I’ve been struggling a lot lately with the thought of how to handle past images as I continue to shoot and process new photos.

In the past, for the most part, I processed photos according to whatever style I was exploring at the time or what spoke to me for a particular shot or series. Now, looking back on a couple of years worth of my best photos, I see a motley crew of styles that don’t seem to fit together. Some are black & white, some are contrasty, some have heavy vignettes, some are highly saturated, some have a lomo/retro look.

Living in Colorado now for almost 7 years, most of my work is western landscapes or ranch, ag and plains life. At first, I was shooting specifically with “series” in mind, like Industrial Observations or Simplicity of Plains Life. The problem is that I now have a growing collection of similar images that don’t have a specific beginning or end.

Some photographers embark on specific projects to capture a unique subject, idea or style. Once they wrap up that project, a new project begins… leaving clearly defined and visually cohesive collections of work. I have some of that. Usually from traveling, where I’ll process all photos from that trip the same. Or like fellow photographers and inspirations of mine, Cole Thompson and Adrian Davis. Their work varies in subject matter a bit, but for Cole is always a contrasty and somewhat dark black & white, and for Adrian is a softer, warm duotone. Is it boring to have a set style that you always use? Or is it an advantage when someone can pick out a photo of yours just based on your style?

I have thought about going back in time and scrubbing the some of the more experimental treatments off of the biggest offenders. This would allow me to re-purpose those still great underlying images and integrate them into my current processing workflow and build a bigger cohesive portfolio. On the other hand, those images are what they are and represent their own unique piece of time, skill, and inspiration. Styles and processing techniques will always evolve. Technology improves, dynamic range changes, aesthetic trends ebb and flow.

What do you think? Have you had to deal with this before?

This entire topic has been eating away at me since I had a revelation that I wanted to concentrate much more on black & white and that I wanted to kick my fine art side back into gear and start entering competitions and selling prints again.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that well for me. I ended up testing and returning three (3!) brand new D800E bodies from B&H. This was only about two weeks ago mind you, months after the supposed “all clear” was given on this issue. All three bodies exhibited horrible left-side back focusing, regardless of lens. I tested the bodies with the 35mm f/1.4G, 85mm f/1.4G, 14-24mm f/2.8G, and the 105mm f/2.8G VR Micro-Nikkor. I shot test images inside (with halogen photo lights) and outside using three different print targets and regular subjects. I even used the Reikan FoCal automated AF tuning/testing software. I sent many emails back and forth with an expert on this issue, Thom Hogan. I encourage you to read the entire DPReview thread if you’re looking into buying the D800/D800E. I started what ended up being a maxed-out 8 page thread over at DPReview: D800E… brand new, left focus issue.

The consistent result was that the far left AF point would severely back focus with all lenses. The center AF point would front focus with the 85mm 1.4G and 35mm 1.4G. And the far right AF point was pretty much spot on the whole time. No amount of AF Fine Tune would fix this problem, and I have no faith in Nikon’s ability to fix this issue (I read one too many horror stories about their terrible service for me tangle with it). Some folks encouraged me to try another retailer to try to find a “good batch” of D800E’s. But as one person put it in my DPReview thread… if there were 3 faulty bodies with a manufacturing batch of 2300 (the difference between the Serial Numbers I had received), the odds of me getting all three were 2,025,189,100 to 1. So either I was extraordinarily “lucky” or Nikon has not figured out or fixed the heart of the design flaw, and many people have AF issues with their D800/D800E that they simply aren’t aware of.

Here are a few closing thoughts from Thom Hogan after he and I went back and forth over sample images and everything I had posted on DPReview.

I asked him if he thought the focus behavior I was showing him in the sample image (the same ones I posted here, as well as some others I didn’t post here. After all, I shot well over 1000 images across the three bodies testing these issues) were what he would consider normal for any DSLR or D800.

“No, not normal, but also not totally unexpected. Where the line between those gets drawn is tougher with a 36mp camera than a 12mp one, which is part of the problem. Yes, I have seen D800s that don’t have different left/right focus performance. I own two.”

My interpretation (and fill in from our other conversations) is that he admits the focus behavior is not normal, yet the missed focus is not unexpected with the D800′s track record and the tolerances/variation in PDAF are razor thin and Nikon has not figured out how to correct the issue yet.

“My point is that these persistent left-sensor problems on the D800 have no explanation that I can find. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but without an explanation we can’t actually rule anything out, including user errors. That Nikon themselves seems perplexed is not reassuring at all. I’m actually surprised at your persistence. I wouldn’t have gone past body #2.”

We debated a bit about subject choice and in some of the situations, what could have caused the missed focus (though cumulatively, the tests speak the same results each individual subject did, thus ruling out to some degree missed focus due to less than ideal contrast, pattern, or placement).

“But we’re still left with the problem that is unanswered: why is the left reacting differently than the right on many of these cameras? I don’t know. Worse still, I don’t think Nikon knows.”

And we talked about the limitations of Phase Detect in general right now. And while I completely understand the science and logic behind what he’s saying, the real world implication is that Nikon has not mastered the tight tolerances needed to achieve sharp focus at 36mp, which basically makes the resolution a complete waste if your shots aren’t in 100% focus. Now, I rarely had this problem when shooting with a Phase One AF body and 32mp back (and I shot almost exclusively in AF because MF was not reliable without zoomed in Live View, which those backs didn’t have then), so I’m not willing to admit that PDAF in general sucks. After all, there are many happy folks over at GetDPI shooting 40-80mp and not complaining about AF problems.

“Phase detect has always been a compromise. It provides high speed but low repeatability/accuracy. The question is always whether the repeatability/accuracy falls within a range that a photographer finds useful. With an aperture of f/5.6 and normal subjects at normal distances, absolutely. But as we start stretching the parameters (36mp, f/1.4, flat targets, etc.) we start hitting boundaries that are very, very tight. In film as you went up in capture size you started wanting focus magnifiers in order to nail the manual focus right. We’re sort of in the same problem. It very well may be that the D800 is pushing the boundaries of the existing system and the system needs full redesign.”

Summing it up, there is a recently published article by Nasim Mansurov, Nikon Quality Assurance and Marketing Gone Wrong, over on Photography Life that pretty much sealed Nikon’s fate with me. That and the fact that B&H wasn’t willing to exchange a fourth faulty Nikon body with me.

I’ve been putting up with an awkward workflow relationship between Lightroom and Capture One Pro for several years now. I would process my RAW files in C1Pro, export TIFF files, and then import everything into Lightroom for cataloging and keywording. I broke it off with CaptureOne yesterday after comparing my processing of some shots from C1Pro and LR4.

I started reprocessing some older photos using LR4.1 RC2. I had previously processed the photos in C1Pro 5, and I remember being quite pleased with the results. Though after comparing them to my new LR4 processing, I’m not sure why. Admittedly, the coloration of my new LR4 processing was markedly different from my previous version, a few of which are below.

As processed previously in Capture One Pro 5:

Newly processed with Lightroom 4.1:

Above, ignoring the creative color differences, notice the significant recovery of usable highlights and shadow. It completely changes the photo, in a fantastic way. This may have been possible using C1Pro, but it would have required outputting at least two TIFF files using different exposure settings and merging them in Photoshop (can you tell I’ve done that a bunch?).

Same thing with the photos below. More on the creative aspects of my processing in a minute.

Capture One Pro 5:

Lightroom 4:

In a good faith attempt

Capture One Pro 5:

Lightroom 4:

You might argue that the Capture One Pro processing is more “realistic” and I’ll give you that, but only because of the way I processed the Lightroom counterparts, not because of any inherent fault or characteristic of either program. However, I did find that I think Lightroom 4 produces smoother, more realistic images. Whereas C1Pro 5 and 6 produce images that are a tad sharper but also crunchier and not nearly as “analogue” looking, for lack of a better word.

To even up the playing field a bit with this last example, I tried deliberately to replicate the processing feel I was getting out of LR4. I found, unsurprisingly, I couldn’t match them. For one thing, there are two fundamental tool differences in C1Pro 6 (I used my current version C1Pro 6.4 for this test). C1Pro 6 does not allow you to apply creative split tones to an image without enabling Black & White mode. Strike one.

C1Pro 6.4 – Split Tones

C1Pro 6 also does not allow moving the end points while editing the color channel curves. This makes it impossible to mute harsh highlights and achieve the softer look I got in LR4. Not a deal breaker for some, but it limits your creative processing and forces a Photoshop workflow step that you can avoid with LR4. Granted, Capture One Pro was/is originally geared toward studio portrait photographers who are mainly interested in perfect skin tones and color checker accuracy, but I think in its more recent iterations, it tries to directly compete with Lightroom… fair game.

Original C1Pro 5 processing:

Revamped C1Pro 6 processing:

Lightroom 4 processing:

You’ll note that the highlight contrast in the C1Pro 6 image is still higher. I couldn’t get the highlights down in the same manner that LR4 can. C1Pro 6 also had a bit harder time with the shadows and had a tendency to turn them into a muddy mess. If you look at the water between the dock and trailer wheels, you can also see the difference that the new LR4 clarity slider makes. The clarity slider in C1Pro 6 functions much like the previous LR3 clarity slider did, basically only improving local gross contrast. This usually results in a harsh feel of dark shadow and blooming highlights with exaggerated halos around contrasting areas. The new LR4 clarity slider brings in this indescribable “presence” to the image that increases detail without affecting the overall image contrast much, giving things a bit of an HDR feel.

Here’s a 50% crop comparison with C1Pro 6 on top, LR4.1 on bottom (click for full-size):

On a side note, in general, I have always found editing in Lightroom to just be plan easier and faster than Capture One Pro. For example, I love the ability to mouse over a parameter and use the up/down arrow keys (or with Shift to make it move faster) to modify the value, no clicking or imprecise dragging required. The local brush adjustments C1Pro 6 introduced were a nice touch, but they are nowhere near as easy or advanced as the brush and gradient tools available in LR4.

Here’s a list of the major improvements and new features:

• Highlight and shadow recovery brings out all the detail that your camera captures in dark shadows and bright highlights.
• Photo book creation with easy-to-use elegant templates.
• Location-based organization lets you find and group images by location, assign locations to images, and display data from GPS-enabled cameras.
• White balance brush to refine and adjust white balance in specific areas of your images.
• Additional local editing controls let you adjust noise reduction and remove moiré in targeted areas of your images.
• Extended video support for organizing, viewing, and making adjustments and edits to video clips.
• Easy video publishing lets you edit and share video clips on Facebook and Flickr®.
• Soft proofing to preview how an image will look when printed with color-managed printers.
• Email directly from Lightroom using the email account of your choice.

Here is a more in-depth look at all of the feature updates and what they do, with screenshots, over on the DPReveiew site. I’m not tempted to download the beta because I don’t want to mess up my 30,000 image LR 3 catalog, so that article was a good read.

Download the beta on Adobe’s site.

Canon also announced a prototype of another cinema body they’re working on. It shoots 4k @ 24fps and has already been used to shoot an episode of House. It looks pretty neat too, kind of a 5D MKII video capability crossed with a RED camera and a pro 1D body. I’m guessing a sticker of around $9,000. Via Engadget.

Head over to OS X Daily to download the PSD

There is obviously a layer of comfort an inexperienced client is requesting (“oh, he has done a real estate site before, phew”). I think what a lot of folks don’t understand is that for a true creative, design doesn’t have borders. Design is all around you, everywhere. A good designer can design a real estate site and a mountain bike magazine layout without missing a beat. While a designer can certainly choose to focus on one discipline or another, website design, packaging design, and brochure layout, for example, share lots of similarities in core design principles and overall aesthetics. The best designs are often the ones that are successful regardless of the technology or vehicle used for dissemination. I suppose that experience plays into this quite a bit.

Take user experience (UX) work for example… I know that from working on retail packaging for OtterBox, designing a successful package that stands out on a shelf, is easy to understand, open, put together, and still excites and educates the user on the product contained within, shares a great deal with designing the UI/UX for an online app. The same principles and goals exist even though the physical versus digital realms couldn’t really be further apart. They’re both studies in user experience and consumer appeal and usability. A package is still an “interface” that you have to interact with.

What are your thoughts?

Need creative person to work on my new website design.

We have all ideas and concept. Budget is around $30 – $50.

a simple to medium html website (small page) with simple administration interface for edit content (CMS).

must be easy enough for me to manage (add / edit / delete contents)

Details will be given via PM. Thx,

Are you serious? $30? With a content management system? The project poster didn’t even capitalize or punctuate his sentences (this was a straight copy/paste). The best part… 36 “designers” actually bid on this job! Thankfully, the average bid at least bumped up to $69.

Sigh.

Clearly, these sites are not populated by experienced designers. I also realize that not every design job will be glamourous and high budget, but these sites are doing a disservice to the entire creative industry by promoting and enabling cut throat bidding and insultingly low pay. I continue to be frustrated by the confusion and shock that potential clients express when we start talking about typical hourly rates, project fees, rights usage, etc. It seems that while most people have no problem paying a doctor $150 to see you for less than ten minutes, paying a creative a respectable wage for what amounts to a sound investment in their business’s future is crazy talk.

Here’s a nice little feedback snippet I found on one designer’s profile from a client and his response:

Client Feedback: He delivered a “product” to me according to the specifications, but if you are looking for someone to design a mobile phone website, this is not the guy for you. I needed a template for a mobile website and he “found” one for me, but I think he basically just resold me something he found on the internet. When I asked him to code in a link to the phone # to make it dial when a user clicked it, he did not know how to even do that basic function. So it was not a great experience. But perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been as to what I wanted… so I guess I got what I paid for. But he is NOT a seasoned site designer so proceed with caution. I’m sure he’ll post negative about me too – but as you can see from all the other projects I have done, I have gotten 10 star ratings, so you can decide on that.

Designer’s Reply: please check your Description You only told “But perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been as to what I wanted…so I guess I got what I paid for”…then why you comment so bad about me ..i am not getting this point..Sir you didn’t told in your Project Description that you want people Can DIAL (cellphone dial the phone number)..that why i said you NO when you ask me about this point..because in 25$(30$) 5$ was charged as project Fees..which i was not aware.. no one will do this part… I gave you all HTML/CSS file as you told in your Project Description .. if you want i can share that File with ADMIN Of this Freelancing site..and all part will be clear..You have Posted my feedback so negative because you where afraid ( as you told ” I’m sure he’ll post negative about me too” ) that i could provide your Negative Feedback .. but Sir you can check my feedback…I was not hoping all this.. Thanks & Regds

This is a toxic environment I shall steer far and clear around, amusing as it is.