Snap2 wrote:
Threads like this just mean that these poor companies get hundreds of unwanted spam emails from aspiring retouchers. Most of them useless sadly. It makes it impossible for those of us with real experience to get noticed at all. The reason most of them like to keep a low profile is precisely for this reason.

in this industry .. none of them keep a low profile.

I made this thread for photographers and retouchers to recognise the leading retouchers around the world *

its like a photographer makinh a thread of who are the great photo agencys ( for everyone to see the photographers work )


and more likely what this thread does is actually WAKE UP every shit retoucher who think skin retouching is enough in this industry and see where the " bar" is set if you want to retouch for a living*

Polished Ink  wrote:
in this industry .. none of them keep a low profile.

With a statement like that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. And you are fishing for contacts.

Snap2 wrote:

With a statement like that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. And you are fishing for contacts.

reallly ? when lot of this retouching agency's market them selves in photokina and pma.


i dont need to fish for retouching contacts when I'm a photographer*  and do my own retouching.

Robert Randall wrote:
Not to pick sides, but I've never heard of either of those two firms, so it was kind of nice to see their site and the associated work.

Gotta agree! Interesting to see them!

Who you know and who I know are different. Plus apart from the "big wigs" each country may have gems of companies that local Wizards don't just know about.

I think its a good idea!

Snap2 wrote:
Never heard of Saddington Baynes, one of the most well known and highly reputable Retouching firms in London! Why have you never heard of them … probably because they have been keeping a low profile. Most Photographers at that level obviously don't even want to publicize retouching that goes on. They recently laid off a lot of people, which is a sign of the times.

One of the most well known firms that is keeping a low profile? I've never heard of them because I've never had a need to hear of them. And I think the cat is out of the bag on how much retouching goes on.

It seems to me if they have a web site, a good portion of the world is able to find out about them, and I don't think you mounting a secrecy campaign on a social networking site is going to make much of a difference.

Polished Ink wrote:
love to share big powerhouses of retouching. please share other retouching agenies or groups that you know .

http://www.electricart.com.au/  ( Sydney , Australia)

www.saddingtonbaynes.com        ( England)

Thanks for those links, even if their retouching style is too much like Dave Hill .

Snap2 wrote:
Barco Creator - was a piece of software using Silicon Graphics systems. At one point it was one of the main high-end retouching tools that people used - very expensive to set up and the premiums reflected that. Its now been superceded.

I found that, but having been discontinued in '99, why would it still be used, much less a marketing cornerstone?

Snap2 wrote:
… price, and the justification thereov. I imagine

So I should pay them more because they use a piece of software which the manufacturer abandoned a decade ago?  I get that their work is phenomenal, but I'm not seeing this piece.

Polished Ink wrote:

in this industry .. none of them keep a low profile.

I made this thread for photographers and retouchers to recognise the leading retouchers around the world *

its like a photographer makinh a thread of who are the great photo agencys ( for everyone to see the photographers work )


and more likely what this thread does is actually WAKE UP every shit retoucher who think skin retouching is enough in this industry and see where the " bar" is set if you want to retouch for a living*

Um... plenty of people retouch for a living without ever having to make a stick figure surf in pepto bismal or w/e that was or make flames chase river rafters.

Retouching for photographers is also VERY different than retouching for a commercial ad agency and requires a totally different skill set.

Snap2 wrote:
Never heard of Saddington Baynes, one of the most well known and highly reputable Retouching firms in London! Why have you never heard of them … probably because they have been keeping a low profile. Most Photographers at that level obviously don't even want to publicize retouching that goes on. They recently laid off a lot of people, which is a sign of the times.

Well maybe those laid off people can jump on twitter and see who is hiring:
http://twitter.com/saddbaynes
from their twitter: "Calling all freelancers. S&B are looking for talented Retouchers and CGI artists. Send cvs and efolios/reels to [email protected]"

Sean Baker wrote:

I found that, but having been discontinued in '99, why would it still be used, much less a marketing cornerstone?

If I had SGI computers that still worked, Barco would be my main program for any kind of brush work, line work or masking. It was quite possibly the best editing software I've ever used. In my studio, we had 5 SGI boxes running that software 16 hours a day, and we still couldn't keep up with the demand. Just about every PS update request I make, 6 years after my last SGI box failed, is based on a tool from that software. 6 years of R&D later, and it still has better tools than PS does.

dirk olsen wrote:
Here's an article on Pascal Dangin and Box Studios, I don't think it gets any higher end then this.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 … ct_collins

Thank you for the compliment!

Robert Randall wrote:
If I had SGI computers that still worked, Barco would be my main program for any kind of brush work, line work or masking. It was quite possibly the best editing software I've ever used. In my studio, we had 5 SGI boxes running that software 16 hours a day, and we still couldn't keep up with the demand. Just about every PS update request I make, 6 years after my last SGI box failed, is based on a tool from that software. 6 years of R&D later, and it still has better tools than PS does.

Thats really interesting! so you still reckon Barco was better than photoshop is now then? wow, looks I got the wrong end of the stick on that one. I know there are some older retouchers that liked to use it especially for cars for some reason (actually probably the reason they were/are still using it in Saddington Baynes) but I never heard such a ringing endorsement before.

Do you work at Box then Robert? sorry iI didnt understand that

Snap2 wrote:

Thats really interesting! so you still reckon Barco was better than photoshop is now then? wow, looks I got the wrong end of the stick on that one. I know there are some older retouchers that liked to use it especially for cars for some reason (actually probably the reason they were/are still using it in Saddington Baynes) but I never heard such a ringing endorsement before.

Do you work at Box then Robert? sorry iI didnt understand that

In 2000, I was receiving jobs from Ruven Afanador, Patrick Demarchelier, Herb Ritts, and a few others, that had typically been using Box. Basically, until 9/11 happened, I was taking some business away from him. I figured that I was being given a back handed compliment, so in my normal snarky way, I said thank you.

Robert Randall wrote:

If I had SGI computers that still worked, Barco would be my main program for any kind of brush work, line work or masking. It was quite possibly the best editing software I've ever used. In my studio, we had 5 SGI boxes running that software 16 hours a day, and we still couldn't keep up with the demand. Just about every PS update request I make, 6 years after my last SGI box failed, is based on a tool from that software. 6 years of R&D later, and it still has better tools than PS does.

Two questions if you don't mind.

1.) What was it about its masking capability which we lack in PS currently?
2.) The Barco Wikipedia entry indicates a Windows NT version was created just before it stopped being produced - did it not work as well as the SGI version (assuming the NT copy could still be run on a modern box and integrated into workflow)?

Sean Baker wrote:

Two questions if you don't mind.

1.) What was it about its masking capability which we lack in PS currently?
2.) The Barco Wikipedia entry indicates a Windows NT version was created just before it stopped being produced - did it not work as well as the SGI version (assuming the NT copy could still be run on a modern box and integrated into workflow)?

HSL/HSB masks. The work around for blending masks wasn't as user friendly as PS is now, but the functionality of the masks was worth the extra steps. In PS, I have 10 basic channels I can choose to use. In Creator I had 16. The line art tool was better/smoother. Selections weren't as coarse. The paint brushes were to absolutely die for, I miss them the most. the matrix color correction tool was superior to Selective color correction, even though I believe Adobe borrowed theirs from Barco. The warp tool was based on Barco's 3D program, so when you used it, you were actually in a 3D work space. the points were all editable and the results were always smoother... I could go on for an hour.

I don't know a thing about the NT cut of software.

Russell Lewis wrote:
See, if you were half as big and clever as you think you are, you wouldn't need to worry about scum treading on your precious little toes, would you Mr Bigshot?

Photoshop Wizards! You're worse than those bloodthirsty banshees in Hair and Makeup!

Hmm I hope it didn't come across that way. I was only trying to give my honest reaction, I guess there is some amount of 'getting your toes trodden on', and perhaps my gut reaction should have been put in such a way I will admit - but 'bloodthirsty' dont know if that's going a bit far

- nice work there Russell by the way, very unusual.

Thanks for the info on Barco as well Robert. I don't understand how painting in Barco worked, as its been pointed out to me before that people loved it

Snap2 wrote:
I hope it didn't come across that way...

That's the problem with the cold black and white of text on a screen!

Given your explanation, I apologise unreservedly for aligning you to the witches beings in the pit of doom hair and makeup.