Retoucher

wanda pelin

Posts: 59

Adeje (Las Americas), Tenerife, Canary Islands

today saw those images in fashiongoneroge and fell in love with
when began to see with more attention, saw that they have been "painted" a bit roughly,
now, my question is
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE?  I MEAN, are MAGAZINES ACCEPTING THE COLOUR BANDING USUALLY, or this was just an exception?
don t want critisize the work, just wondering, if it was the intention of the editor
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8122/8669194097_945f928b05_b.jpg
GlamourBiancaBalti5 por hola soy wanda, en Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8383/8669195221_0893487b93.jpg
522104_10152412217672837_1084632708_n por hola soy wanda, en Flickr

Apr 21 13 03:54 pm Link

Retoucher

Paul Snyder

Posts: 89

Columbus, Ohio, US

I wouldn't say they were painted.

Looks more like there's an issue with color banding in the shadows.

Apr 21 13 04:01 pm Link

Photographer

MichaelClements

Posts: 1739

Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Looks like color separation or banding issues to me. Poor form really. I doubt it was the intention of the editor.

http://www.michaelclements.com.au/

Apr 21 13 04:02 pm Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Paul Snyder wrote:
I wouldn't say they were painted.
Looks more like there's an issue with color banding in the shadows.

+1

Apr 21 13 04:09 pm Link

Retoucher

wanda pelin

Posts: 59

Adeje (Las Americas), Tenerife, Canary Islands

so, it s  a normal practice? it s a print fault?

Apr 21 13 04:12 pm Link

Artist/Painter

JJMiller

Posts: 622

Buffalo, New York, US

I'm going to assume the 99.9% of other people looking at this really don't give a shit.

Apr 21 13 05:12 pm Link

Photographer

Gulag

Posts: 1250

Duluth, Georgia, US

JJMiller wrote:
I'm going to assume the 99.9% of other people looking at this really don't give a shit.

+1.

Apr 21 13 06:59 pm Link

Photographer

Chuckarelei

Posts: 9566

Seattle, Washington, US

JJMiller wrote:
I'm going to assume the 99.9% of other people looking at this really don't give a shit.

99.99%

Apr 21 13 07:05 pm Link

Photographer

Miracle_Man

Posts: 789

Cary, North Carolina, US

That can also come from adding too much contrast or too much saturation to the scene.

Apr 21 13 07:25 pm Link

Retoucher

Frankcerro

Posts: 40

Sevilla, Andalusia, Spain

I think it is when change to CMYK without the gamut warning.

Apr 22 13 10:04 am Link

Retoucher

The Invisible Touch

Posts: 717

Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain

Definitely not painted!!

Apr 22 13 12:39 pm Link

Photographer

richy01

Posts: 153

Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands

I can imagine the client gives a sh&*&t...

Apr 25 13 09:04 pm Link

Retoucher

Paul Snyder

Posts: 89

Columbus, Ohio, US

richy01 wrote:
I can imagine the client gives a sh&*&t...

If you have noticeable color banding, I can attest that they will, in fact, "give a sh*t"

Apr 25 13 11:21 pm Link

Retoucher

Nienna1990

Posts: 568

Tel Aviv-Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel

Usually something like this will happen when trying to recover shadowed areas.

Why? how can a magazine approve? did no one notice?

Well, there are many possible answers for that. but it doesnt matter. In this industry you have to make short term calls, and stick to it. Do whatever you can with the time given you.

May 01 13 03:33 am Link

Retoucher

NickWatson

Posts: 59

London, England, United Kingdom

May 01 13 06:58 am Link

Retoucher

NickWatson

Posts: 59

London, England, United Kingdom

if you pulled this image from the website, dont be suprised as it will be a jpeg as the image doesnt look very hi res

May 01 13 06:58 am Link

Retoucher

wanda pelin

Posts: 59

Adeje (Las Americas), Tenerife, Canary Islands

NW-RETOUCHING wrote:
if you pulled this image from the website, dont be suprised as it will be a jpeg as the image doesnt look very hi res

oh yes, they are from the website,
i think it was just bad resizing  for the web, or something like that

May 01 13 08:12 am Link

Retoucher

NickWatson

Posts: 59

London, England, United Kingdom

i would bet then the colours were fine in the print and its just jpeg issues.

May 01 13 08:18 am Link

Retoucher

Ovidiu Oltean

Posts: 179

Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania

I don't think that on print there is the problem like the preview showed, i think thats a web problem.

May 01 13 03:03 pm Link

Photographer

Images By Joseph

Posts: 886

Naperville, Illinois, US

JJMiller wrote:
I'm going to assume the 99.9% of other people looking at this really don't give a shit.

+1

May 01 13 03:12 pm Link