Astounding Images wrote:
I have been marketing my image stylization/retouching work for over 8 months now, tried giving freebies away, and doing top-quality example for as showcased on my website at www.astoundingimages.com but get very few clients. 

Why is this the case?

Is it the price?  Is my work really not that good?  Do models really not care for their images to look their very best?  Do models not want to mis-represent themselves?

Please give me some input from a model's perspective so that I can do more work for you!

I checked out your site and I think that price could be the factor.

Astounding Images wrote:
I have been marketing my image stylization/retouching work for over 8 months now, tried giving freebies away, and doing top-quality example for as showcased on my website at www.astoundingimages.com but get very few clients. 

Why is this the case?

Is it the price?  Is my work really not that good?  Do models really not care for their images to look their very best?  Do models not want to mis-represent themselves?

Please give me some input from a model's perspective so that I can do more work for you!

"Why is this the case?" I'll come back to this.

Your price seems fine to me (for the most part), I might even contract some contract work to you if you could send me some more info by e-mail (I'll probably forget your link within the week).

Your work is good.

Now down to these last two. Working models should not have their photos so extensively retouched. If you are marketing your services towards models then your efforts are going to go to waste (more below).

Models do not have the right to authorize the editing of any images! (Without the expressed written consent of the photographer.
It is my suggestion that you market towards other creatives rather than models (perhaps getting an info packet to photographers that might want to use you to save themselves editing time).

That is all for now,
-Yuriy “Dâ€?-

P.S. Re: Stylization/Retouching Only (section of your portfolio.)
The first image looked better as the before (mouse over) in my opinion.
But, the main thing that worries me is that it appears to have a “linenâ€? texture applied to the photograph, which could lead me to deduce that there is a chance it could have been scanned from a “linenâ€? embossed print before being edited, and could potentially be infringing on another photographers copyright. (I do not know the story, so please keep in mind that this is just an observation)
I would hope that this is not the case.

TXPhotog wrote:
Claire is right, but there's another reason as well.  "Retouching" as you do it renders the image unusable (for a sophisticated client or agency) in marketing the model.

Retouching needs to leave the skin textures intact and give the impression that what you are seeing is actually the model, not a bunch of painting or blurring done on top of where the model's picture ought to be. 

This image is one of many that have the problem, taken from your site:

There's no skin there, just Photoshop blur.  Nobody looks like that.  And no photographer, client or agency would every trust that the model they were hiring looked like that.  Agencies certainly would never use a shot like that to market a model - which is a shame, because the girl is (before "retouching") quite pretty.

Retouching needs a deft and subtle hand.  Your examples aren't "retouching", they are works of Photoshop art, which is something else entirely.

I actually do both... retouching, which is a more subtle approach; and stylization, which is more involved and art-based.  however, I agree with your input... thanks.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Well you have to consider that a model has to get permission from the photographer for you to retouch her image. Then you expect $50 to retouch just 1 image? That is insane. The images look so fake anyway that I would not want that in my portfolio.

Understood.  Are you saying that all my retouching/stylizations look fake?  Really?  Have you seen GQ or Vogue or any other fashion mag lately?  i am merely replecating the perfection I see in today' poular magazines.  True i may go over-the-top sometimes but it's more for artistic stylization than anything else.

Yuriy wrote:
P.S. Re: Stylization/Retouching Only (section of your portfolio.)
The first image looked better as the before (mouse over) in my opinion.
But, the main thing that worries me is that it appears to have a “linenâ€? texture applied to the photograph, which could lead me to deduce that there is a chance it could have been scanned from a “linenâ€? embossed print before being edited, and could potentially be infringing on another photographers copyright. (I do not know the story, so please keep in mind that this is just an observation)
I would hope that this is not the case.

I applied the texture myself and I got permission from the model to use the image.

Astounding Images wrote:

Understood.  Are you saying that all my retouching/stylizations look fake?  Really?  Have you seen GQ or Vogue or any other fashion mag lately?  i am merely replecating the perfection I see in today' poular magazines.  True i may go over-the-top sometimes but it's more for artistic stylization than anything else.

I don't think you completely understand.

"Fake" is not always bad, but a model cannot use such "fake" in his/her portfolio unless it is a publication tearsheet.

Astounding Images wrote:

Understood.  Are you saying that all my retouching/stylizations look fake?  Really?  Have you seen GQ or Vogue or any other fashion mag lately?  i am merely replecating the perfection I see in today' poular magazines.  True i may go over-the-top sometimes but it's more for artistic stylization than anything else.

I didn't say all of it but like TX said if I showed a shot like that to an agency I would NEVER get signed. And to expect models on here to pay $50 per image is very extreme. A lot of photographers will touch them up themselves. I mean if models are getting TFP shoots its sometimes because they cant afford to pay a photographer. And if they aren't paying the photographer they sure aren't going to pay you that much. Maybe you aren't marketing to the right crowd?

Astounding Images wrote:
I have been marketing my image stylization/retouching work for over 8 months now, tried giving freebies away, and doing top-quality example for as showcased on my website at www.astoundingimages.com but get very few clients. 

Why is this the case?

Is it the price?  Is my work really not that good?  Do models really not care for their images to look their very best?  Do models not want to mis-represent themselves?

Please give me some input from a model's perspective so that I can do more work for you!

They can't afford it, can't tell the difference, and don't have the rights to the photos.

Astounding Images wrote:

I applied the texture myself and I got permission from the model to use the image.

Unless the model is a/the copyright holder he/she does not have the right to authorize such use.

Astounding Images wrote:

I applied the texture myself and I got permission from the model to use the image.

I think you need the photographers permission not the model? The photographer has the copyright. Does he/she know you used this?

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
...
And to expect models on here to pay $50 per image is very extreme. A lot of photographers will touch them up themselves.
...

On here, it is very extreme. In the real world $20-50 is the norm.

She's right but if you were paying a photographer to retouch the images, the price wouldn't change for the lower.

kate f wrote:
Honestly, I'd rather not look like I have been photoshopped.  That picture of your work looks like a Barbie, not human at all.
And all those magazines have mostly pictures of NATURAL looking people.

That image is an extreme example of skin smoothing.

Astounding Images wrote:

That image is an extreme example of skin smoothing.

After I posted that, I looked through the rest of your work, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise.

Astounding Images wrote:
Why don't models get their images retouched?

Why is this the case?

Models don't need it, they use qualified MUA's.  The after effects of the imaging is minimal.  Hobbyists on the other hand aren't employing the tools of the trade for gaining images on par with requirement.  So you are stuck marketing to those that don't know better, don't need it and probably aren't willing to invest in it.

You are probably better off marketing to the bad product photography sector.

kate f wrote:
After I posted that, I looked through the rest of your work, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise.

Humm... maybe I am too over the top and need to back it down a bit.  Thanks for you input.

Astounding Images wrote:
So if it were $20 per image I would get more work from models?  I guess I need to direct my efforts toward photographers and publishers instead toward the model.

Thanks all for your input and guidance, this makes alot of sense now.  Duh... I must be dense or something.

Yes. lol

Also, I would retool the website a little bit for better navigation. I'm on a company t1 connection and it takes me forever to load.

Astounding Images wrote:

Humm... maybe I am too over the top and need to back it down a bit.  Thanks for you input.

I think so...
Just remember that each model has a unique beauty, and you don't want to cover that with tons of photoshop. 
I agree that you might want to target the photographers as well.
Best of luck.

Yuriy wrote:
Yes. lol

Also, I would retool the website a little bit for better navigation. I'm on a company t1 connection and it takes me forever to load.

Really... I optimize every image for the web but I do lean toward the higher resoltion sidde since my work is in the fine details.  Remember that two images are loading for every shots for the before/afters too... that may be why it takes so long.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
And you might want to be careful about making sure the images you are doing are ok to be touched up. If a photographer sees his shots on your site hes going to blow a gasket, regardless of whether or not the model said it was ok.

Thanks Claire... BTW, looked at your port and you are very lovely and have some very nice images... however, many are not correctly color or level balanced... FYI.  ;-)

Astounding Images wrote:
I see hundred of shots from pro photogs that are not optimizing the dynamic level and color range of their images... and most time the white balance is incorrect too.  Almost 99% of shots could use a tweek of some sort.

As seen in countless adverts in mags on the racks.  But who are you to be the judge of the final effect?  If you want to do that, become an art director for a publication or ad agency for defining your style  and specification across the board.

Astounding Images wrote:
I see hundred of shots from pro photogs that are not optimizing the dynamic level and color range of their images... and most time the white balance is incorrect too.  Almost 99% of shots could use a tweek of some sort.

Maybe it's optimized to their liking or not optimized to their liking.

The same goes for white balance.

You can almost always find 1 thing that you think might need fixing in an image, but the photographer may like the fact that it's there.
Essentially, you have to remember that it's their call/decision because it is their creative vision and it will differ from yours more often then not.

Astounding Images wrote:

Thanks Claire... BTW, looked at your port and you are very lovely and have some very nice images... however, many are not correctly color or level balanced... FYI.  ;-)

Yes and for $50 per image you could get me in trouble with the photographer while you infringe on someone's copyright

kate f wrote:
I think so...
Just remember that each model has a unique beauty, and you don't want to cover that with tons of photoshop. 
I agree that you might want to target the photographers as well.
Best of luck.

I 100% agree... every model is a unique and beautiful person.  I honestly try to only enhance that beauty whether in a simple clean-up with level and color correction or in a more stylized and involved rendering. 

Thanks for your help and you port is incredible... not that you would use me but i am here if you need me.

Astounding Images wrote:

Really... I optimize every image for the web but I do lean toward the higher resoltion sidde since my work is in the fine details.  Remember that two images are loading for every shots for the before/afters too... that may be why it takes so long.

All retoucher website portfolios I have visited have separate pages inside of their portfolios. In other words, every image is its own page within the frame so only 2 images are loading per page rather than 100.

Think about it.

Yuriy wrote:
All retoucher website portfolios I have visited have separate pages inside of their portfolios. In other words, every image is its own page within the frame so only 2 images are loading per page rather than 100.

Think about it.

Got it!  Thanks Yuriy.