Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
My question is: What do I do if the version I edited is WAY better and cleaner than the one the photog did but he has already posted the shot the way he edited it?

WAIT....Let me explain before you all jump on the "photog owns all rights" thing

As a makeup artist, I do a lot of elaborate concept that usually require a fair amount of processing of the image in post (i.e. re-touching, corrections, backgrounds, etc). And I have a dilemma regarding an image from one of these shoots. I was given the Hi-Rez (photog edited) shot by the photographer to print for my book. I asked permission if I could "practice" my skills editing with the image he gave me. I've learned, after working with too many GWC's that can't or won't edit, to develop my own re-touching/editing techniques.

I had his permission to edit it and I showed him the final shot that he liked, but I feel awkward posting the cleaner version. As one of the credited team members for the shot, I'd prefer my name being on the better image. Not as the editor but as the makeup artist and general collaborator for the shoot. 

What should I do?? Is there a way to post both without it seeming like I'm showing up or bragging?? And I grant you the "artistic license" of what I think is better over what he thinks... However, without actually posting both shots side by side, I can't prove that debate on which is "better". I guess for argument sake, assume mine is better

P.S. I haven't posted in forums for a LONG time so I hope this is the right place for this topic

Here is the way I look at it beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I am at the stage of my career trivial as a client or TF agreement if someone re edits an image. My head would have exploded a long time ago after dealing with various art directors, and editors. I know some amateurs heads do explode on this issue. I think it is silly.

It depends on the agreement and the relationship you have with the shooter if this is an issue. For me getting onions on my burger is a bigger deal.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
I think this comes down to 2 things.
1. Your opinion of better vs the photographer's.
2. You received permission to edit the image so you shouldn't feel bad about posting it.

Unfortunately, you reworked his image.  It would have been better to start from the RAW file. That way you would have negated any of his work to the image.

As for credits all you can do is add your name to the RETOUCHING credit, since it was partially worked by the photographer.

I would NOT post both shots.  There's no reason to.

You have your MUA's version/vision and they have their Photographer's version/vision.

+1
This is totally a matter of opinion. You feel you did a better job editing, what if you're the only one that feels that way?

If you feel you're editing skills are adequate then I would work with a photographer who agrees to that. Make arrangements with everyone involved prior to shooting.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
You have your MUA's version/vision and they have their Photographer's version/vision.

Approaching work from this perspective is fought with potential pitfalls.

If there is a conflict of vision going on, then one needs to hire the other and be done with it.

William Kious wrote:
If you are editing to the point where you can make any kind of evaluative judgement about which version is "better", then aren't you defeating the purpose of having a makeup portfolio?

Your post makes me wonder who/what to credit for your portfolio... the makeup, the photographer or the retoucher.

I must say, this entered my mind too...

William Kious wrote:
Approaching work from this perspective is fought with potential pitfalls.

If there is a conflict of vision going on, then one needs to hire the other and be done with it.

LOL Yes. Again, I agree. 
I don't approach work with this intent. But it happens.

When I first read the OP, I thought that the MUA should have paid for the session then it would have been her vision, more than the photographer's.   

However, if this was a TF project..people don't always go in knowing or having full control of the final output as much. It's more a combined effort unless ONE person establishes control of the whole concept from beginning to end.   That would likely be the photographer, since they are looking through the lens and decide when to click the shutter.

William Kious wrote:
If you are editing to the point where you can make any kind of evaluative judgement about which version is "better", then aren't you defeating the purpose of having a makeup portfolio?

Your post makes me wonder who/what to credit for your portfolio... the makeup, the photographer or the retoucher.

I don't know how often, if at all, you work with professional MUA's so I won't judge or take personally your post  

Although, to assume that MUA's needs or only uses "special shots" made just for them limits the intention of the collaboration, IMHO. And to assume that just because images are re-touched or cleaned (as is done with every single fashion, beauty and celebrity shot published) it must somehow mean the makeup artist was not up to par, or should not be credited for there work, could be viewed as a very insulting comment. That's the equivalent of saying the model shouldn't get credit her work because you put fairy wings on her in post. That the wardrobe stylist shouldn't get credit because they didn't hand weave the fabric. The photog shouldn't get credit because a filter or light box or ring flash was used instead of natural light.

Everyone uses tools to improve their work. To correct uncontrollable factors in shooting. And there is a difference between editing a photo to change it's feel or intent and re-touching a photo to clean or correct it.

I guess without seeing the before and after I'm talking about it's hard for me to explain what "better" means without people assuming I mean "artistic differences". Unfortunately, posting that here could cause hurt feelings if the photog was sensitive to the criticism.

I do appreciate everyones thoughts on the subject though!! I have heard varying opinions on the subject here and with all my photog friends. Thanks so much for helping me out with this topic, much appreciated

Art Silva Photography wrote:
Just as a photographer and art director communicate during the project with the stylist, assitants and make up artist so does the person doing the retouching.
Not to sound harsh but stick to what you were hired for, it's a collaborative effort by all and communication is the key to make the final product acceptable by everyone on the job.

I totally agree with you!! Had I been hired I would not care at all what the images then was used for because my compensation had been paid. When its a free collaboration thought, I expect to be able to use an image of quality just like everyone else involved in the project. And to assume that just because it's being used for and MUA port that all I need is some cropped in shot with no effort made in processing to increase it's appeal is insulting.

When the photo posts the image raw right out of his camera and the model posts the shot of her just standing there before any "work" when into the shot, then I'll concede that MUA shots should not have any correction in post.

There is only some much imperfection makeup can cover, lol.

And I did ask, and mine is posted

MC Photo wrote:
Post your version for yourself and send a copy to the photographer. If  he likes yours more, he'll switch.

This

Except I would send the version to the Photographer first and get his consent to use the version you have modified. It's the proper form unless otherwise stated.

Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
That's the equivalent of saying the model shouldn't get credit her work because you put fairy wings on her in post. That the wardrobe stylist shouldn't get credit because they didn't hand weave the fabric. The photog shouldn't get credit because a filter or light box or ring flash was used instead of natural light.

Natural light and artificial light are part and parcel of photography.  Styling clothes is different than designing clothes.  A model in a composite image which has digital affects added still does his/her job.

All of which is beside the point.  Without a quantifiable or observable comparison of a yours-vs-his (I'm not saying we should get such a thing, just clarify the parameters upon which anyone provides advice), we can only speak in vague terms as to how you should handle it.  And with many people that is going to start with "How does what you've done enhance the photo?"  If you can't quantify and articulate that (not for us, but for him) then you'll have trouble convincing him to let you use it and use it himself.

Illuminate wrote:

This

Except I would send the version to the Photographer first and get his consent to use the version you have modified. It's the proper form unless otherwise stated.

I'm pretty sure she had permission at the time the image was made.

Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
Although, to assume that MUA's needs or only uses "special shots" made just for them limits the intention of the collaboration, IMHO. And to assume that just because images are re-touched or cleaned (as is done with every single fashion, beauty and celebrity shot published) it must somehow mean the makeup artist was not up to par, or should not be credited for there work, could be viewed as a very insulting comment. That's the equivalent of saying the model shouldn't get credit her work because you put fairy wings on her in post. That the wardrobe stylist shouldn't get credit because they didn't hand weave the fabric. The photog shouldn't get credit because a filter or light box or ring flash was used instead of natural light.

You can get as defensive about the issue as you like, but the problem remains. How much of your work is clean makeup and how much is retouching? As a photographer, it makes a HELL of a lot of difference to me when I'm hiring someone for makeup.

Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
I guess without seeing the before and after I'm talking about it's hard for me to explain what "better" means without people assuming I mean "artistic differences". Unfortunately, posting that here could cause hurt feelings if the photog was sensitive to the criticism.

Exactly. And it's convenient to hide behind the photographer's "feelings". You have ALREADY critiqued the photographer's work in your OP, so your hedge here is pretty damn interesting indeed.

Post the originals. Without that, no one here can really offer you an objective opinion.

Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
I asked permission if I could "practice" my skills editing with the image he gave me. I've learned, after working with too many GWC's that can't or won't edit, to develop my own re-touching/editing techniques.

Do you delineate between practice and intent to publish?

Sabrina Cayne  wrote:
I had his permission to edit it and I showed him the final shot that he liked, but I feel awkward posting the cleaner version. As one of the credited team members for the shot, I'd prefer my name being on the better image. Not as the editor but as the makeup artist and general collaborator for the shoot.

Again, prior to arriving at your "better version", did you ask the photographer for permission to publish the image to portfolio (or did you leave him under the impression that you were "practicing"?)

Seems to me that you want to call it a collaboration when it's convenient, but you want the lion's share of the credit (which may or may not be deserved.) If you want your cake and to eat it, too, open a secondary retouching account. Or start hiring your photographers and pay them - then you can do whatever you want with the images.