Comments on: Retouching http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/ Photography Director Rob Haggart Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:05:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: David field http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-30207 David field Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:04:25 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-30207 I think it's worth pointing out that the concept of retouching isn't a modern thing. Since the earliest days of photography, there have been retouchers modifying photographs. They used to charge much more because a lack of technology required better craftsmanship. Instead of photoshop, they were working directly on the negatives. Many of the legendary photographers ( i.e. Edward Steichen, Helmut Newton, etc) were the product of great retouchers. The biggest difference is that they couldn't afford to rely on it as a crutch because it was so expensive. I think it’s worth pointing out that the concept of retouching isn’t a modern thing. Since the earliest days of photography, there have been retouchers modifying photographs. They used to charge much more because a lack of technology required better craftsmanship. Instead of photoshop, they were working directly on the negatives. Many of the legendary photographers ( i.e. Edward Steichen, Helmut Newton, etc) were the product of great retouchers. The biggest difference is that they couldn’t afford to rely on it as a crutch because it was so expensive.

]]> By: Immortal Imaging http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-25540 Immortal Imaging Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:31:11 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-25540 I am a freelance retoucher with over ten years in the industry. So if any of you guys are looking to for a retoucher, let me know. http://immortalimaging.net Thanks, -W I am a freelance retoucher with over ten years in the industry. So if any of you guys are looking to for a retoucher, let me know.

http://immortalimaging.net

Thanks, -W

]]> By: Jeffrey http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-25072 Jeffrey Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:41:26 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-25072 Yea It's pretty amazing to see how this industry is involving. I've seen many nasty jobs by retouchers and some that are insanely awesome. I have a friend that uses this retoucher, Bianca Carosio, I believe one of her links is www.modelmayhem.com/photoretoucher . She's on my great retoucher list unlike many in this digital revolution, HAHA! Interesting posts.. Yea It’s pretty amazing to see how this industry is involving. I’ve seen many nasty jobs by retouchers and some that are insanely awesome. I have a friend that uses this retoucher, Bianca Carosio, I believe one of her links is http://www.modelmayhem.com/photoretoucher . She’s on my great retoucher list unlike many in this digital revolution, HAHA!

Interesting posts..

]]> By: Nev http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-12370 Nev Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:56:49 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-12370 As a retoucher we are the unsaid truth in a lot of the fashion and advertising world. We always have to work to other peoples budgets even if the files are worked on for weeks at a time. Hourly rates just don't exist. Photographers and Art Directors supply the briefs, and then the next briefs and then the next briefs and then shout at us when it looks over retouched. We hardly get credit's in magazines. We're told to make the worst images look the best and then no thanks. However it's the best job in the world because the job satisfaction is enormous. I can generally be as creative as I want. I don't have people sitting over me all the time meaning I can enjoy most of my working week. Knowing that I was part of a creative team and to some extent the guy that could help when everyone else was unable. I'd recommend finding a retoucher, making friends with them and sticking with them for a while so that a creative relationship can blossom. It makes everyones days a lot easier and fun. Hopefully the world has better images for it. But remember it's everyone else that comes up with what is fashionable. Not us. Unless you're Pascal.... As a retoucher we are the unsaid truth in a lot of the fashion and advertising world.

We always have to work to other peoples budgets even if the files are worked on for weeks at a time. Hourly rates just don’t exist.

Photographers and Art Directors supply the briefs, and then the next briefs and then the next briefs and then shout at us when it looks over retouched.

We hardly get credit’s in magazines.

We’re told to make the worst images look the best and then no thanks.

However it’s the best job in the world because the job satisfaction is enormous. I can generally be as creative as I want. I don’t have people sitting over me all the time meaning I can enjoy most of my working week. Knowing that I was part of a creative team and to some extent the guy that could help when everyone else was unable.

I’d recommend finding a retoucher, making friends with them and sticking with them for a while so that a creative relationship can blossom. It makes everyones days a lot easier and fun. Hopefully the world has better images for it.

But remember it’s everyone else that comes up with what is fashionable. Not us. Unless you’re Pascal….

]]> By: Benny Profane http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-11590 Benny Profane Tue, 04 Mar 2008 06:37:50 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-11590 You know, you have to hand it to Pascal for actually getting some sort of credit for his hard work. As mentioned above, the final work printed and given credit only to the photographer is very much the creation of the retoucher and the other creatives involved. It gets my blood going a bit when I look through showcases like the Archive books, and see blatantly retouched photos with credit only given to Mr. superstar photographer. C'mon. Some of these guys are only shooting simple components for the photoshop wiz to do his thing for the next 50 hours. And, listen, photographers, unless you are shooting pure news stuff, I can assure you that none of your pictures make it to print these days without somebody altering them somewhat. And somebody hire poor Amit. The third world needs our support. You know, you have to hand it to Pascal for actually getting some sort of credit for his hard work. As mentioned above, the final work printed and given credit only to the photographer is very much the creation of the retoucher and the other creatives involved. It gets my blood going a bit when I look through showcases like the Archive books, and see blatantly retouched photos with credit only given to Mr. superstar photographer. C’mon. Some of these guys are only shooting simple components for the photoshop wiz to do his thing for the next 50 hours.
And, listen, photographers, unless you are shooting pure news stuff, I can assure you that none of your pictures make it to print these days without somebody altering them somewhat.

And somebody hire poor Amit. The third world needs our support.

]]> By: Liz http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-1344 Liz Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:28:34 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-1344 Matthew and others: I don't think iwanex is that bad. Are you against using the Liquify filter? I'm not challenging you, just want to understand because I'm trying to educate myself. Can you give an example of great retouching? --- Uh, wow! I’m a senior retoucher, and I can tell you that that retouching is really pretty terrible. If I presented that type of work to a client, I probably would not be hired again. Amazing? No. Amazingly bad? Yes. I’m just sayin… ——- Check out the portfolio section of this retoucher. Amazing…in a scary way. http://www.iwanexstudio.com/ Matthew and others:

I don’t think iwanex is that bad. Are you against using the Liquify filter? I’m not challenging you, just want to understand because I’m trying to educate myself. Can you give an example of great retouching?

—
Uh, wow! I’m a senior retoucher, and I can tell you that that retouching is really pretty terrible. If I presented that type of work to a client, I probably would not be hired again. Amazing? No. Amazingly bad? Yes. I’m just sayin…

——-
Check out the portfolio section of this retoucher. Amazing…in a scary way.

http://www.iwanexstudio.com/

]]> By: Amit http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-1200 Amit Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:36:40 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-1200 Dear Sir/Madam, My self Amit Jain. I am a Multimedia Professional. I am also a very good retoucher and working on 100% Retouching Images. I want to join your organization as a freelancer. Only reply me on my email-id, because in our office Mobile is not allowed. Waiting for your good reply. Thank you Amit Jain Dear Sir/Madam,

My self Amit Jain.

I am a Multimedia Professional.

I am also a very good retoucher and working on 100% Retouching Images.

I want to join your organization as a freelancer.

Only reply me on my email-id, because in our office Mobile is not allowed.

Waiting for your good reply.

Thank you
Amit Jain

]]> By: Barbara Sklar http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-415 Barbara Sklar Fri, 12 Oct 2007 23:09:04 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-415 It's interesting to me that so many editorial and/or "celebrity" photographers take such crappy shots. I have seen the turnaround between the before image and the retouched images and WOW I am so surprised at how much work has to go into retouching because the photographers initial shot had horrible lighting and distracting backgrounds and disaster make-up. When photo editors accept photography that is low quality then the master retoucher is much more valueable than the photographer indeed. What I find humorous and disheartening is I have held so many photographers on a pedestal based on the work I saw...only to find out later the image's allure was most certainly ONLY due to the master retoucher, as the original image was nothing to write home about. If I had a magazine ABSOLUTLY I would hire a fantastic retoucher before photographers who didn't produce quality work. There is a large pool of great photographers out here who may desire slight retouching however it isnt required for that image to be Amazing! But when I see retouching changing the ENTIRE image on various levels..taking a wasted image and performing miracles to get it to be of basic standards WOAH I am floored and wonder why my phone isn't ringing more. I can always use a great retoucher to make my images go from gorgeous to WOW WOW WOW but the day I turn out shitty images that REQUIRE a master retoucher to even find the value of it...GEEZ I'll quit. So, please when I hear people whine about why magazines pay retouchers so much money..it's because they have to WORK THE SHIT out of lots of the images photographers submit...It's almost embarrassing to call ourselves photographers when magazines accept crap before natural talent. My thinking is it's crazy that a photographer who takes a very crappy image can hire a retoucher to dismantel the entire image and rescue the key point and bring it to life...and yet, the retoucher doesnt get much credit. How much can an image be retouched before we realize that it's no longer the photographers work but the retouchers creation that is to be commended. I just want a list of all these amazing master retouchers so I can keep them on file for future referals. They are amazing and talented and deserve alot of credit for producing fake but beautiful images. Oh, while we are at it, I love that I can take an unsightly model with distracting attributes with an assugly wrinkled outfit on and mismatched boots...send it into a retoucher and the final image is: a stunning model with the perfect figure and facial features in a dress that melts upon her body with perfectly matched boots. Ha...why not just use animations, we dont need photographers or models anymore..the retouchers can create it from scraps. No need for dogs, we can turn your cat into a cute fluffy pup! Get with it everyone: if magazines want to say they have an image of the celebrity show it like it is...blemish for blemish, quality for quality. Hire better photographers, models and set the standard! It’s interesting to me that so many editorial and/or “celebrity” photographers take such crappy shots. I have seen the turnaround between the before image and the retouched images and WOW I am so surprised at how much work has to go into retouching because the photographers initial shot had horrible lighting and distracting backgrounds and disaster make-up.

When photo editors accept photography that is low quality then the master retoucher is much more valueable than the photographer indeed.

What I find humorous and disheartening is I have held so many photographers on a pedestal based on the work I saw…only to find out later the image’s allure was most certainly ONLY due to the master retoucher, as the original image was nothing to write home about.

If I had a magazine ABSOLUTLY I would hire a fantastic retoucher before photographers who didn’t produce quality work.

There is a large pool of great photographers out here who may desire slight retouching however it isnt required for that image to be Amazing! But when I see retouching changing the ENTIRE image on various levels..taking a wasted image and performing miracles to get it to be of basic standards WOAH I am floored and wonder why my phone isn’t ringing more.

I can always use a great retoucher to make my images go from gorgeous to WOW WOW WOW but the day I turn out shitty images that REQUIRE a master retoucher to even find the value of it…GEEZ I’ll quit.

So, please when I hear people whine about why magazines pay retouchers so much money..it’s because they have to WORK THE SHIT out of lots of the images photographers submit…It’s almost embarrassing to call ourselves photographers when magazines accept crap before natural talent.

My thinking is it’s crazy that a photographer who takes a very crappy image can hire a retoucher to dismantel the entire image and rescue the key point and bring it to life…and yet, the retoucher doesnt get much credit. How much can an image be retouched before we realize that it’s no longer the photographers work but the retouchers creation that is to be commended.

I just want a list of all these amazing master retouchers so I can keep them on file for future referals. They are amazing and talented and deserve alot of credit for producing fake but beautiful images.

Oh, while we are at it, I love that I can take an unsightly model with distracting attributes with an assugly wrinkled outfit on and mismatched boots…send it into a retoucher and the final image is: a stunning model with the perfect figure and facial features in a dress that melts upon her body with perfectly matched boots. Ha…why not just use animations, we dont need photographers or models anymore..the retouchers can create it from scraps.

No need for dogs, we can turn your cat into a cute fluffy pup!

Get with it everyone: if magazines want to say they have an image of the celebrity show it like it is…blemish for blemish, quality for quality. Hire better photographers, models and set the standard!

]]> By: Peter Garner http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-295 Peter Garner Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:47:03 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-295 Maybe I'm missing the point but surely you shouldn't have to spend hours retouching, "enhancing", etc post-shoot? Call me a heretic but if you treat your digital camera like its film equivalent (but with a much longer roll of film) then you're going to be shooting high-quality pictures? Also, if your model doesn't have the right look then, duh, you hired the wrong model! Or maybe that's why I'm not a pro... Maybe I’m missing the point but surely you shouldn’t have to spend hours retouching, “enhancing”, etc post-shoot? Call me a heretic but if you treat your digital camera like its film equivalent (but with a much longer roll of film) then you’re going to be shooting high-quality pictures? Also, if your model doesn’t have the right look then, duh, you hired the wrong model!

Or maybe that’s why I’m not a pro…

]]> By: Kevin http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-202 Kevin Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:48:59 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-202 It's not surprising to me that retouchers, in some cases, may be hired before the photographer. Certainly in some ads (shoes, automotive) if you see the before and after, it's really become an illustration, and the photographer simply provided a very basic set of images from which to work. When the styles change again (and they always do), there may be less of a desire for such over the top, fantasy type retouching (then again, maybe not...). As far as shooting tethered goes, I've found that I use it in certain situations, and not in others. It's often simply a digital Polaroid, and I let ADs or CDs know that if we want to get anything done, they can't scrutinize every single shot on the laptop. It’s not surprising to me that retouchers, in some cases, may be hired before the photographer. Certainly in some ads (shoes, automotive) if you see the before and after, it’s really become an illustration, and the photographer simply provided a very basic set of images from which to work.

When the styles change again (and they always do), there may be less of a desire for such over the top, fantasy type retouching (then again, maybe not…).

As far as shooting tethered goes, I’ve found that I use it in certain situations, and not in others. It’s often simply a digital Polaroid, and I let ADs or CDs know that if we want to get anything done, they can’t scrutinize every single shot on the laptop.

]]> By: Marko http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-193 Marko Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:24:58 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-193 Perfection and gloss are becoming relatively mundane. In this day and age, where trailer parks house their fair share of 42" plasma TV's and Blackberries, what's the point of publishing yet another photographic equivalent thereof? Perfection and gloss are becoming relatively mundane. In this day and age, where trailer parks house their fair share of 42″ plasma TV’s and Blackberries, what’s the point of publishing yet another photographic equivalent thereof?

]]> By: George Fulton http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-190 George Fulton Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:19:28 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-190 Just to throw a copyright monkey wrench into the equation there is a legal leg that retouchers can stand on depending on the extent they apply interpretive artist changes to an image, and maybe even two legs if they take a variety of elements to assemble a new work. A new work is a new work in the eyes of copyright law, like it or not. Unless a photographer has the retoucher sign a waiver to their interests in a copyright to the new work, the legs are strong. But this is just a tiny little back story though. I retouch my own work as an extension of what I put in front of the lens, but I really do commend those who can hand it off to retouching artists as part of their artistic process. It takes more than just handing it off really, there's more to it than that. And you can almost feel when a photographer has just handed pieces to someone else and there isn't an aesthetic lock down going on. The best retouching isn't an afterthought at least in my small brain. The problem lies in that a studio like Box will command the higher retouching fees than the photographer doing it themselves as part of their photographic aesthetic. Just try as a photographer retouching their own work for those fees on an editorial assignment. For ad work I actually keep a separate company for just this reason. It's still me and my retouching assistants, but it's a separate company, striving for the same end point - one cohesive process. Matthew wrote: "Pascal is tryinig to get a piece of the photographer’s copyrights which many photographers don’t like, and..." Just to throw a copyright monkey wrench into the equation there is a legal leg that retouchers can stand on depending on the extent they apply interpretive artist changes to an image, and maybe even two legs if they take a variety of elements to assemble a new work. A new work is a new work in the eyes of copyright law, like it or not. Unless a photographer has the retoucher sign a waiver to their interests in a copyright to the new work, the legs are strong.

But this is just a tiny little back story though. I retouch my own work as an extension of what I put in front of the lens, but I really do commend those who can hand it off to retouching artists as part of their artistic process. It takes more than just handing it off really, there’s more to it than that. And you can almost feel when a photographer has just handed pieces to someone else and there isn’t an aesthetic lock down going on. The best retouching isn’t an afterthought at least in my small brain.

The problem lies in that a studio like Box will command the higher retouching fees than the photographer doing it themselves as part of their photographic aesthetic. Just try as a photographer retouching their own work for those fees on an editorial assignment. For ad work I actually keep a separate company for just this reason. It’s still me and my retouching assistants, but it’s a separate company, striving for the same end point - one cohesive process.

Matthew wrote: “Pascal is tryinig to get a piece of the photographer’s copyrights which many photographers don’t like, and…”

]]> By: don http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-181 don Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:33:29 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-181 the naturalbeauties retoucher with some criticisms of her 'work'......so sensitive! http://www.somethingawful.com/d/legal-threats/crazy-doll-lady.php the naturalbeauties retoucher with some criticisms of her ‘work’……so sensitive!

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/legal-threats/crazy-doll-lady.php

]]> By: johnny c http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-179 johnny c Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:08:20 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-179 can't speak for anyone else, but you kinda got it... minus the red bull. i got a job where i got paid to learn. had plenty of time to find out what those adjustment layers do. then i got a job at a better place, with better photoshopers and absorbed what i could from their files. i suppose the main thing is to have an interest in art, photography, and design.... also, my apologies to the naturalbeauties retoucher, it's not a "dude", its a woman... can’t speak for anyone else, but you kinda got it… minus the red bull. i got a job where i got paid to learn. had plenty of time to find out what those adjustment layers do. then i got a job at a better place, with better photoshopers and absorbed what i could from their files. i suppose the main thing is to have an interest in art, photography, and design….

also, my apologies to the naturalbeauties retoucher, it’s not a “dude”, its a woman…

]]> By: Mark Tucker http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-178 Mark Tucker Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:56:25 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-178 One thing I always wanted to know -- where do Retouchers go to learn their craft? Where is Retouching University? I don't think I"ve ever seen a class for it listed anywhere. Are these just guys that drink a lot of Red Bull, and sit in front of their Mac, and ask themselves, "What would this Adjustment Layer do?" One thing I always wanted to know — where do Retouchers go to learn their craft? Where is Retouching University? I don’t think I”ve ever seen a class for it listed anywhere.

Are these just guys that drink a lot of Red Bull, and sit in front of their Mac, and ask themselves, “What would this Adjustment Layer do?”

]]> By: johnny c http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-177 johnny c Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:19:36 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-177 i am a retoucher too for an ad agency in nyc. just wanted to say thanks for the naturalbeauties link (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html) that almost made me pee my pants..... that dude is crazzzie. i am a retoucher too for an ad agency in nyc. just wanted to say thanks for the naturalbeauties link (http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html)

that almost made me pee my pants….. that dude is crazzzie.

]]> By: colin pantall http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-175 colin pantall Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:54:57 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-175 The natural beauties site is just too strange. Here's a search for perfection that Joerg Coberg at Conscientious featured in his blog a few days back - http://prototypicality.blogspot.com/ The natural beauties site is just too strange. Here’s a search for perfection that Joerg Coberg at Conscientious featured in his blog a few days back -

http://prototypicality.blogspot.com/

]]> By: A Photo Editor http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-173 A Photo Editor Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:10:54 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-173 Great information coming out here. Retouchers and those in the know thanks for your comments here. It's very informative. Great information coming out here. Retouchers and those in the know thanks for your comments here. It’s very informative.

]]> By: bartolomy http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-172 bartolomy Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:32:24 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-172 shooting tethered doesn't kill anything.... Just treat it as polaroid w. the film days......use it to define the image and move on, unless of course you have no idea what you are actually trying to create or are too inimidated by the client. shooting tethered doesn’t kill anything….
Just treat it as polaroid w. the film days……use it to define the image and move on, unless of course you have no idea what you are actually trying to create or are too inimidated by the client.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-171 Matthew Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:54:10 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-171 In my opinion, Box is not the best studio in New York. Sure they have great names, but to be honest, that's about it. So many of Box's clients have moved on because a.) their rates are too high ($20,000 for a cover? c'mon!), b.) Pascal is tryinig to get a piece of the photographer's copyrights which many photographers don't like, and c.) their retouching is simply mediocre! They do tons, and tons, and tons of editorial which means you can screw up and make mistakes, and chances are you wouldn't notice it printed at such a small scale. However, when it's printed billboard size, watch out. Yeah they do a lot of advertising, and it's okay, but word on the street is many clients are unhappy with their overall quality and attitude and are moving on. Which is great for the rest of us, because honestly, their are better retouchers out there. No offense to Pascal- he just happened to be one of the first of the better ones, but not the last. In my opinion, Box is not the best studio in New York. Sure they have great names, but to be honest, that’s about it. So many of Box’s clients have moved on because a.) their rates are too high ($20,000 for a cover? c’mon!), b.) Pascal is tryinig to get a piece of the photographer’s copyrights which many photographers don’t like, and c.) their retouching is simply mediocre! They do tons, and tons, and tons of editorial which means you can screw up and make mistakes, and chances are you wouldn’t notice it printed at such a small scale. However, when it’s printed billboard size, watch out. Yeah they do a lot of advertising, and it’s okay, but word on the street is many clients are unhappy with their overall quality and attitude and are moving on. Which is great for the rest of us, because honestly, their are better retouchers out there. No offense to Pascal- he just happened to be one of the first of the better ones, but not the last.

]]> By: Robert Wright http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-170 Robert Wright Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:19:35 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-170 Everyone always wants a slice of the money. This is not all that dissimilar to the rise of big rental studios and rental equipment companies. The associated support industries will always try to drain money out of the system, they are there to make a profit. And they are smart-these kind of expenses can increase from year to year because as we all "know" things get more expensive every year don't they? And digital has been an enormous profit center for rental-when you get to charge 1/30th the value of a piece of equipment (that you are leasing) and that digital back is out 150 days a year you see that this has been a huge money grab for rental. Retouching is very similar-the investment to get in is high (servers, redundancy, backups, APS, wages) but once you are there the throughput can be high, mostly catalog and internet work keeps the drones humming. Beating a dead horse-when was the last time a photographer actually raised his or her rate-for some reason they are never allowed to get more expensive. For profitability, my money is on the retouchers-they are the sane ones. And the rental studios and equipment rental houses. I might be flogging a dead horse, but they have been bleeding it dry for years...:) Everyone always wants a slice of the money. This is not all that dissimilar to the rise of big rental studios and rental equipment companies. The associated support industries will always try to drain money out of the system, they are there to make a profit. And they are smart-these kind of expenses can increase from year to year because as we all “know” things get more expensive every year don’t they? And digital has been an enormous profit center for rental-when you get to charge 1/30th the value of a piece of equipment (that you are leasing) and that digital back is out 150 days a year you see that this has been a huge money grab for rental. Retouching is very similar-the investment to get in is high (servers, redundancy, backups, APS, wages) but once you are there the throughput can be high, mostly catalog and internet work keeps the drones humming.
Beating a dead horse-when was the last time a photographer actually raised his or her rate-for some reason they are never allowed to get more expensive.
For profitability, my money is on the retouchers-they are the sane ones. And the rental studios and equipment rental houses. I might be flogging a dead horse, but they have been bleeding it dry for years…:)

]]> By: danklife http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-167 danklife Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:57:31 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-167 As a retoucher myself I would say that you all are giving the retouchers way more power then they have. A file is not simply delivered to the retoucher to work on and send back retouched how they see fit. There are pages of notes from the photographer to start with and then the art director starts tweaking each mole and wrinkle for days. To say its the retoucher making these choices alone is foolish and naive of how the industry actually works. As a retoucher myself I would say that you all are giving the retouchers way more power then they have. A file is not simply delivered to the retoucher to work on and send back retouched how they see fit. There are pages of notes from the photographer to start with and then the art director starts tweaking each mole and wrinkle for days. To say its the retoucher making these choices alone is foolish and naive of how the industry actually works.

]]> By: Dave http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-165 Dave Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:07:26 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-165 Unreal. Literally. I can't even begin to wrap my head around what I saw from the link Don posted. Here's the link: http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html Unreal. Literally.

I can’t even begin to wrap my head around what I saw from the link Don posted.

Here’s the link:

http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html

]]> By: sean http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-163 sean Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:49:06 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-163 As one of the high end retouchers, my experience is that rarely is the retoucher booked and the photographer is relegated to a second tier decision, at least in the fashion/beauty world that I see and work in every day. But there is a fact that the leading new york city retouching house is very hard to book to work with (Box Studios) so in fact you might have to book with them in order schedule it before a photographer can be booked. Also, some of the leading fashion/beauty photographers will not work without Box working on their stuff. As one of the high end retouchers, my experience is that rarely is the retoucher booked and the photographer is relegated to a second tier decision, at least in the fashion/beauty world that I see and work in every day. But there is a fact that the leading new york city retouching house is very hard to book to work with (Box Studios) so in fact you might have to book with them in order schedule it before a photographer can be booked. Also, some of the leading fashion/beauty photographers will not work without Box working on their stuff.

]]> By: mark likosky http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-161 mark likosky Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:18:19 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-161 shoot film until this problem clears up. only mess with the colors and curves. try that! shoot film until this problem clears up.
only mess with the colors and curves. try that!

]]> By: Odd Thoughts » Blog Archive » frankenbarbies http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-152 Odd Thoughts » Blog Archive » frankenbarbies Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:02:03 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-152 [...] “This retouching business has gotten to the point where normal beautiful women look hideous next to these frankenbarbies.” (link) [...] [...] “This retouching business has gotten to the point where normal beautiful women look hideous next to these frankenbarbies.” (link) [...]

]]> By: don http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-151 don Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:49:18 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-151 not for the faint of heart.....be sure to check the other samples http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html just gawjus! not for the faint of heart…..be sure to check the other samples

http://www.naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouch4a.html

just gawjus!

]]> By: Mark Tucker http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-150 Mark Tucker Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:42:41 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-150 If the topic is "retouching", I'll take a bit of liberty here and post a link to a fascinating article in The Times, written by filmmaker Errol Morris, about an 1855 photograph, where there are two versions of the image -- one with a clean road, and another with cannonballs in the road. Fascinating to me that the article is so long, and that so much thought went into these two photographs, and even more fascinating the amount of Comments about it. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/index.html?ref=opinion If the topic is “retouching”, I’ll take a bit of liberty here and post a link to a fascinating article in The Times, written by filmmaker Errol Morris, about an 1855 photograph, where there are two versions of the image — one with a clean road, and another with cannonballs in the road. Fascinating to me that the article is so long, and that so much thought went into these two photographs, and even more fascinating the amount of Comments about it.

http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/index.html?ref=opinion

]]> By: Bruce DeBoer http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-148 Bruce DeBoer Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:22:09 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-148 No worries - budgets will seek their own level; they always do. As for retouchers becoming more critical than photographers in the final image, I'd ask: "are you sure you're getting photography and NOT illustration?" No worries - budgets will seek their own level; they always do.

As for retouchers becoming more critical than photographers in the final image, I’d ask: “are you sure you’re getting photography and NOT illustration?”

]]> By: Mark Tucker http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-147 Mark Tucker Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:04:49 +0000 http://aphotoeditor.com/2007/09/25/retouching/#comment-147 I just delivered an ad job tonight. I've started making Contact Sheets again for clients. For a while there, they always just said, "Just give me the web galleries, and we'll pull FPO's from that". But I don't know about you guys, but I hate to edit a photo session on the computer, versus off of paper Contact Sheets. It's just a human nature thing I guess. There's just something very tactile about spreading contact sheets out on the table and marking them up with a grease pencil. I've found a way now to deliver nice size Contacts, pretty effortlessly. Even if the clients say they don't want them, I'm still betting that they enjoy having them, once they arrive. Some things just shouldn't change, no matter how much digital changes our lives. I just delivered an ad job tonight. I’ve started making Contact Sheets again for clients. For a while there, they always just said, “Just give me the web galleries, and we’ll pull FPO’s from that”. But I don’t know about you guys, but I hate to edit a photo session on the computer, versus off of paper Contact Sheets. It’s just a human nature thing I guess. There’s just something very tactile about spreading contact sheets out on the table and marking them up with a grease pencil.

I’ve found a way now to deliver nice size Contacts, pretty effortlessly. Even if the clients say they don’t want them, I’m still betting that they enjoy having them, once they arrive.

Some things just shouldn’t change, no matter how much digital changes our lives.

]]>