Drew Smith Photography wrote:

Quite so.

But.. if your ambition is to be a cordon blue chef then you might want to avoid making McDonalds your reference point.

Quite so. And I do agree on this.

My point is concerning unnecessary elitistic snobbery.
End user (from my IT experience) neither wants nor needs to know how you prepared the result, as long as result is suitable to the needs.
We can debate this over and over, but if you ask an average reader of the high fashion magazine, they will hardly know what Photoshop is (a bit of exaggeration perhaps).

That's why 90% of bovine will chew their fodder while glaring into zombie box and then go spend their money on bigger zombie box and more fast food, and other 9% will go to the extremities to create an exclusive elite just to separate themselves from the rest.
Remaining 1% are those who truly couldn't care less about the religious crusades on heretic processing methods. But they are busy creating as opposed to us waging holy wars

I understand Natalia's explanation and would not question her technical expertise - she know what she is doing. But that is all good and proper as long as you know exactly which tones are affected and can clearly see the tonal differences.

There are numerous occasions where people concerned with purity of tones and control could not see clearly tonal differences between EOS7D and EOS5D MkII photos, or between Leica-R 100/2.8 and Nikkor Ai-s 105/2.5. Meanwhile differences were apparent.
If you are curious - look up one of the threads I updated here where I stated that Canon lenses did not transmit higher spatial frequencies as Zeiss equivalents - there are some links with examples.

Additionally, I hardly believe that many here will pass the X-Rite test with less than 4-5 in score (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge), but that's my guess. Knock yourselves out and try. My result was 4.

I really want to see Portraiture and d&b methods side by side. Both done properly and unbiased. Just because this will speak to me volumes compared to explanations.

I hope I did not offend anyone - it wasn't my intention.

Sincerely.

R.EYE.R wrote:
End user (from my IT experience) neither wants nor needs to know how you prepared the result, as long as result is suitable to the needs.

There's your mistake. People hiring you are not the end user. The end user makes no difference, this is an industry the end user will never understand.

Advertising relies on the ignorance of the end user and fashion doesn't give a fuck.

End user? Really? If you focus on the discerning ability of the end user then use a point and shoot, and take a picture of the girl next door at noon.

Honestly it seems you're saying that because people cant tell the difference you would sell them cat instead of rabbit because you can't cook rabbit properly. Don't have a freaking restaurant!

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Advertising relies on the ignorance of the end user

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
it seems you're saying that because people cant tell the difference you would sell them cat instead of rabbit

Peano wrote:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Advertising relies on the ignorance of the end user

Because you can't cook rabbit properly.

Quoting part of a statement to make your joke valild ain't exactly making a point.

Tulack wrote:
Or negative clarity brush in RAW converter.

This is what I do

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Because you can't cook rabbit properly.

Quoting part of a statement to make your joke valild ain't exactly making a point.

If he could cook rabbit properly, you would still be contradicting yourself.

Either it's acceptable to exploit people's ignorance, or it isn't acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

Peano wrote:

If he could cook rabbit properly, you would still be contradicting yourself.

Either it's acceptable to exploit people's ignorance, or it isn't acceptable. You can't have it both ways.

I never spoke about the morality of it That's why it's not a contradiction.

Because you can't cook rabbit properly...
I'll let you think about it.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
I never spoke about the morality of it

And for good reason.

Peano wrote:

And for good reason.

Exactly!
It's advertising... nothing to do with morals.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
It's advertising... nothing to do with morals.

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Marketi … 28248.html

http://www.balancingjane.com/2013/04/th … eauty.html

http://adage.com/article/news/forum-vat … ses/68963/

http://adage.com/article/news/advertise … ew/149464/

http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/a- … al/237168/

http://www.rjionline.org/in-the-news/ad … disclosure

http://media.prsa.org/news-releases/adv … editor.htm

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/artic … dorsements

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/worst-th … 23940.html

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/ethics-d … 58233.html

http://www.dw.de/paid-for-tweets-and-po … a-16781522

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_ … g%20ethics

http://www-fp.pearsonhighered.com/asset … 941212.jpg

http://www.smu.edu/JTerm/Courses/ADV2375

http://comm.psu.edu/news-events/lecture … ing-ethics

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 … el_AcrN7Vc

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/bibliogra … d=17002921

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2 … 06#preview

http://www.questia.com/library/communic … ing-ethics

http://kelleygraham.com/sites/default/f … 09-118.pdf

http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_ … 011/34.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 … 98#preview

R.EYE.R wrote:

Quite so. And I do agree on this.

My point is concerning unnecessary elitistic snobbery.
End user (from my IT experience) neither wants nor needs to know how you prepared the result, as long as result is suitable to the needs.
We can debate this over and over, but if you ask an average reader of the high fashion magazine, they will hardly know what Photoshop is (a bit of exaggeration perhaps).

That's why 90% of bovine will chew their fodder while glaring into zombie box and then go spend their money on bigger zombie box and more fast food, and other 9% will go to the extremities to create an exclusive elite just to separate themselves from the rest.
Remaining 1% are those who truly couldn't care less about the religious crusades on heretic processing methods. But they are busy creating as opposed to us waging holy wars

I understand Natalia's explanation and would not question her technical expertise - she know what she is doing. But that is all good and proper as long as you know exactly which tones are affected and can clearly see the tonal differences.

There are numerous occasions where people concerned with purity of tones and control could not see clearly tonal differences between EOS7D and EOS5D MkII photos, or between Leica-R 100/2.8 and Nikkor Ai-s 105/2.5. Meanwhile differences were apparent.
If you are curious - look up one of the threads I updated here where I stated that Canon lenses did not transmit higher spatial frequencies as Zeiss equivalents - there are some links with examples.

Additionally, I hardly believe that many here will pass the X-Rite test with less than 4-5 in score (http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge), but that's my guess. Knock yourselves out and try. My result was 4.

I really want to see Portraiture and d&b methods side by side. Both done properly and unbiased. Just because this will speak to me volumes compared to explanations.

I hope I did not offend anyone - it wasn't my intention.

Sincerely.

In my case I just look at the portfolios of the retouchers advocating the methods and I discern my answer.

If one is happy with Mcdonalds why would would they even ask how to get better? If one is happy with slop maybe their palette isn't refined enough to know the difference.

I don't think it is elitist to look at one retouchers work and wonder why anyone would pay for that and then to look at another one's work and know that is something to aspire to.

*shrugs*

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Peano you are very naive if you think advertising has morals an example would be cigarette advert, advertisers and the agency's were well aware of there harm done by smoking yet continued selling those cancer sticks.

Alco pops and other such drinks are marketed with the work 'pop' making it sound like some sorts of soft lemonade yet it is a alcoholic drink.

Fur there was a huge outcry against wearing fur even the top model and photographers got in on the act.... a few years later all the fashion mags, top model were promoting fur.

Certain cars has faults in them especially in the 60's - death traps yet advertising still promoted them.


Advertising goes to the client who pays morals have nothing to do with it.

Peano wrote:

Irony, since you're the one missing the point for a few posts now

Sergei Rodionov wrote:
*sighs*

Typical bickering started instead of politely asking proper questions.

Natalia, if you dont mind to answer this, could you please give some pointers for example like above, when light was incredibly bad for skin - what would you do to save it - dont need complete walkthrough, i wouldnt dare to steal as much of your time, but as if you were talking to someone who was through your videos and through Kurnoslav's.

As a photographer i see problematic light here, which happens sometime, when people getting persuaded by idiot friends to wear shiny makeup for the photoshoot (i had once people actually oiling themselves in makeup room.. that was NOT funny to shot). So light is too harsh and we can see pored open.

From what i gather normal process would be twofold
on lower frequency:
- even out skin tones , restore tones in burnt-out areas.
- work on d&b to reform shape of face itself a bit (so less neanderthal-ish look would be in place and kinda do digital sculpting makeup)
on higher frequency:
- work on  pores layer to make them less apparent - now that one always gets me, b/c you obviously cant make them smaller. You can however make them less apparently by smoothing transition on  edges with D&B - am i right? Is there anything else (ok, apart from usual "steal nice skin texture from somewhere and reapply")?

Thank you in advance.

1- I wouldn't save it. It won't look good for portfolio. Saving it would take a lot more time than reshoting. The whole concept of SAVING it's idiotic.
Further more, the process in that image CREATED more problems. If you don't have the right lighting or make up for a strong look why push it???
This is why retouching is much more than fricking techniques.

2- No, you do nothing on the low if you want high end results!
The frequency separation is only to make the healing/cloning process faster and more efficient. Nothing more.
The rest you work with light.

But it doesn't matter how many times I say the same things, people still claim there has to be another way.... so be it

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
1- I wouldn't save it. It won't look good for portfolio. Saving it would take a lot more time than reshoting. The whole concept of SAVING it's idiotic.
Further more, the process in that image CREATED more problems. If you don't have the right lighting or make up for a strong look why push it???
This is why retouching is much more than fricking techniques.

2- No, you do nothing on the low if you want high end results!
The frequency separation is only to make the healing/cloning process faster and more efficient. Nothing more.
The rest you work with light.

But it doesn't matter how many times I say the same things, people still claim there has to be another way.... so be it

Got it thank you.

Just trying to sort out new flow for myself, optimize process a bit and integrate what i got from DVDs, and i recently came across few tidbits around youtube on retouching that felt useful, but its like that situation when someone saying stuff and you agreeing.. and then 5 minutes after you go "what the.. no... NOOOOO"

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Irony, since you're the one missing the point for a few posts now

Let's see who's missing the point.

When you acknowledge that your livelihood depends on the ignorance of the people who ultimately purchase the products you create and promote, that raises questions of moral justification.

- When cigarette companies depend on customers' being ignorant of the health effects of smoking, are they morally justified in doing so?

- When cosmetics companies depend on customers' being ignorant of the fact that those women in the ads didn't come to look that way by using the advertised products, are they morally justified in doing so?

- When car companies depend on customers' not knowing that their cars can become gasoline bombs from a rear-end collision, are they morally justified in doing so?

- When pharmaceutical companies depend on consumers' not knowing that their sedative could cause pregnant women to deliver malformed babies, are they morally justified in doing so?

The list goes on and on, but the moral principle is the same throughout: When you acknowledge that you earn your living in an industry that depends on the ignorance of your customers, that raises questions about the moral justification of what you do.

You may choose to ignore or evade those questions, but what you do raises those questions nonetheless. To say that advertising "has nothing to do with morals" is beyond childish. It is infantile.

That was my point, and my only point.

Sergei Rodionov wrote:
Got it thank you.

Just trying to sort out new flow for myself, optimize process a bit and integrate what i got from DVDs, and i recently came across few tidbits around youtube on retouching that felt useful, but its like that situation when someone saying stuff and you agreeing.. and then 5 minutes after you go "what the.. no... NOOOOO"

Yeah, don't touch that low layer and if you do make it as little as possible. It makes me laugh kind of because it sounds so technical and mathematical, which is great for some. I have an action and have used it from time to time but instead of naming the layers High Frequency and Low Frequency I used Texture and Color. At some point you will start to rock and just flow and probably just do everything on a jumped layer but that takes time and experience. It has evolved into more of a hand eye thing for me (I used to draw for years). I will give you a couple of simple and useful tips. I probably have said the same things countless times in the past you can look it up.  Zoom out don't zoom in too much work in work on big stuff first then go in and back out repeat and rinse. Use pen pressure and be aware every single you put the pen down how much pressure you are using everytime time you put that pen down. Learn the clone stamp you can smooth skin with it. Try the patch tool from time to time, very small selections though, so simple. Use visualization layers to do skin but do a part of it without them also because I have found at times you will get false positive with the visualization layers (ie. grayscale image maybe with curve for contrast). Also, don't over do it unless you are told I alway ask how far to go with the retouching before I start. I was retouching an image for Patrick Demarchelier and I thought it look great but my boss took a look at it and asked me to bring back some splotches back it was in the forehead this time "just remove the really dark ones leave the rest" the rest were texture to him he said "it takes the reality out of image" and he was right, lesson learned (that was for that specific job, jobs vary, degrees of retouching vary, depending on the job and/or photographers look).  If you are trying to change something and lets say the your brush is not working or taking more than a few strokes take that as a signal to try something else. Experimentation is the key but do try to get advise from working retouchers. Also, this might go contrary to advise you might have received but try not the change the lighting you can try to enhance but not change. Those light guys are paid top dollars to do that light unless you just want to practice on your own images or the photographer asks you to change the lighting tell him in advance you wanted to try something and put that in addition to the three color stories you give them in a separate folder.

Camerosity wrote:
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials … separation

Is there a better tutorial than this?
He tends to gloss over a lot of things, and the screens aren't really big enough to be useful. You can't zoom in to actually see what he's got set in most of them. So most of the things he's demonstrating can't really be seen as to what they actually do.

He mentions setting the blend mode of the high frequency layer to linear light, but doesn't mention what if anything the low frequency layer should be changed to.

He also goes off on to a lot of other things, clothes, background, etc I'd like to see a good one that really focused just on cleaning up the skin.

Camerosity wrote:
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials … separation

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
Is there a better tutorial than this?
He tends to gloss over a lot of things, and the screens aren't really big enough to be useful. You can't zoom in to actually see what he's got set in most of them. So most of the things he's demonstrating can't really be seen as to what they actually do.

He mentions setting the blend mode of the high frequency layer to linear light, but doesn't mention what if anything the low frequency layer should be changed to.

He also goes off on to a lot of other things, clothes, background, etc I'd like to see a good one that really focused just on cleaning up the skin.

I'm sure there is. In fact I know there's a better one on Phlearn.com. I spent 20-30 minutes looking for it. Unfortunately, they aren't indexed as well as they could be, and with three years of daily tutorials, interviews, etc...

R G wrote:

Yeah, don't touch that low layer and if you do make it as little as possible. It makes me laugh kind of because it sounds so technical and mathematical, which is great for some. I have an action and have used it from time to time but instead of naming the layers High Frequency and Low Frequency I used Texture and Color. At some point you will start to rock and just flow and probably just do everything on a jumped layer but that takes time and experience. It has evolved into more of a hand eye thing for me (I used to draw for years). I will give you a couple of simple and useful tips. I probably have said the same things countless times in the past you can look it up.  Zoom out don't zoom in too much work in work on big stuff first then go in and back out repeat and rinse. Use pen pressure and be aware every single you put the pen down how much pressure you are using everytime time you put that pen down. Learn the clone stamp you can smooth skin with it. Try the patch tool from time to time, very small selections though, so simple. Use visualization layers to do skin but do a part of it without them also because I have found at times you will get false positive with the visualization layers (ie. grayscale image maybe with curve for contrast). Also, don't over do it unless you are told I alway ask how far to go with the retouching before I start. I was retouching an image for Patrick Demarchelier and I thought it look great but my boss took a look at it and asked me to bring back some splotches back it was in the forehead this time "just remove the really dark ones leave the rest" the rest were texture to him he said "it takes the reality out of image" and he was right, lesson learned (that was for that specific job, jobs vary, degrees of retouching vary, depending on the job and/or photographers look).  If you are trying to change something and lets say the your brush is not working or taking more than a few strokes take that as a signal to try something else. Experimentation is the key but do try to get advise from working retouchers. Also, this might go contrary to advise you might have received but try not the change the lighting you can try to enhance but not change. Those light guys are paid top dollars to do that light unless you just want to practice on your own images or the photographer asks you to change the lighting tell him in advance you wanted to try something and put that in addition to the three color stories you give them in a separate folder.

This was great to read and so were the thoughts of other working retouchers in this post. I have yet to really explore dodging and burning. I tried one of Natalia's tips in one of her posts but got lost in a nightmare forest of my own making. Nevertheless, I am getting proficient in other areas and I am practicing and getting a deeper understanding.

Camerosity wrote:

Camerosity wrote:
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials … separation

I'm sure there is. In fact I know there's a better one on Phlearn.com. I spent 20-30 minutes looking for it. Unfortunately, they aren't indexed as well as they could be, and with three years of daily tutorials, interviews, etc...

I just found this after googling
http://photo.tutsplus.com/tutorials/pos … ouch-skin/

it seems to be more or less the same process, but this guy zooms in so you can see exactly what and how he's setting it and it only focuses on the skin.

Camerosity wrote:
http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials … separation

MC Seoul Photography wrote:
Is there a better tutorial than this?
He tends to gloss over a lot of things, and the screens aren't really big enough to be useful. You can't zoom in to actually see what he's got set in most of them. So most of the things he's demonstrating can't really be seen as to what they actually do.

He mentions setting the blend mode of the high frequency layer to linear light, but doesn't mention what if anything the low frequency layer should be changed to.

He also goes off on to a lot of other things, clothes, background, etc I'd like to see a good one that really focused just on cleaning up the skin.

Camerosity wrote:
I'm sure there is. In fact I know there's a better one on Phlearn.com. I spent 20-30 minutes looking for it. Unfortunately, they aren't indexed as well as they could be, and with three years of daily tutorials, interviews, etc...

Okay, I found it. Not the one on Phlearn, but the one I used to write my frequency separation cheat sheet from. I saved the URL’s in the cheat sheet.

There are actually two videos. One is for doing FS in 8-bit mode, the other is for 16-bit mode – which is preferable. You need to watch both videos, because as I recall the first steps for 16-bit mode are in the 8-bit video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH1UAzx4dRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Bybm-gxAM


And here’s my entire cheat sheet. I copied the relevant instructions from the 8-bit video, so in the cheat sheet just go to 16-bit.

~~~~~


FOR WORKING IN 8-BIT MODE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH1UAzx4dRs


Make two copies of the background layer. Name the first one Low and the second one High.

Select the Low layer and apply a Gaussian Blur with, sliding the Radius to the right until all blemishes disappear (a radius of 10 for the image used in the video).

Select the High layer. Select Image > Apply Image. Select Subtract as the mode. Use settings or 2 for scale and 128 for offset. Use Linear Light mode for the High frequency layer. (pulldown menu under Layers on panel at right of screen)

Then follow instructions in the video for 16-bit files.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Bybm-gxAM

~~~~~

FOR WORKING IN 16-BIT MODE:

For working in 16-bit mode (highly recommended), skip the 8-bit instructions. For working in 8-bit mode, skip this part of the instructions.

Transform the image to a 16-bit image. Image > Mode > 16 Bits/channel

Make two copies of the background layer. Name the first one Low and the second one High.

Select the Low layer and apply a Gaussian Blur with, sliding the Radius to the right until all blemishes disappear (a radius of 10 for the image used in the video).

Select the High layer. Select Image > Apply Image. Select Low layer. Select Add as the mode. Use settings or 2 for scale and 0 for offset. Click the Invert check box. Everything else should be unchecked.

Use Linear Light mode for the High frequency layer. (pulldown menu under Layers on panel at right of screen)


~~~~~

FOR BOTH 8-BIT AND 16-BIT IMAGES:

Work mainly on the High frequency layer.

Select the healing brush tool. Select Current Layer and Normal mode. Sample an area with clean texture and remove the blemish. Repeat for each blemish. Just like using the Healing Brush tool in any other situation – except working on the High frequency layer with current layer selected.

Since you’re only working on the texture, you could use a large brush and cover larger areas of the skin with it to save time. However, there is a risk that the skin will end up looking plastic-ky. So don't.

You can use either Gaussian blur or Surface Blur. The advantage to using Surface Blur is that you can work closer to the edges.


If you want to go back to 8-bit mode after using Frequency Separation, first flatten the image. One way is to go to Image > Duplicate, then to Layer > Flatten Image, then change back to 8-bit mode.

Peano wrote:
Let's see who's missing the point.

Lets

Peano wrote:
When you acknowledge that your livelihood depends on the ignorance of the people who ultimately purchase the products you create and promote, that raises questions of moral justification.

What? I acknowledged no such thing. MY livelihood does not depend on advertising.
You made that up
I work much more in promotion of bands, editorials and teaching.

The only reason I spoke of advertising was to make clear the END consumer doesn't understand, nor has to understand what we do because they are not doing the hiring.

Yet I have nothing against advertising as long as it doesn't go against the law and the laws are being adjusted every day on the subject.
I find nothing wrong with selling something pretty to a consumer, since the consumer is FREE to educate itself. Consenting adults buying bullshit from eachother is not advertising exclusive.

Peano wrote:
- When cigarette companies depend on customers' being ignorant of the health effects of smoking, are they morally justified in doing so?

This doesn't apply anymore. CIGARETTES KILL is written in every box, it's not about ignorance it's about selling an adictive substance, that's where morals get in to it.
And it has nothing to do with advertising, since advertising cigarettes is against the law in most countries.

Peano wrote:
- When cosmetics companies depend on customers' being ignorant of the fact that those women in the ads didn't come to look that way by using the advertised products, are they morally justified in doing so?

I think that's why we have disclaimers now, underneath the ads
I don't make the laws Peano.
I agree with the disclaimers tho I'm all in for consumers to educate themself and making educated desicions.

- When car companies depend on customers' not knowing that their cars can become gasoline bombs from a rear-end collision, are they morally justified in doing so?

- When pharmaceutical companies depend on consumers' not knowing that their sedative could cause pregnant women to deliver malformed babies, are they morally justified in doing so?

No idea how this is conected to what I do. Yes, there's a lot of bad things in the world, are you saying everytime ignorance is used people like me are responsible?
Just because I do key images to advertise certain products?
I've never done advertising for something harmful.

Does that make you feel better?

The list goes on and on, but the moral principle is the same throughout: When you acknowledge that you earn your living in an industry that depends on the ignorance of your customers, that raises questions about the moral justification of what you do.

You may choose to ignore or evade those questions, but what you do raises those questions nonetheless. To say that advertising "has nothing to do with morals" is beyond childish. It is infantile.

That was my point, and my only point.

Again, I acknowledged no such thing

This situation reminds me to my Aunt Sally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What I said:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Advertising relies on the ignorance of the end user and fashion doesn't give a fuck.

Meaning: The end user doesn't know the difference between good photography and bad photography - Same with retouching.

There's no moral judgment on my part towards advertising in that line

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Honestly it seems you're saying that because people cant tell the difference you would sell them cat instead of rabbit because you can't cook rabbit properly. Don't have a freaking restaurant!

Again, I'm not against selling something to the ignorant IN THIS CASE (comparing this to selling drugs that make you sick to ignorant people is a straw man argument)

My point was, the ignorance is being used to support mediocrity.

"I can't do it right, so I sell something cheaper because the end user can't tell"
If you can't do it, don't have a business doing it. Since the people doing the hiring CAN tell

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
Exactly, you mention other, not so high end publications. Ask retouchers how much they are paid for editorials published there? But not just that, how many higher paid gigs would you get from the exposure in those magazines? ZIP

This is (the fashion and beauty) a market and like any other market, it has a blueprint.

You either understand it and follow it or you spend the rest of your days doing test for MM photographers who think 50 USD an image is A LOT of money.

You either understand it and follow it or you spend the rest of your "carreer" retouching family portraits or stock images. Nothing wrong with that but it's certainly NOT the industry.

It has nothing to do with elitism or ego. I'm still taking time out of my routine to help people do something they love proeficiently and make a good living out of it.

In my classes I have around 40 students (%) out of those I know only around 2 or 3 students will UNDERSTAND the blueprint.

Flexmanta - Omar Josef did
Eva Ubani - did
Victorial will - did
Bastian Jung - did
Philipp Paulus - did
Brandon Mccann - did
RSphotocreation - did
Sebastian Bar - My current partner was also a student at some point

People that come to mind, people that I'm proud of, people making a living out of something they love. People who don't use portraiture

Create a good portfolio, use it to test with great photographers - create a great porfolio, use it to test with excelent photographers - create an excelent portfolio with publications and comercial content. With the testing done you should have a network and plenty of people recomending you because you did a great job.
You should have a steady body of work and clients that come back to you.

Photographers will work with agencies, you will be in touch with agencies, they will be pleased to work with you and contct you even when they use other photographers.

Bigger and better portfolio - bigger network - social media (FB, TMBLR, Twitter, youtube, Vimeo, etc)

Help people, answer questions, do charity work, move your name around no matter how much money people have, help them.

Work within a retouching agency to feel the rush
Work with a photography studio to get the contacts and understand team work

Keep your freelancing AT ALL TIMES

Find people you trust and delegate work, don't do what you don't like doing or you will do it wrong, outsource!

And finally, please, don't use portraiture

Well said.

R.EYE.R wrote:
I will use Portraiture on one of the shots and use my D&B best I can.

They are not comparable, a band stop/pass would be equivocal, not dodge and burn.