Claire Elizabeth wrote:
If a model asked your permission to have a retoucher do your photos would you say ok? Would you be insulted? What if the model did it without your permission?

hahahahaha.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
Lol. My point being that the photographer has a look in mind. What's a retoucher going to do that a photographer can't?

I couldn't agree more.  I really don't see a point for a retoucher.  As far as the "color balance" mentioned in the other thread...maybe that's how it's supposed to look??  Every photographer has, like you said, a look in mind.  Photos that all look the same are just boring.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
If a model asked your permission to have a retoucher do your photos would you say ok? Would you be insulted? What if the model did it without your permission?

It shouldn't even be an issue if a MUA is used.

area291 wrote:

It shouldn't even be an issue if a MUA is used.

Exactly! I use an excellent MUA that airbrushes makeup so the only retouching is in cropping or lighting.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
If a model asked your permission to have a retoucher do your photos would you say ok? Would you be insulted? What if the model did it without your permission?

It all depends.  There are many people who can use photoshop a lot better than I can and they may be able to make the image look better.  But I would want to have the right to inspect the image and reject it if I wanted to before it was ever released to the model.

J. Stakeman wrote:
A retoucher is going to make the picture actually look good.

Or not.  The current thread from a "retoucher" is a good example of how a perfectly nice image, in the wrong hands, can become a parody.

Claire's question is distinct from the case of an advertiser or magazine who has a solid, professional retoucher.  They may well change the image a great deal, but that's part of what is anticipated when a photographer works for them.  He produces an image which he expects to see transformed in some way.  That's not the question Claire is asking.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
After a model had some images from a shoot we did retouched by a friend, making her look like a wax figure, first I made her remove them from her portfolio, if you dont like my work why work with me. Second , I immediately edited my release form to state that if the model wants any additional retouching it is to be done by no one but me.

Exactly how it should be.

Carlos Fonseca wrote:
It should be noted that I'm not a believer in handing over flat, straight out of the camera, uncorrected images from a TEST shoot to a model. I only handover retouched and color corrected images. It's my reputation that I'm handing over. He/She will be showing these images all over town, and my name appears on the bottom!!

Any yes it has sometimes taken over a month to correct and adjust all of them, before she gets the CD, but on the other hand... as I'm working on them I'll email them one by one as a tease.

*thumbs up*

if anything is going to make my work look like shit, i would at least like it to be me.

Synthetic Shadows wrote:

*thumbs up*

if anything is going to make my work look like shit, i would at least like it to be me.

Lol I love that. I believe that if you are working with a good MUA, good photographer, there is no need for retouching artists.

J. Stakeman wrote:
Look every professional(I guess I really mean commercial) is retouched before you see it.  Everyone all the time.  Even pre-press people are changing the colours, and targeting.

That isn't true.  Re-touching may or may not be used prior depending upon the quality of the image and desired effect.  Not every image goes through retouching, but there is some tweeking done during assembly. 

In a publication, once the image hits pre-press the image is modified only to the extent of how it will print (ensuring the dot pattern won't mud per the screen size).  Once it hits the printer the cmyk separation has been completed and that is how it will print as it isn't their place to change it unless a proof is rejected, then the process starts over.

J. Stakeman wrote:
but this purity and sacred process of making the image stuff is just silly.

Spoken like the true" only in it for the money and not because I like it" type
You`re gonna end up one of those bitter old man photographers you hear about.

J. Stakeman wrote:
Leaving demanding retouching be left to a photographer, is like insisting that the photographer do the hair, and the make-up, and the location scouting, and the catering, and the assisting... to make sure their vision is intact through the process.  Nothing like having the food throw off the mood for a shoot.

I agree with that.  Those doing high-end photography are doing, well, photography.  There is a behind the scenes team of those that fine tune the results.  Left to the photographer, that eliminates...photography.

It becomes a high level process working within a team environment, but to a great extent the target is to get it right in the imaging, leaving little but minor fine tuning in the retouching process in preparing for delivery.

phcorcoran wrote:
That in itself doesn't bother me, but what does bother me is that after she altered the photo she added my name to it as a large photo credit. 

That is objectionable to me: first because the altered image no longer represents my work, and second because I never place large watermarks on images.  What she ended up with misrepresents me, in my opinion.

You see I don't object to her altering the image.  She was a TFP model and what she does with her copies of the pictures is entirely up to her.  What I do object to is the use of my name on the altered image, which however probably well intended on her part, misrepresents me.

This is the main issue here. 

I have no problems with others retouching my images if I've given the client the right to use it as they see fit.  But I do not believe my name should be on it if it has been altered drastically.  Maybe something like Photo by:  Make by:  Artistic adjustments by:  and of course you have the right not to be mentioned at all.

Since the photographer holds the copyright and is either selling, trading , or giving the rights to his images he should be aware of what the project and idea the customer has at the onset.  As stated before, if its going to print, half a dozen people may alter it before it gets done.

peace
john

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
If a model asked your permission to have a retoucher do your photos would you say ok? Would you be insulted? What if the model did it without your permission?

Retouching, when everything was done by hand,  used to mean just that ... fix this nick here and here. Now  people are "retouching" what used to be setup and shot.

So now what we see is an entire image, from light ratios, dodge and burns to soft-focus being done in post. Each to their own I guess. But my preference is visualize the final shot, set the lights and shoot.

I shoot E6 so what you see is what you get but even so after scanning larger sizes, saturation levels still need to be changed; if there wasn't time to use a gel I am not to proud to add it later. The preference however is still to do as much in camera as possible.

MichaelBell wrote:
Shit, I would LOVE to have someone offer to retouch my pics and give them that really glossy magazine look. You think every photo in every magazine looked like that off the camera or with just some photog working in Photoshop? Afraid not.

And you would pay $50 per shot?

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
If a model asked your permission to have a retoucher do your photos would you say ok? Would you be insulted? What if the model did it without your permission?

firstly i'd like to say that every single thing you see in every magazine has been retouched and to some very great extent.  good photographers will still shoot beautiful pictures, even in videos you see most of them have their film retouched.  retouching is only a tool to enhance but NOT FIX.  if the photographer is using retouching to fix problems then they probably aren't very good to begin with. i myself do very little retouching and only use it when I see fit and it's never to fix a problem, only to enhance the image.  i am also a model and a retoucher so people do pay me to retouch for them as well.  For me since I am one of the multi-talented people on the site that seems to do practically every for my shoots, if a model asked for the images to be retouched then i don't have a problem because i can do it myself.  i do not however give out permission to the model to retouch because the only images i give them are ones to display my talent in capturing them as best i can and people should see that.  if the model does it without my permission then that is a direct violation of the release that was signed.  the model can be taken to court and prosecuted for that. so, to say the least, yes i would be mad if a model did it without my permission.

Fons Studio wrote:
I can do it myself... I'm leary of requests from models to "enhance" the images I've created. Every 16-32 yr old knows someone who has taken a photoshop course, and thinks that they can retouch professional images....

It should be noted that I'm not a believer in handing over flat, straight out of the camera, uncorrected images from a TEST shoot to a model. I only handover retouched and color corrected images. It's my reputation that I'm handing over. He/She will be showing these images all over town, and my name appears on the bottom!!

Any yes it has sometimes taken over a month to correct and adjust all of them, before she gets the CD, but on the other hand... as I'm working on them I'll email them one by one as a tease.

-Carlos

I couldn't agree more. It has been a lesson learned for me. I do not plan on giving out "raw" images anymore. I assumed that models would know not to post them until final edit-which is completely my fault-and not there's.