The Art of Churchwell wrote:
SMH- Pretty asshole thing to say considering my girlfriend was raped and murdered. You are being ignored now Sean

Ignored or not, you have my condolences - that is tragic and an unthinkable loss.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I cannot make those who wish not to see, to see. If you care enough then look it up if not, no biggie. As for the Landcome ad I say "I cannot make those who wish not to see, to see...."

Lanenga wrote:
I believe you to be the person you say you are, but I just don't see the relationship between your connections and getting published in a magazine using PP

But if I understand correctly, this thread should actually be called "I TOLD YOU SO!"

+1
And I think it's pretty clear to everyone reading this, that it IS about you.

Interesting though that you dont value your own work as good enough to get published and need connections to do so..

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Im wondering if "Lancome" or "Elle" is one of those "high end" clients I am always told I will never work for by known high end retouchers. I have Portrait Professional 10 which is much better than the orange dots version this guy used

Sean Baker Photo wrote:
You can get the same result from Portraiture, FS, IHP, or D&B.  Good (or bad) technique does not necessarily correlate with a mastery of aesthetics.

The saddest part of this may be that Lancome was (apparently) happy to pay for the work to be done.  Hopefully it was done "for exposure" .

Exactly. I have PP 9 and I use it all the time. My pics don't have orange dots on them.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
http://fashiongonerogue.com/arlenis-sos … -campaign/

In May issue of Elle the first page is a Lancome Ad that the retoucher used Portrait Professional. A earlier one in fact because PP doesn't use orange dots for pores anymore. Besides the orange dots floating on the skin how do I know they used PP? Orange pores on the ears

First, I'm surprised that anyone would state how an image was retouched "as fact" when you, in fact, are basing this on what you believe.

Anyone who's used Photoshop for a while learns that there are typically many ways to achieve looks in post - whether it's using the tools within the program or plugins.  To declare which method was used just doesn't seem sensible.

Second, it's my understanding that ad work is ultimately approved by the client/ad agency/etc so it's entirely possible that they liked the final look.

I think your post is more of a rant than something that's helpful in an industry forum.  I know that emotions can run high at times, but they almost always cause us to make poor decisions and/or perceptions.

It might be attitude and not ability that's keeping you from going where you want to.

976 Photography wrote:

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Im wondering if "Lancome" or "Elle" is one of those "high end" clients I am always told I will never work for by known high end retouchers. I have Portrait Professional 10 which is much better than the orange dots version this guy used

Exactly. I have PP 9 and I use it all the time. My pics don't have orange dots on them.

I have clearly been saying PP 8. turn down the pores and up the texture

john_ wrote:
It might be attitude and not ability that's keeping you from going where you want to.

I'm truly beyond happy exactly where I am. I am way beyond my goal in life. Have no idea what you waz talking about in your whole post.

Also to others why would you use photoshop to put pattern orange dots on a model when you can simply do it in PP. Im not asking anyone. just saying and I am not going to respond much to those who say stupid things trying to get a rise out of people.As I look I see I am now on page two so we know what happens from here on so i won't comment back much.

ChanStudio wrote:
Not sure what it was used but someone forgot what human facial skin look like. .  This includes the ear and the neck.

and those alien white eyes.... eek