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?

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....
-Carlos

TXPhotog wrote:
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.

There are lots of photographers who have no idea how to retouch well,
they may admit they can't or they may think they can,
But they are often marginal at best. (myself included)
A good professional retoucher can retouch a photo in ways that most photographers can't.
This idea that only a photographer can do it is... well just shortsighted.
You hire a photographer to take photos,
and a Photoshop artist to do retouching and pre-print work
Yes a photographer can do basic retouching but for more complex work why wouldn't you hire a specialist?

That said,
a retoucher should not simply be given a photo and be told to have fun.
Specific instruction needs to be given.
(Lighten this, remove that, insert this, adjust lighting.....)
and plan on several rounds of edits for complex work.
using a retoucher does not imply that there is any thing wrong with the photographers work.
It is simply recognition that there may be additional work needed.
Not on every file, but on some.

So yes, I would let a model have a 3rd party retoucher do work on my images,
but a professional, not someone’s brother who "took a course in Photoshop"
and I would want to know what was being done.
(To prevent changes that I felt would undermine the intention of the image)
and I would want a copy of the final file and a release stating that I owned all changes just as I owned the original.

J. Stakeman wrote:
I think you are giving a lot of photographers far too much credit when you talk of actual intent or "vision"

Its division of labor. You can have a photographer (or art director) supervise, but any scale production is like a machine.  Lots of different parts that are hopefully moving together.

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.

Of course there are people who are bad at it... but this purity and sacred process of making the image stuff is just silly.  Post production is a valuable integral part of the image making process, regardless of your level or caliber, commercialness or not.  The images that people are trying to emulate are worked on by tens of people, trying to get their on your own is most likely going to end in disappointment.

I agree with this completely.  I have found a couple good makeup artists and now a stylist.  I enjoy learning the retouching skills and each time I'm getting better.  But I'm far from good at it, and would love to have a professional retoucher as part of the team.

How would I feel about a model doing it?  Well if she hired a pro retoucher and asked that I send them the photographs that were selected, I would be fine with that.  If her younger brother did it on a cracked copy of photoshop and the results sucked, then I would be less than pleased, so I suppose for me it is about the results.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

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.

Hey different strokes for different folks, right?  I have a lot of respect for artists.  D. Brian Nelson's work leaves me in awe most of the time, as does the work of many other on here.

I have no such aspirations.  I'm a craftsman, or at least that's my current aspiration, to simply be competent technically to be able to produce whatever a paying client wants.  Maybe after I'm satisfied with my work in that regard, my attitude will change and I'll want more artistic control.  But right now?  I'm a photo whore...

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

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.

Stakeman is correct...there are many people touching your image to get it to completion!  In the real world that is the matter of fact.   Sometimes you are disapointed [thats life]!  You  may not, and many , many times do not have final say over an image...sad but true!  Some one else will retouch your image!
Charlie

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
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.

Just because you're in it for the money doesn't mean you don't like it.

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 Depends.

Was I hired by the model, was it a tfp/trade, or was there a separate client?

If the model hired me, and requested a separate retoucher, I'd have no problem. If they did it without permission, they'd be violating the terms of our contract, though, as well as copyright.

In the other cases, it would depend a lot more on who was doing the retouching, and the limits to which they'd be changing the image. As others have said, there are too many "retouchers" who seriously damage images.

Disclaimer: I do commercial retouching for other photographers as well as for myself. I've seen some amazingly good retouching, and some amazingly bad retouching.

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.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
And you would pay $50 per shot?

A really glossy magazine quality is going to run a lot higher than that.

Justin N Lane wrote:
Ultimately, if you do have your images tweaked, just be sure your retoucher isn't one of those gaussian blurring jackasses...

Would that this were the worst offense....

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?

I was a page designer/copy editor for a while.  As we edited copy, we could fix things, but we couldn't change the meaning. 

Retouching should be like this.  Do no harm.  Let my original message flow freely.

An' if someone wants to pay someone to make me look better, let me send you a hard drive full of images.

Tony

Claire Elizabeth wrote:
And as someone said color balance/white balance/etc is a matter of opinion.

yep, because a retoucher wouldn't know that I chose to shoot (your current avatar) with a mix of flourescent back/overhead light with incandescent front light with my white balance set to daylight to get the green cast with a warm front and that I set the ISO to 400 to get some noise in the image.  No photoshop involved.  I was trying to get a feel that I used to get using Pro 1600 ektachrome slide film (which is daylight balanced) shot using warmly gelled hotlights.  Lots of grain, lots of warm slightly unnatural color balance.
It was more of artistic choice than a "correct color/white balance" choice.

Daniel Coppola wrote:
You could give an image to 5 photographers/retouchers and I bet they will all come back looking differently. Its all personal preference.

absolutely

Brad Starks wrote:
I dont know what a lot of other photographer are doing out there, but any shots I do that are "Selects" Or "Finals" depending on the model and what her skin is like, I've retouched it already.

There is a difference though between someone that knows lighting, and some "DWAC" ("Dude With A Camera") that dosent know how to light and "Creates" the shot with photoshop.....Is that someone youd call a photographer or a computer artist?

the line has been blurred for longer than the computer has been around.  Ansel Adams (don't shoot me for bringing him up or paraphrasing him) has said that there was no way you could print his negatives straight and get the print that he's known for.  He did more post work than most photographers I know.
Having said that, I'm all about getting it the way I want it in camera.  The only thing I do in PS is putting a name on headshots and cropping if someone wants it tighter than I shot it.

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?

The only retouching I want done to my pictures is by the guys making $200k a year to do it for fashion magazines.

Claire Elizabeth wrote:

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

Frankly, I think MUAs are Demons From Hell.  With one exception, every one I've worked with seemed to make it their mission to insure I didn't get what I actually wanted.  I have yet to meet a model who couldn't competently apply their own makeup.

As for retouching:  I've never had a reason to do anything extensive.  I do realize however,  that models and photographers almost always want different things from an image.  If a model insists on retouching or editing something I've shot I don't really care -- I like to think that my images are strong enough to overcome all but the most ham-fisted postproduction.  I do request that the model indicate that the image has been handled by someone other than me...That way, nobody can blame the photographer for what happened.

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?

why, oh why, would i have turned over any print(s) that had not already been edited and, where necessary, retouched?

if, after [that], the model/client still sees something (s)he feels needs a change, it'd have to be brought up with me, copyright holder.

just business,
fml

area291 wrote:

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.

this is sooooo true i work for a news paper and the photos go out to be toned every thing is set to how the press prints and believe me some times when they come back i like what the heck because there way different than how i think they should look but on the other hand i tend to make things dark and they would look bad in the paper