapplied after the WB change - consistent with the behaviour of the other tonal tools.

A detailed technical analysis on Luminous Landscape found that Phocus uses a multi-illuminant system with at least four illuminants (Tungsten, Low Tungsten, Flash, and Flash-Daylight), each with their own colour matrix. The analysis noted that Phocus "automatically select[s] illuminant matrix and chroma correction LUT based on the white balance you set."[^6]

This means WB appears to be more than a simple temperature/tint multiplier. Based on Hasselblad's documentation and community analysis, adjusting WB in Phocus appears to trigger:

• Reapplication of sensor-specific colour matrices
• Hue-consistency adjustments across the scene
• Illuminant-aware colour recalculations
• Non-linear transformations that differ from Adobe's WB model

When WB in Phocus Actually Matters

White balance adjustments in Phocus matter more than I initially expected:

1. The results are visibly different - in side-by-side comparisons of the same image with WB adjusted in Capture One versus Phocus, I consistently prefer the Phocus version. The colours feel more natural and better integrated.
2. AWB shooters benefit most - if you shoot Auto White Balance, each file may have a different in-camera WB, and Phocus is the application that understands the HNCS-linked interpretation of that file.
3. Even Daylight WB shooters may prefer it - while fixed WB means you can safely adjust in C1/LR, you may find you prefer the way Phocus handles the adjustment.

This is, of course, personal preference - other photographers may prefer how Capture One or Lightroom handle white balance. But I'd recommend trying both before assuming they're equivalent.

Community consensus on forums like Luminous Landscape and DPReview consistently notes that "Phocus produces the best raw conversion" when it comes to colour fidelity.[^7]

The Daylight WB Workflow

If you shoot with a fixed Daylight WB (around 5000K):

• The illuminant is consistent across all files
• The HNCS transform is stable and predictable
• You can adjust WB later in Capture One or Lightroom without losing critical data

However, "can" and "should" aren't the same thing. In my recent testing, even with Daylight WB locked on the camera, I found the Phocus WB adjustment produced results I preferred over the same adjustment in Capture One.

Phocus White Balance: The Bottom Line

My current approach: if white balance needs adjusting, I do it in Phocus before exporting to TIFF.

The "set WB in Phocus" advice isn't just for AWB shooters - it's worth trying even if you shoot with fixed WB. The HNCS-integrated adjustment produces results that, to my eye, look more natural than the equivalent adjustment in C1 or LR.

Why Phocus Stresses the GPU on Apple Silicon

One of the most noticeable behaviours in Hasselblad Phocus 4.0.1 on macOS is how dramatically the GPU spikes when you increase Recovery or Shadow Fill. Sliding the sliders to the left does not cause the same behaviour. This doesn't appear to be a bug — it seems to reflect how Phocus processes tone and colour.

Recovery and Shadow Fill Trigger Full-Scene Tone Recalculation

Based on my observation of GPU behaviour, increasing either slider seems to force Phocus to:

• Rebuild the entire tone curve
• Recompute luminance for every pixel
• Apply the updated transform globally at high bit depth

This contrasts with Lightroom and Capture One, which appear to apply many tonal adjustments as region-based or spatially adaptive operations.[^8]

Increasing the Slider = New Tone Map; Decreasing = Cached Return

Moving the slider to the right means expanding the tonal transform — Phocus appears to compute a new curve.

Moving it left moves back toward the baseline conversion, which seems to be cached and therefore fast.

Highlight Reconstruction Appears to Require Per-Channel Validation

For highlights, Phocus appears to check:

• Which channels clipped
• Whether neighbouring pixels contain recoverable structure
• Whether hue relationships can be preserved

This per-pixel approach would be computationally heavy compared to more aggressive interpolation strategies.

HNCS Appears to Be Reapplied After Tone Adjustments

After tone adjustments, Phocus appears to re-apply HNCS processing:

• Recalculating the colour transform
• Projecting the image into Hasselblad RGB or L*RGB
• Processing the whole frame in wide-gamut, high-bit-depth colour

This would explain the additional GPU load.

Lightroom and C1 Use Faster, Less Global Methods

Adobe's Process Version 2012 highlight and shadow controls use "regionally adaptive" tone-mapping algorithms.[^8] Adobe explicitly documents AI usage for features like Enhance Details and Denoise, but the core Highlight and Shadow sliders use non-ML algorithms.[^9]

Capture One likewise uses spatially selective tone adjustments.

Neither appears to rebuild the entire colour pipeline when a single tonal slider moves.

Bottom Line on GPU Load

Phocus appears to stress the GPU because it:

• Recalculates tone globally rather than regionally
• Processes highlights and shadows with per-pixel validation
• Reprocesses colour through HNCS after tonal changes
• Works in high-bit-depth colour spaces
• Rebuilds the processing pipeline rather than applying localised adjustments

The payoff seems to be clean, natural rendering — at the cost of heavier GPU use.

References

[^1]: Hasselblad Phocus User Guide v26, p. 51 (Exposure tool section): "highlight recovery reclaims data from the raw file to repair burnt out highlights, shadow fill improves the quality of shadow areas"

[^2]: DPReview Forums, "Phocus vs Lr CC ASP for the X2D" (October 2022): Discussion comparing Phocus and Lightroom rendering, noting differences in noise handling and colour saturation. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4676397

[^3]: Hasselblad Phocus 4.0 Mac Read-me, August 2025: "Improved Highlight Recovery and Dynamic Range handling - Using Exposure version V4"

[^4]: Photos of Arkansas, "Hasselblad Phocus Color Comparison, Example Number 1" (January 2025): Detailed side-by-side comparisons noting "much better shadow recovery by Phocus" and superior detail retention. https://photosofarkansas.com/2025/01/25/hasselblad-phocus-color-comparison-example-number-1/

[^5]: Hasselblad, "Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution": "The colour data undergoes a series of transformations that remap the captured values... adapts to any illumination." https://www.hasselblad.com/learn/hasselblad-natural-colour-solution/

[^6]: Luminous Landscape Forums, "Hasselblad Natural Color Solution (HNCS) - how it works (probably)": Technical analysis finding Phocus uses four illuminants with automatic matrix selection based on white balance setting. https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=96679.0

[^7]: Luminous Landscape Forums, "Hasselblad Workflow Question - Phocus and Lightroom": "There is no question in my mind that Phocus produces the best raw conversion." https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=46705.0

[^8]: Adobe, "Process versions in Adobe Camera Raw": PV 2012 introduced "new tone-mapping algorithms for high-contrast images." https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/process-versions.html

[^9]: Adobe Camera Raw documentation confirms AI is used for Enhance Details, Denoise, and AI-powered masking features, but the Highlight and Shadow sliders use regionally adaptive algorithms rather than machine learning.