Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the dynamic of this MM place any longer, and none of you people seem to understand the reality of your situation. The Atlanta guy owns a family portrait business, and he also does restoration retouch, which all looked pretty good to me. He doesn't seem to shoot crotch in the face, deer in the headlights, up the poop shoot pseudo glamour bullshit, so you guys jump all over his abilities.

Not one person that posted in this thread could pass any retouch studio's digital evaluation test, yet you all seem inclined to call out this Atlanta guy as if he did something wrong. For what he does, he seems to do a nice enough job. I didn't see any of the mistakes on his web site that I see all over the place in here.

Did any of you ever stop to think that he may not have a lot of time to waste on testing people that don't know their digital ass from a computational hole in the ground? If I were in a position in which I constantly had to evaluate sub par retouch talent, I would be terse and to the point too.

If Jim's recount of his test experience wasn't enough to wake you guys up, then you just keep on with your delusional critiques, because apparently they make you feel better.

That Frank McAdam guy was right, this place is making me nuts.

oh yea   





Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

oh yea   





Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

So, Mr. Hotshot Fashionista head... how many MM retouch wizards would make it through your front door for a test? Tell the truth!

Robert Randall wrote:
So, Mr. Hotshot Fashionista head... how many MM retouch wizards would make it through your front door for a test? Tell the truth!

koray!!!!   and Dallas Logan!!!!




but for the most part, that was more a message, this is model mayhem, by now, we are mainly aware of the member base, and what they are like.  Drama is what drives this place at times. Its the mayhem in modelmayhem   you have to get use to that to not be bothered by it.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the dynamic of this MM place any longer, and none of you people seem to understand the reality of your situation. The Atlanta guy owns a family portrait business, and he also does restoration retouch, which all looked pretty good to me. He doesn't seem to shoot crotch in the face, deer in the headlights, up the poop shoot pseudo glamour bullshit, so you guys jump all over his abilities.

Not one person that posted in this thread could pass any retouch studio's digital evaluation test, yet you all seem inclined to call out this Atlanta guy as if he did something wrong. For what he does, he seems to do a nice enough job. I didn't see any of the mistakes on his web site that I see all over the place in here.

Did any of you ever stop to think that he may not have a lot of time to waste on testing people that don't know their digital ass from a computational hole in the ground? If I were in a position in which I constantly had to evaluate sub par retouch talent, I would be terse and to the point too.

If Jim's recount of his test experience wasn't enough to wake you guys up, then you just keep on with your delusional critiques, because apparently they make you feel better.

That Frank McAdam guy was right, this place is making me nuts.

I was told by someone who makes a living shooting families and such 15 minutes is all an images gets that is IT, 15 minutes per finished image or he is losing money.

For the most part he only retouches 2-3 images per session...

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:
I was told by someone who makes a living shooting families and such 15 minutes is all an images gets that is IT, 15 minutes per finished image or he is losing money.

For the most part he only retouches 2-3 images per session...

I would totally agree with that assessment in that market!

That said the expectation of what they are getting is not the same as loreal or prada would have.

In fact many post houses have two rate sheets, one for advertising one for editorial the editorial takes a back seat to advertising clients, stated up front, its often 500 a page, advertising can be thousands per image. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:
koray!!!!   and Dallas Logan!!!!




but for the most part, that was more a message, this is model mayhem, by now, we are mainly aware of the member base, and what they are like.  Drama is what drives this place at times. Its the mayhem in modelmayhem   you have to get use to that to not be bothered by it.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

I used to not be bothered by it, but now it seems so much errant information passes for fact that it makes me wonder at how so many people can be so mislead. Think about it for a second, if they allow themselves to be so off target on a subject they love, like photography, how far off are they on something they really don't care much about, like personal hygiene and world peace. Yikes!

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:
I don't give a shit about loreal or prada.

This thread started about family portraits not commercial and fashion.
90% of the "fashion" guys here on MM are full of shit anyhow.

Even the ones who hide it well.

no kidding?  but still thats what people here fail to understand and than get frustrated with.  They want to treat little TFP or family shots like a international ad. 


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Robert Randall wrote:
I used to not be bothered by it, but now it seems so much errant information passes for fact that it makes me wonder at how many people can be so mislead. Think about it for a second, if they allow themselves to be so off target on a subject they love, like photography, how far off are they on something they really don't care much about, like personal hygiene and world peace. Yikes!

you want to see mislead people?  check out the soapbox!!!!

that is scary 



The main problem here is, if people had to accept the realities of some of these things they would have to accept certain other realities of their place in it.  Not good for them.  So they choose to be mislead.

Believe me, I understand your frustration, I experience it often, and thats when I go check out other threads, knowing that the thread that bothers me will be buried in two days and start all over again.

I would love to do workshops teaching things the way they are, but its just not that cost effective and its really, in the end, not worth it on a large scale, so I am sort of doing very limited ones here and there to get it out of my system, and leave it at that. 



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

you want to see mislead people?  check out the soapbox!!!!

that is scary 



The main problem here is, if people had to accept the realities of some of these things they would have to accept certain other realities of their place in it.  Not good for them.  So they choose to be mislead.

Believe me, I understand your frustration, I experience it often, and thats when I go check out other threads, knowing that the thread that bothers me will be buried in two days and start all over again.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Sounds kind of like an ADHD nightmare.

Robert Randall wrote:
Question number 1.

You have a gradient background that runs top to bottom, comprised of a basic blue gradient of 80C, 40M, 10Y, 5K. The art director wants you to lay in a drop shadow of a value of black. What nominally should that black read in terms of value, and why?

I have no fucking clue.

I need to spend another week with you...

Robert Randall wrote:
Sounds kind of like an ADHD nightmare.

more like an ADHD nightmare when you are in a coma with no means of waking up 

I need to go shopping while its still pleasant out.  Posting is too time consuming somedays 

I will leave you with this quote, apply it as best you can to the presenting the truths of the universe to the forums

"What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in the ground underneath a giant boulder you can't move with no hope of rescue:

Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far.

Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far (which, given your current circumstances, seems more likely):

Consider how lucky you are that it won't be troubling you much longer. "



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

more like an ADHD nightmare when you are in a coma with no means of waking up 

I need to go shopping while its still pleasant out.  Posting is too time consuming somedays 

I will leave you with this quote, apply it as best you can to the presenting the truths of the universe to the forums

"What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack in the ground underneath a giant boulder you can't move with no hope of rescue:

Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far.

Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far (which, given your current circumstances, seems more likely):

Consider how lucky you are that it won't be troubling you much longer. "



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Good one! I'm going to play golf now.

Robert Randall wrote:

Good one! I'm going to play golf now.

Read on a greeting card yesterday: "Golf and sex are two of the only things that you can do poorly and still enjoy."

MMDesign wrote:

Read on a greeting card yesterday: "Golf and sex are two of the only things that you can do poorly and still enjoy."

I hate golf. I can't even swing and hit the ball.

MMDesign wrote:
Read on a greeting card yesterday: "Golf and sex are two of the only things that you can do poorly and still enjoy."

oh snap...unsolicited critique. just kidding. i think bob passed on sex when he discovers cymk...and dan margolis. right, bob

edit: oh crap. what have i done?

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the dynamic of this MM place any longer, and none of you people seem to understand the reality of your situation. The Atlanta guy owns a family portrait business, and he also does restoration retouch, which all looked pretty good to me. He doesn't seem to shoot crotch in the face, deer in the headlights, up the poop shoot pseudo glamour bullshit, so you guys jump all over his abilities.

Not one person that posted in this thread could pass any retouch studio's digital evaluation test, yet you all seem inclined to call out this Atlanta guy as if he did something wrong. For what he does, he seems to do a nice enough job. I didn't see any of the mistakes on his web site that I see all over the place in here.

Did any of you ever stop to think that he may not have a lot of time to waste on testing people that don't know their digital ass from a computational hole in the ground? If I were in a position in which I constantly had to evaluate sub par retouch talent, I would be terse and to the point too.

If Jim's recount of his test experience wasn't enough to wake you guys up, then you just keep on with your delusional critiques, because apparently they make you feel better.

That Frank McAdam guy was right, this place is making me nuts.

Since my name was mentioned, I have to say (seriously) that I agree completely with everything you've just written.

For the record, I don't think you're nuts, just one of the very few talented professionals on this site who understand the industry.

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the dynamic of this MM place any longer, and none of you people seem to understand the reality of your situation. The Atlanta guy owns a family portrait business, and he also does restoration retouch, which all looked pretty good to me. He doesn't seem to shoot crotch in the face, deer in the headlights, up the poop shoot pseudo glamour bullshit, so you guys jump all over his abilities.

Not one person that posted in this thread could pass any retouch studio's digital evaluation test, yet you all seem inclined to call out this Atlanta guy as if he did something wrong. For what he does, he seems to do a nice enough job. I didn't see any of the mistakes on his web site that I see all over the place in here.

Did any of you ever stop to think that he may not have a lot of time to waste on testing people that don't know their digital ass from a computational hole in the ground? If I were in a position in which I constantly had to evaluate sub par retouch talent, I would be terse and to the point too.

If Jim's recount of his test experience wasn't enough to wake you guys up, then you just keep on with your delusional critiques, because apparently they make you feel better.

That Frank McAdam guy was right, this place is making me nuts.

I know I'm going to be swimming against the current with this post but quite honestly, I'm a little suprised at some of the things wrote. Most images are a comprimise between asthetics and technical accuracy. Looking through the guys website, I would think his images would lean a little more towards technical accuracy as the focus is clearly on natural looking shots. Thats not what I found when looking through his work. Not one of the brides dresses where white. They were either blue, yellow and one of them was red. The areas that were white were blown out or close to it. His studio portrait work typically left his subjects red in the face. One woman had accurate skin tone but her hair was blue. There was a photo of an infant with greenish skin tone and hair! A dog's nose should be black, not greenish blue. And you don't have to look at the numbers for all the images. Some of them (especially the wedding shots), are readily obvious.

Now I can understand a test designed for speed and efficiency. I prefer to take my time when editing and retouching but a deadline is a deadline. But I'm not convinced this guy is working that fast because he knows what he's doing. So to belittle some one else for the same lack of proficiency is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's a completely different story when the critic knows what they're talking about, or at least has a clue. I was in the military for over a decade so personally, I can take some pretty harsh criticism, so long as they know what they're talking about. Thats called a learning experiance. I have to feel a sympathy for the OP because he was pretty much left with his hands in air saying, "what the fuck?"

Now I may or may not be able to pass a retouch studio's digital evaluation test (that has yet to be determined), but at the very least, I can deliver a wedding album with white dresses.

Robert Randall wrote:
Question number 1.

You have a gradient background that runs top to bottom, comprised of a basic blue gradient of 80C, 40M, 10Y, 5K, fading to no Y and no K. The art director wants you to lay in a drop shadow using a value of black. What nominally should that black read in terms of value, and why?

Edit... make sure your drop shadow has a feathered edge.

I'm not smart enough to know if this is a trick question or not, but if it's just a drop shadow I just use the Layer Styles and use the controls there to make it look the way I want.

Now when I create a drop shadow manually with a bit of blur to soften it the reading in CMYK is:
75C
68M
67Y
90K
What those number really mean escapes me.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I have to disagree with part of your post Bob. You know how much I am thankful for you help and probably aware of how I idolize you, but I can't agree completely. Hear me out.

The restoration done I was impressed with. I have never tried this so I have no idea how hard it is. Looks good to me though.

As for the portrait/wedding work it looks terrible. No consistency with color, poses, lighting or anything else for that matter. I will be the first to admit that I am a hobbyist that makes some side money at this and in no way claim to be professional or have great skills at anything, but looking at that site makes wonder what it takes to get a job there. If this guy is making a living with shots like that then I have to give them props.

Do I think I can retouch to the level of that site in 5 mins? Yes. I think I can. Maybe beyond and I'm not a retoucher. Can I match you, Stephen or others mentioned in this thread? Hell no. Nor would I ever be able to, but I can have fun trying.

Plus if I ever do try to get a gig like this I can expect this will happen. Yeah right.

I'm curious what kind of pay this place was offering. If he was offering a decent per picture payment then I would beat his 5 mins every time. Maybe I should call them for a phone interview....

the important thing to be aware of here, is that this person is working in this field and hiring.  That's real world, that's what is happening, despite what artists may say about the product.  That is the reality of the world.

Oh, and I have actually seen worse, and they too are working and making a living and have some staff, also making a living from that work. 


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

StephenEastwood wrote:

the important thing to be aware of here, is that this person is working in this field and hiring.  That's real world, that's what is happening, despite what artists may say about the product.  That is the reality of the world.

Oh, and I have actually seen worse, and they too are working and making a living and have some staff, also making a living from that work. 


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

That's a good point Stephen. I guess whatever is making them money can't be all bad.

I am still wondering what the job offer was.

StephenEastwood wrote:
We all accept this in so many fields, think food, there is the higher end fine steak houses, peter lugers, smith and wollensky type, then you move down to the mortons,  and ruth's chris, and move down to the TGI Fridays, applebees, all the way down to McDanalds. 

Personally, while I would love to make steak at a peter lugers, I would most prefer to own a McDonals, yet would be happier admitting to a ruth's chris 

Why should the photography business be much different?  As many levels of quality of food, there are at least that many levels of photography studios available.



Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

haha, looks like you prefer to own rather than work at mcdonalds

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the dynamic of this MM place any longer, and none of you people seem to understand the reality of your situation. The Atlanta guy owns a family portrait business, and he also does restoration retouch, which all looked pretty good to me. He doesn't seem to shoot crotch in the face, deer in the headlights, up the poop shoot pseudo glamour bullshit, so you guys jump all over his abilities.

Not one person that posted in this thread could pass any retouch studio's digital evaluation test, yet you all seem inclined to call out this Atlanta guy as if he did something wrong. For what he does, he seems to do a nice enough job. I didn't see any of the mistakes on his web site that I see all over the place in here.

Did any of you ever stop to think that he may not have a lot of time to waste on testing people that don't know their digital ass from a computational hole in the ground? If I were in a position in which I constantly had to evaluate sub par retouch talent, I would be terse and to the point too.

If Jim's recount of his test experience wasn't enough to wake you guys up, then you just keep on with your delusional critiques, because apparently they make you feel better.

That Frank McAdam guy was right, this place is making me nuts.

I posted 2 or 3 times in this thread, and I don't recall jumping all over anybody's abilities. If anything, I tried to be as diplomatic as possible under the virtual circumstances.

I guess I shouldn't take it personally; you were likely generalizing for dramatic effect. Then again, you and a handful of others on this site - it bewilders me why you waste your time here at all. I'm not complaining, as the community is doubtlessly the better for it. At least the .5% paying attention.

I think I've given this too much time myself.

StephenEastwood wrote:

koray!!!!   and Dallas Logan!!!!




but for the most part, that was more a message, this is model mayhem, by now, we are mainly aware of the member base, and what they are like.  Drama is what drives this place at times. Its the mayhem in modelmayhem   you have to get use to that to not be bothered by it.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

W O W S E R!!!!!

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
I know I'm going to be swimming against the current with this post but quite honestly, I'm a little suprised at some of the things wrote. Most images are a comprimise between asthetics and technical accuracy. Looking through the guys website, I would think his images would lean a little more towards technical accuracy as the focus is clearly on natural looking shots. Thats not what I found when looking through his work. Not one of the brides dresses where white. They were either blue, yellow and one of them was red. The areas that were white were blown out or close to it. His studio portrait work typically left his subjects red in the face. One woman had accurate skin tone but her hair was blue. There was a photo of an infant with greenish skin tone and hair! A dog's nose should be black, not greenish blue. And you don't have to look at the numbers for all the images. Some of them (especially the wedding shots), are readily obvious.

Now I can understand a test designed for speed and efficiency. I prefer to take my time when editing and retouching but a deadline is a deadline. But I'm not convinced this guy is working that fast because he knows what he's doing. So to belittle some one else for the same lack of proficiency is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's a completely different story when the critic knows what they're talking about, or at least has a clue. I was in the military for over a decade so personally, I can take some pretty harsh criticism, so long as they know what they're talking about. Thats called a learning experiance. I have to feel a sympathy for the OP because he was pretty much left with his hands in air saying, "what the fuck?"

Now I may or may not be able to pass a retouch studio's digital evaluation test (that has yet to be determined), but at the very least, I can deliver a wedding album with white dresses.

I looked again this morning at the Atlanta site, and all I can say is the guy does consistent and appropriate work. Would a white dress look appropriate if its color points were all identical, yet it's surrounds were all different? I think not, and the Atlanta guy probably would agree with me.

All of this constant and somewhat irrational criticism is too much, no one can live up to the false expectations you guys front in here. In the real world of producing jobs, compromise is always a component of the job, and sometimes perfect is just simply not attainable. I'm becoming involved in 3D art as a component of my commercial work. In reading the literature available, I'm finding that hobbyists will take upwards of 6 months to perfect an image. The images are stunning, but who in the commercial world can justify or afford such a luxury.

If you are going to attempt to join in the fray and take pay jobs to sustain you, you simply cannot afford to continue to look the world in the same way you do now. Do your absolute best, given the constraints you work within, and move on.

ezpkns retouching wrote:

I posted 2 or 3 times in this thread, and I don't recall jumping all over anybody's abilities. If anything, I tried to be as diplomatic as possible under the virtual circumstances.

I guess I shouldn't take it personally; you were likely generalizing for dramatic effect. Then again, you and a handful of others on this site - it bewilders me why you waste your time here at all. I'm not complaining, as the community is doubtlessly the better for it. At least the .5% paying attention.

I think I've given this too much time myself.

In general, I was generalizing, and if you don't fit into that particular generality, you shouldn't feel you were included. I don't generalize for dramatic effect, when in general, just about everyone that responds to threads like this one, is guilty of what I said.

Sometimes I wonder why I do continue, and then I'll get a phone call or an email from someone I've helped, and they are thanking me for some little thing that helped them to get a job, or correct a problem. I'm always being hammered on to return to the community that which I have received. Maybe this is my little way of doing that... or maybe I'm just stupid.

Gibson Photo Art wrote:

I'm not smart enough to know if this is a trick question or not, but if it's just a drop shadow I just use the Layer Styles and use the controls there to make it look the way I want.

Now when I create a drop shadow manually with a bit of blur to soften it the reading in CMYK is:
75C
68M
67Y
90K
What those number really mean escapes me.

It means that you have chosen sheeted V2 as your default color space for CMYK, and that you clicked on the black/white icon to select black as your fill color. It also means that while you may not see it on screen, when you print that color od drop shadow, you will get a healthy band of density at the crossover point in the combination of the two colors You will think that it is a result of the software not being able to parse the graduation, when in fact you simply laid too much density in the shadow.

Most people would choose to use 0,0,0,100 to lay in a drop shadow. Their contention is that by only using pure K, there can be no contamination and they will get a true shadow. This might be a good idea if multiply was used as a blend mode, however, what do you do if your client requests that you supply him with a layered file that he is going to open in Quark, or In Design?

I know, another trick question. But it is a question that every retoucher should know the answer to. And it is but one of hundreds of questions just like it.

Robert Randall wrote:
Most people would choose to use 0,0,0,100 to lay in a drop shadow. Their contention is that by only using pure K, there can be no contamination and they will get a true shadow. This might be a good idea if multiply was used as a blend mode, however, what do you do if your client requests that you supply him with a layered file that he is going to open in Quark, or In Design?

I know, another trick question. But it is a question that every retoucher should know the answer to. And it is but one of hundreds of questions just like it.

Learning questions only:

Would InDesign not respect the Multiply blend mode?  I understood that with CS3/4 layer styles worked across the product line?

As to the original question, would reading Mr. Margulis' books provide the means to answer this, or another resource?