Yes. But your scans are not RAW. They are “enhanced tiffs”.
1 Like
O.k., here ist the statement from the professional (means, my scanservice).
English:
RAW files produced with scanners are in fact just modified TIF data. However, with the right program, they offer the same advantages.
In case of 3f data it is the FlexColor program with which the files can be processed. The program can be downloaded for free from the Hasselblad homepage.
Due to the line-by-line scanning of the image, they cannot be true raw files. The processing step that joins all the lines into one image must always be done. So scans are never “real” RAWs.
German (Original)
Mit Scannern produzierte RAW Dateien sind tatsächlich einfach modifizierte TIF Daten. Diese bieten jedoch mit dem richtigen Programm die gleichen Vorzüge.
Im Fall von 3f Daten ist es das FlexColor Programm mit dem die Dateien verarbeitet werden können. Das Programm ist kostenlos auf Hasselblad Homepage zu finden.
Echte Raw Dateien sind aufgrund der zeilenweisen Abtastung des Bildes nicht möglich. Der Bearbeitungsschritt, der alle Zeilen zu einem Bild zusammenfügt, muss immer passieren. Scans sind also niemals “echte” RAWs.
So I think we are at the end of this thread. The confusing thing is, that a fff file is not necessarily an ordinary fff file unless you know whether it was created by a camera or a scanner.
And it is now also understandable why Rawtherapee can process fff files from a camera, but not those from a scanner.
Ladies and gentlemen, it was a pleasure meeting you. See you sometime with the next problem 
Harald
4 Likes
It may not be the “raw” output, as the scanmeister stated, but do the fff’s from the scanner offer better bit depth/resolution, or is it really just a data reshuffle?