MB retouching wrote:
I wanted to know if you charge per hour or per image for retouching?

Per hour.

I have seen retouchers do both so i guess i am wondering which is the way to go or does it really matter?

Per image means you are putting all images under the same common denominator regardless of their specific features. This is so called budget retouching or bulk retouching.

Per hour is when all specifics of each individual image are taken into account in order to achieve the best possible quality of the final result. The time spent on a particular image depends on many factors such as:

- the raw material itself
- the context of the image
- quality of model's skin
- makeup/hair/styling done right
- image resolution etc.

I always give this example: a 10mpx image of a woman jogging in the distance will take far less than a 50mpx beauty closeup which requires perfect skin and hair treatment. Obviously when everything is normalized to the same price it would be in detriment of quality.

So yes, it really matters.

The Invisible Touch wrote:
You can also charge per image but break down your rates on genres (beauty/fashion/lookbook/catalogue/editorial/advertising)

I don't see how the genre itself can give me the same timing for a model with a terrible skin compared to a model with a healthy smooth skin. What matters is the input and the desired output. Genre is not enough info as an input, very generic and hence very partial.

Would this not be the same as charging per image?

If it means individual price for each image - yes. But that is not what per image pricing implies.

For per image the customer thinks:

All images = same price.
Or all beauty images = same price.
Or all fashion images = same price.
Or $5 for "basic retouch" and $15 for "high end retouch" and all this.

This is still budget retouching and it is unable to reveal the full potential of the individual image.

P.S:

I have had projects without models in which the images very similar but different in size. So then the price was per resolution but again - because of the different time it takes. Just like putting floor tiles - the one who does it charges by square meter, not by the room and not depending on which floor the room is.

anchev wrote:
Per image means you are putting all images under the same common denominator regardless of their specific features. This is so called budget retouching or bulk retouching.

Similar to the thinking of The Invisible Touch, I also disagree with that statement. Per image rate does not need to mean "one price fits all". A professional Retoucher who has been doing post work for numerous years will eventually be able to evaluate an image, prior to quoting a fee. You simple request image(s) sent to you, along with project brief (notes) from your client to let you know what is required in post and how the final image(s) would be used by your client. Using this information you evaluate the image(s) and figure about how long you honestly feel that it would take to complete, then you use your hourly rate to calculate pricing. With this information you reply back to your client with a per image or per project (multiple images, compositing or manipulation) fee. Your client will now know exactly what to expect with final pricing, so they can agree or disagree.

So basically, you would be using an hourly rate to calculate fee, but the client gets a per image or per project rate, instead of "The image(s) will require ?? hours of work and my rate is $??/per hour" or "My rate is ??/per hour "(Then give them a surprise bill at the end).

There really is no one best way, depending on the project, one or the other could be best with a specific client.

Hope that helps.

Steven Burnette Retouch wrote:
Similar to the thinking of The Invisible Touch, I also disagree with that statement. Per image rate does not need to mean "one price fits all". A professional Retoucher who has been doing post work for numerous years will eventually be able to evaluate an image, prior to quoting a fee. You simple request image(s) sent to you, along with project brief (notes) from your client to let you know what is required in post and how the final image(s) would be used by your client. Using this information you evaluate the image(s) and figure about how long you honestly feel that it would take to complete, then you use your hourly rate to calculate pricing. With this information you reply back to your client with a per image or per project (multiple images, compositing or manipulation) fee. Your client will now know exactly what to expect with final pricing, so they can agree or disagree.

So basically, you would be using an hourly rate to calculate fee, but the client gets a per image or per project rate, instead of "The image(s) will require ?? hours of work and my rate is $??/per hour" or "My rate is ??/per hour "(Then give them a surprise bill at the end).

There really is no one best way, depending on the project, one or the other could be best with a specific client.

Hope that helps.

You are not disagreeing but confirming exactly what I said.

Per image pricing in the form of calculation based on the time you would need to spend on an image is still time-based pricing. You are just doing it without revealing the info to the client.

In my case I don't mind revealing the info to the client. When he sends me a list of images, I can reply with a time-quote for each individual image. This way he also knows how soon he can expect the images.

Plus if I decide to up or down my hourly rate at certain point (e.g. next month/year) - he still knows how soon he can get his images. This is fair and open communication.

I really don't understand this "contact me for rates" and all the rest which people do. Is it because you are afraid you are too cheap or because you are afraid you are too expensive? Are you going to trick the client into something based on your assessment for him? Pretty weird to be honest.

(Of course not talking about anyone here personally, "you" meaning in general).

anchev wrote:
I really don't understand this "contact me for rates" and all the rest which people do. Is it because you are afraid you are too cheap or because you are afraid you are too expensive? Are you going to trick the client into something based on your assessment for him? Pretty weird to be honest.

BTW, I'm talking about having a price list up on a personal page since this is aimed at that I think???

It's because you can't put up a generalized quote for something you haven't even seen yet. Even if you have a set range you prefer to have for a certain genre or type of image, it's going to be flexible to accommodate the client and every image, like you've stated, is going to have some level of difficulty that factors into the price.

It also just tells people that you're competing purely based on price and that's going to be their first impression of you. Opposed to starting a business relationship with you that has all of the nuances of respect, vision, and building a connection with someone...b/c that's what this industry is... they're going to see you as a one stop shop.

That's why retouchers market themselves as brands and high quality services since that's what we give people.

Basically : How you come off to people is going to determine what sort of business you get

Like I told someone on FB, we're not bargain bins.

+ + +

Also for the thread's topic, I do per image rates and I've learned from TheInvisibleTouch (bless him, lmao) that it's better to work with people you're already testing for so the question of 'what are your rates???' doesn't feel so tense, since you've already established a relationship with them. I used to get so nervous over that sort of thing so it's a relief.

These days I'm going to just work and meld with them and discuss w/e price point is best for them but also have a ballpark range I'd like to fall in, just tweaked.

Gotta love business~

Kami Fore  wrote:
BTW, I'm talking about having a price list up on a personal page since this is aimed at that I think???

It's because you can't put up a generalized quote for something you haven't even seen yet. Even if you have a set range you prefer to have for a certain genre or type of image, it's going to be flexible to accommodate the client and every image, like you've stated, is going to have some level of difficulty that factors into the price.

It also just tells people that you're competing purely based on price and that's going to be their first impression of you.

I don't mind people having an impression of me that I am not one of those $5 retouchers and that I am fair and open about my prices. The fact that I know my price does not mean I am competing. Everyone is free to go.

Also: communication is about information exchange. By hiding information you are burdening the process. And as I mentioned that is usually done out of fear - "How would it look if I put my price" or "If the competition knows my price they may put a lower one" and all the rest of it. In any case by hiding information you are sending a message you are not fully open an honest about what you do and the way you do it. Even the most expensive cars have a publicly available price. So that surely does not make them look cheaper or purely based on price. With retouching you are definitely not selling a space shuttle and of course the client wants  to know if your service is affordable.

Opposed to starting a business relationship with you that has all of the nuances of respect, vision, and building a connection with someone...b/c that's what this industry is... they're going to see you as a one stop shop.

If I trick you into time wasting question and answer communication just to know your price or if I am trying to set a price after I see your work and (for example) say "Well, he may be rich" and try to charge you more - what relationship do I have with you and what is our connection? What is my respect to you if I am not open?

That's why retouchers market themselves as brands and high quality services since that's what we give people.

It very much depends on who do you think about when you say "we".

Basically : How you come off to people is going to determine what sort of business you get

Exactly. Be secretive about your prices and you will waste lots of hours on explaining the same things to different people who are just passing by out of curiosity.

anchev wrote:
I don't see how the genre itself can give me the same timing for a model with a terrible skin compared to a model with a healthy smooth skin. What matters is the input and the desired output. Genre is not enough info as an input, very generic and hence very partial.

The real clients or at least the ones I am working for don't want to know how much would he take you to retouch the girl with good or bad skin, they would like to know a price for the whole job regardless how much work it needs to be done so therefore to me what you are doing is exactly the same.. at the end of the day you are giving your clients a final price before you start working on the images right?

If it means individual price for each image - yes. But that is not what per image pricing implies.

For per image the customer thinks:

All images = same price.
Or all beauty images = same price.
Or all fashion images = same price.
Or $5 for "basic retouch" and $15 for "high end retouch" and all this.

The problem here is you are thinking amateurs.. To me, getting paid $200 per image it is enough money to cover any kind of beauty work or advertising work which are the ones that take the longest.. that's I think where you don't get what I mean. If you are used to $15 for "high end retouch" let me tell you that you are either not getting your hourly rates correctly or you are not hitting the right clients

anchev wrote:
Per image pricing in the form of calculation based on the time you would need to spend on an image is still time-based pricing. You are just doing it without revealing the info to the client

In my case I don't mind revealing the info to the client. When he sends me a list of images, I can reply with a time-quote for each individual image. This way he also knows how soon he can expect the images..

You can still charge per image and provide an estimate time for delivering the images.

anchev wrote:
Plus if I decide to up or down my hourly rate at certain point (e.g. next month/year) - he still knows how soon he can get his images. This is fair and open communication.

If you put your prices up too often I doubt you will get returning clients.

anchev wrote:
Also: communication is about information exchange. By hiding information you are burdening the process. And as I mentioned that is usually done out of fear - "How would it look if I put my price" or "If the competition knows my price they may put a lower one" and all the rest of it. In any case by hiding information you are sending a message you are not fully open an honest about what you do and the way you do it. Even the most expensive cars have a publicly available price. So that surely does not make them look cheaper or purely based on price. With retouching you are definitely not selling a space shuttle and of course the client wants  to know if your service is affordable.

For the same reason, how is that, that photographers (good ones/professionals) don't disclose their rates on their websites? The most expensive Jewellery doesn't have prices on it why is that? The same goes for expensive clothing.. to me, what you are saying is just your interpretation.. but you can't just say that charging per image is wrong or budget retouching.. that's just your perception and in my opinion wrong.. I have no problems with you or anyone charging per hour but that's just your way, nothing wrong with the other way.

Exactly. Be secretive about your prices and you will waste lots of hours on explaining the same things to different people who are just passing by out of curiosity.

I don't disclose my rates to people passing by only to serious potential clients.. Why is the client has to pay for you being slow or taking longer than you should in certain parts of the image??

The Invisible Touch wrote:
The real clients or at least the ones I am working for don't want to know how much would he take you to retouch the girl with good or bad skin, they would like to know a price for the whole job regardless how much work it needs to be done so therefore to me what you are doing is exactly the same.. at the end of the day you are giving your clients a final price before you start working on the images right?

Right. With a note that your clients are not the only real clients and not the universally correct model for doing business.

The problem here is you are thinking amateurs..

Yet again.
Do you really think that calling others amateurs in each and every thread you post in makes you look more professional?

To me, getting paid $200 per image it is enough money to cover any kind of beauty work or advertising work which are the ones that take the longest.. that's I think where you don't get what I mean.

If you have a fixed price which covers any beauty work this obviously means you are always charging for the most expensive case. Obviously not in favor of the client and obviously not a fair business. Too bad if anyone agrees to such price quotes.

If you are used to $15 for "high end retouch" let me tell you that you are either not getting your hourly rates correctly or you are not hitting the right clients

It is not at all what I am used to. This is what most people expect. The OP asks which is the way to go so I tried to explain the specifics of each pricing model.

The Invisible Touch wrote:
You can still charge per image and provide an estimate time for delivering the images.

Sure. I confirmed that already. But you have edited your post and perhaps you don't remember what you have said.

If you put your prices up too often I doubt you will get returning clients.

That is off topic. We are not discussing "how often one changes prices". I am talking about the pros and cons of the explicit time based pricing.

Another pros is that when you have a time based price you don't need to answer the question "What are your turnaround times". So again the client knows what to expect and there is no hidden catch in any point. You can be quite sure this gives returning clients.

anchev wrote:
Also: communication is about information exchange. By hiding information you are burdening the process. And as I mentioned that is usually done out of fear - "How would it look if I put my price" or "If the competition knows my price they may put a lower one" and all the rest of it. In any case by hiding information you are sending a message you are not fully open an honest about what you do and the way you do it. Even the most expensive cars have a publicly available price. So that surely does not make them look cheaper or purely based on price. With retouching you are definitely not selling a space shuttle and of course the client wants  to know if your service is affordable.

We're not one stop shops though, is what I was saying. By 'we', I mean us as retouchers. At least those of us that don't ever want to be that way. That sort of business model applies to products. We're not offering products - we're offering services that are based on relationships, team work, mutual understanding, etc. You tried to say that you understood the difference at the end but your entire stance is about selling products.

Even if you're paying for a service and factoring in a price, what's going to determine how much you like it is based on the quality of it and the experience overall. Not just the price.

I'm pretty sure that the people that are making it in this business aren't listing their prices because they're offering all of that at once and you can't really advertise a generalized price point on that that you just condense, because it's impossible.

Major photographers don't do that for example. Pascal also doesn't do that/ Box Studios doesn't do that. Studiobased doesn't do that. SmoochNYC doesn't do that. Carrie Beene's studio in NYC doesn't do that either. Neither does HappyFinish.

No one does this. By 'no one' I mean people that are industry standard.

The prices are determined by relationships and trust, basically. Also of course - budget. Magazines, companies, etc, have budgets. Photographers have budgets.

If I trick you into time wasting question and answer communication just to know your price or if I am trying to set a price after I see your work and (for example) say "Well, he may be rich" and try to charge you more - what relationship do I have with you and what is our connection? What is my respect to you if I am not open?

I'm pretty sure those studios have excellent relationships with their clients. I can't even count how many Vogue covers / general covers HappyFinish has right now because there are so many. Yet they're not advertising their prices to the public.

If they're successful and that seems to be a running trend amongst people/studios like this, then what does that tell you?

Especially about communication and business?

Exactly. Be secretive about your prices and you will waste lots of hours on explaining the same things to different people who are just passing by out of curiosity.

I don't really know why you see it as manipulative when it doesn't make logical sense that people that can allegedly charge $20,000 for a cover (pascal dangin) and not advertise that to the public...can also churn out enormous ad campaigns and covers...daily. If it were manipulative, unethical, and a sign that someone can't do business well, then it doesn't make any sense that all of these people (studios/freeelance retouchers) w/ these big credentials have consistent clients, new clients, and people more than happy to 'contact them for details.'

That means that there's something wrong with the logic that it's manipulative..because something that should naturally hit a wall ... shouldn't have the entirely opposite effect.

It contradicts itself. If it's a bad business practice then why don't their results show that?

anchev wrote:
Right. With a note that your clients are not the only real clients and not the universally correct model for doing business.

And your business model is??

Do you really think that calling others amateurs in each and every thread you post in makes you look more professional?.

I am not looking for reasurance mate and I am just trying to help others seeing the difference between the real retouch industry and the Model Mayhem one which is in 90% of the times full of amateurs and wannabes.. I am not saying this in a nasty way but I was there at one point making the same mistakes that people are making here now.. so only trying to give my experience but I think you have a bit of an obsession on what I say all the time. Calm down!

If you have a fixed price which covers any beauty work this obviously means you are always charging for the most expensive case. Obviously not in favor of the client and obviously not a fair business. Too bad if anyone agrees to such price quotes..

Most of the times for your information, is not me who sets the rates.. Agencies/magazines/big clients comes with budgets.. you either addapt and take the budget or someone else will.

Kami Fore  wrote:
We're not one stop shops though, is what I was saying. By 'we', I mean us as retouchers. At least those of us that don't ever want to be that way. That sort of business model applies to products. We're not offering products - we're offering services that are based on relationships, team work, mutual understanding, etc. You tried to say that you understood the difference at the end but your entire stance is about selling products.

Even if you're paying for a service and factoring in a price, what's going to determine how much you like it is based on the quality of it and the experience overall. Not just the price.

I'm pretty sure that the people that are making it in this business aren't listing their prices because they're offering all of that at once and you can't really advertise a generalized price point on that that you just condense, because it's impossible.

Major photographers don't do that for example. Pascal also doesn't do that/ Box Studios doesn't do that. Studiobased doesn't do that. SmoochNYC doesn't do that. Carrie Beene's studio in NYC doesn't do that either. Neither does HappyFinish.

No one does this. By 'no one' I mean people that are industry standard.

The prices are determined by relationships and trust, basically. Also of course - budget. Magazines, companies, etc, have budgets. Photographers have budgets.


I'm pretty sure those studios have excellent relationships with their clients. I can't even count how many Vogue covers / general covers HappyFinish has right now because there are so many. Yet they're not advertising their prices to the public.

If they're successful and that seems to be a running trend amongst people/studios like this, then what does that tell you?

Especially about communication and business?


I don't really know why you see it as manipulative when it doesn't make logical sense that people that can allegedly charge $20,000 for a cover (pascal dangin) and not advertise that to the public...can also churn out enormous ad campaigns and covers...daily. If it were manipulative, unethical, and a sign that someone can't do business well, then it doesn't make any sense that all of these people (studios/freeelance retouchers) w/ these big credentials have consistent clients, new clients, and people more than happy to 'contact them for details.'

That means that there's something wrong with the logic that it's manipulative..because something that should naturally hit a wall ... shouldn't have the entirely opposite effect.

It contradicts itself. If it's a bad business practice then why don't their results show that?

Are you saying that $20K for a cover design is non-manipulative good business practice? I can't quite see it as such.

Perhaps you forget the fact that show biz is about people who are quite rich and that involves all the gray backstage stuff that rarely comes out in public (and involves great amounts of money). So those people don't mind spending a lot for nonsense (e.g. insurance for their butt). "Thinking big" is not about thinking about "see what X did and how well established he is" and praising it. It is about seeing beyond that.

The Invisible Touch wrote:
And your business model is??

Treat every client with the same respect although s/he might not be an established name.

I am not looking for reasurance mate and I am just trying to help others seeing the difference between the real retouch industry and the Model Mayhem one which is in 90% of the times full of amateurs and wannabes.. I am not saying this in a nasty way but I was there at one point making the same mistakes that people are making here now.. so only trying to give my experience but I think you have a bit of an obsession on what I say all the time. Calm down!

I am pretty calm. But you must understand that your experience is your experience. You just can't give it to anyone else. One needs to see the actual facts, not look at them through the experience and recipes of another. If you are trying to convince others to follow your experience this is just like saying "I am the truth and the path, there is no other truth".

Most of the times for your information, is not me who sets the rates.. Agencies/magazines/big clients comes with budgets.. you either addapt and take the budget or someone else will.

That happens too, I agree. But it is again an estimate you make based on the time you need to spend to cover your expenses. Only after that you can say yes or no to an offer like that.

anchev wrote:
Are you saying that $20K for a cover design is non-manipulative good business practice? I can't quite see it as such.

Perhaps you forget the fact that show biz is about people who are quite rich and that involves all the gray backstage stuff that rarely comes out in public (and involves great amounts of money). So those people don't mind spending a lot for nonsense (e.g. insurance for their butt). "Thinking big" is not about thinking about "see what X did and how well established he is" and praising it. It is about seeing beyond that.

This feels like it's a really personal thing for you / really projection based because all of your responses that contradict other things mentioned come off as extremely bitter and very egotistical.

When people are talking about the industry, especially if it's with things that are proven w/ real world examples, they're not doing it to attack you personally. They're just trying to help other people because there's no guidebook for how this thing works that you can just stumble into. You have to ask people for help and go to extreme lengths to find specific details like this. Of course if you're working within an industry / are trying to survive you're obviously going to want to know how it runs.

Also this discussion doesn't really need any grand philosophical 'fight the power' metaphors. It's a pretty clean cut, hard, objective discussion where we're talking about what works and what doesn't. I don't think it's good to confuse people that it's deeper than it really is. That's why I was saying that you're taking this way too personally and you're projecting things and you're using parts of what people say as metaphors for things you ethically oppose when none of this is about you.

And don't do that thing where you try to say that I'm misinterpreting you because you say that to everyone that tries to challenge you in some way or does it accidentally. No one is misinterpreting you. It's just that you tend to project things into discussions that don't belong there and make it personal when we're just debating.

We're just talking about prices and how the industry works and if you want to disagree with that, that's totally fine, but you don't have to make it about you to do that.

Like let's just go back and forth so we can hammer down what works and what doesn't without getting distracted. Let's go.

anchev wrote:
Are you saying that $20K for a cover design is non-manipulative good business practice? I can't quite see it as such.

But why do you see it that way? Maybe explain? Are you also taking into consideration that it's...Pascal Dangin? And he's offering masterful expertise and service that not many other people can match?

When you do good work, you'll get more and more money. It also depends on how bomb-amazing your services are.

Kami Fore  wrote:
This feels like it's a really personal thing for you

Sorry if it sounds like that. I just really abhor to any form of dishonesty and putting one man or a group of people in a position to be above others. That's why I don't like praising names. I might have gotten a little emotional about that at times, so please excuse me.

Kami Fore  wrote:
But why do you see it that way? Maybe explain? Are you also taking into consideration that it's...Pascal Dangin? And he's offering masterful expertise and service that not many other people can match?

Because $20K for a cover design is unrealistic. It may be whatever industry standard but it is still unrealistic. And it obviously has ethical flaws because one can work for $20K for a whole year (depending on country) and one year is not one cover design. I have been working for cinema, CG (3D and 2D), video and photo for many years and I am quite firm when I say that just a cover design cannot cost that much itself unless it involves other things (e.g. equipment rent, actor payment etc).

When you do good work, you'll get more and more money. It also depends on how bomb-amazing your services are.

It is more complex. To be "bomb-amazing" you need money. People's senses are way over saturated these days and they are so bored with everything that they constantly need new sensations and new ways of entertainment. You know - everyone walking around staring at his phone or with ear phones all the time. It's a form of sickness. It is off-topic but I think beauty in life is not about just how sensational one is or how much money one makes. Actually these are the things that make one egocentric and harmful to others.

anchev wrote:
Because $20K for a cover design is unrealistic. It may be whatever industry standard but it is still unrealistic. And it obviously has ethical flaws because one can work for $20K for a whole year (depending on country) and one year is not one cover design. I have been working for cinema, CG (3D and 2D), video and photo for many years and I am quite firm when I say that just a cover design cannot cost that much itself unless it involves other things (e.g. equipment rent, actor payment etc).

"Ethical" comes into the conversation when it isn't needed again.

When you start working with bigger clients with bigger budgets and start producing a world class service where you can do what people can't, and many can't do what Pascal can do, or have the same track record of happy clientele, then you end up having a lot of money. When you are in a position where people are falling over themselves to get to you, then Pascal's rumor of what he covers doesn't sound so unrealistic.

They only cost so much because it takes tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce these things and pay everyone and obviously any retoucher, Pascal or not, is going to get a piece of that. Then if the person is a retoucher that can bring that big project to life and they're in high demand, then they will most likely be in a position where they'll have leverage. Not even mentioning that Pascal determines every page that's printed in Vogue anyway. Not sure which country. So obviously..in his case, that amount will probably sound ridiculous.

But the discussion of ethics doesn't belong in this conversation. Someone being able to pay a retoucher a seemingly excessive amount of money b/c they're included in the budget doesn't mean that it's 'unethical' just because people are in other industries that aren't set up to receive that.

Retouchers, again, are just factors in a budget. Like Invisible said over yonder, he rarely determines what price he pays b/c he's going to be paid what's budgeted for him. He also doesn't get nickel and dimed either and is paid quite well.

The argument of being paid a lot not being 'ethical' doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that there's some sort of corruption or secret agenda where someone's getting paid what they shouldn't in the same way people argue that certain CEOs get an un-proportional amount of money in comparison to who works for them.

It just comes back to what I said before about projection.

It is more complex. To be "bomb-amazing" you need money. People's senses are way over saturated these days and they are so bored with everything that they constantly need new sensations and new ways of entertainment. You know - everyone walking around staring at his phone or with ear phones all the time. It's a form of sickness. It is off-topic but I think beauty in life is not about just how sensational one is or how much money one makes. Actually these are the things that make one egocentric and harmful to others.

You don't need money to be bomb amazing, not really. You just need to understand how this business works, have business skills in general, and know what the industry's standards are along with some understanding of art, and several other things you'll need to learn but none of them require money.

I have no idea where you got that from.

For everything else, I understand what you're saying but your personal beliefs and philosophies, like I've said, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We're all just working and trying to make a living. 'Life' is much more than that obviously, but we're not talking about that. We're talking business.

Kami Fore  wrote:
You don't need money to be bomb amazing, not really. You just need to understand how this business works, have business skills in general, and know what the industry's standards are along with some understanding of art, and several other things you'll need to learn but none of them require money.

I have no idea where you got that from.

Nobody is born with skills. You need time and resources to develop them and marketing to sell them. And all this needs money. People are no longer satisfied with what they have seen. They want new forms of entertainment and that has technological and other expenses. That's what I meant. I also hope you will agree that a child born in a poor family does not have the same chance of being "bomb amazing" compared to someone whose parents can give him the best education and high start in life. That's can be seen as a connotation to the ethical aspect too.

For everything else, I understand what you're saying but your personal beliefs and philosophies, like I've said, have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

We're all just working and trying to make a living. 'Life' is much more than that obviously, but we're not talking about that. We're talking business.

Why should one believe that there is corruption, competition, war, vanity etc? I see it every day. I don't need to believe in it. It's there as an actual fact, not as a philosophy.

I agree it is impossible to cover everything in all it's aspects in a thread in a forum. But I mentioned this as a factor because when you want to look at the extreme cases in any field (highest level of skill, payment etc) it is impossible not to touch other fields. Life is one whole. Business is not something ideally isolated and independent from other things in life.

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

anchev wrote:
Nobody is born with skills. You need time and resources to develop them and marketing to sell them. And all this needs money. People are no longer satisfied with what they have seen. They want new forms of entertainment and that has technological and other expenses. That's what I meant. I also hope you will agree that a child born in a poor family does not have the same chance of being "bomb amazing" compared to someone whose parents can give him the best education and high start in life. That's can be seen as a connotation to the ethical aspect too.

Pascal actually liked some of my retouches I put on instagram in January and 3 or 4 photographers that have shot for Vogue and Harper's Bazaar did the same and have liked my images. One of them shot a lot with Kate Moss but I didn't contact him b/c I was still developing my port but the interest was there.

I didn't get to where I am, even if it's not as far as others that I look up to here, from investing money into it. Sure, time, effort, frustration, and annoying experiences, but not money.

Also we're just talking about retouching. All you need is photoshop and a good internet connection and a tablet, which you can get for dirt cheap. You also don't need anything fancy to start out with. From your success you build over time, you'll be able to buy better monitors and hardware and such if you're doing big campaigns and things that need a lot of proofing and exact quality, etc, but to do 'well' as a retoucher, you just need to have the motivation to be good and to enhance your knowledge of what's required by talking to people online doing it and educating yourself w/ articles you can read online for free, like for color theory and such.

You also don't need a good education or a rich / well off family to do any of this. We're not talking about getting a degree or making it in an industry with the odds stacked against us where socioeconomic status DOES matter. Like we're not talking about a brown kid versus a white kid having an opportunity to go to Harvard where one's rich and one's not.

You don't need to be rich but do need to be realistic about getting into all of this. For example, a lot of people have part time jobs doing something else or have savings accumulated. It doesn't mean that a poor person can't retouch. It just means that everyone's going to come into it with a different set of circumstances. However those circumstances aren't going to prevent someone from becoming successful overall. There are literally retouchers in 3rd world countries working like crazy that get the same results. It doesn't matter. We're fortunately in a field that's completely skewed in our favor. It isn't hindered by systematic racism or sexism or classism, etc, as far as being a successful retoucher goes.

We don't need degrees. We don't need fancy websites. We don't need money to start doing it.

Everything we do is gained from learning on the job and using the internet to learn what we don't know and then applying it. That's why there's so much competition everywhere - because anyone can do it. It's just that some people don't have good business or communication skills and don't want to work with industry standards that fall off the horse. Sometimes people have other things in life they want to focus on b/c it's time absorbing, and quit, which is understandable, but the people that complain about it 'not being able to be done' in general aren't making it because they're not doing something right on their end. Something basic and crucial.

When I started retouching 2 years ago in 2014, the first thing I did was look at this forum and look at everything the people with the jobs I wanted were saying about what you needed to do. Not that much time has passed but following their advice has given me really great results. Like it's no joke - the shit works. Now I've got contacts that have been published in Elle, Cosmo, and Harper's Bazaar that chose me because I followed the advice of these people.

Natalia Taffarel, TheInvisibleTouch, OmarJosef, Nienna1990, GDRetouching, AKMac, AshishAhora(sp? - I forget his name), Ovidiu Oltean etc. Also a bunch of others I forget the names of.

Natalia and Invisible have worked for L'Oreal, Omar's done Guess, Nienna just did a campaign that might've been for Revlon, GD works at David LaChapelle's studio, AKMac's done Harper's Bazaar, and Ashish (plus generally everyone) has done Vogue and has gotten covers. Ovidiu Oltean also literally JUST did Rihanna's ANTI campaign for her new album that's on billboards right now. All of these people were on ModelMayhem and worked up and are in amazing places today.

If you follow the advice of the people doing it and it's obvious anyone can do it then you're going to get the same results.

Why should one believe that there is corruption, competition, war, vanity etc? I see it every day. I don't need to believe in it. It's there as an actual fact, not as a philosophy.

I agree it is impossible to cover everything in all it's aspects in a thread in a forum. But I mentioned this as a factor because when you want to look at the extreme cases in any field (highest level of skill, payment etc) it is impossible not to touch other fields. Life is one whole. Business is not something ideally isolated and independent from other things in life.

I hope that clarifies what I meant.

Yeah but there's no corruption when we're talking about making it as a retoucher. There's no conspiracy. You're adding something into it that doesn't belong. You're talking about the nature of the fashion industry and stupid things that people do and I agree with that.

But that isn't in this conversation. You're trying to say that human beings being corrupt and stupid and the world's ever changing demands and standards and people's socioeconomic statuses are preventing a person from being a successful retoucher. You keep going off into philosophical tangents when we're talking about whether or not someone's going to get money or not or become successful.

Retouchers acclimate to all of these things you've mentioned with the work that we do. We take what society wants..generally what people want..and reflect it back at them with pretty things that cost a lot of money. That's it.

And if we're determined enough, we get paid handsomely for it. Very simple.

Kami Fore  wrote:
Pascal actually liked some of my retouches I put on instagram in January and 3 or 4 photographers that have shot for Vogue and Harper's Bazaar did the same and have liked my images. One of them shot a lot with Kate Moss but I didn't contact him b/c I was still developing my port but the interest was there.

...

I still charge per hour.