Frances Jewel wrote:
retouchers are not the only ones on this site being insulted, she thinks she is a model as well. https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=875501

Was that necessary?

Sorry, didn't see the mod note til I posted.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
Yeah, she can use other programs, just like I can shoot a Rebel and get good results. But, as a potential client, I want to know that the professional I am hiring has the equipment and expertise to meet my needs, and I guarantee I speak for the vast majority of my peers. You know it, and I know it.

You indicated she couldn't use other programs to get the same results. I took issue with that falsehood.

I also find your 'guarantee' to be quite unlikely; I certainly don't "know it". The majority of the photographers I've retouched for didn't care what I used, as long as I could provide them with the resulting images in the form(s) they required--I can only recall two who even asked.

Providing someone with reasons for your beliefs is quite helpful, while mocking someone for beliefs different than yours is not.  As noted earlier: are you trying to help them, or prove (tho whom?) that you are better than them?

Kevin Connery wrote:
[meta]

Shot By Adam wrote:
Don't confuse rudeness with honesty.

Don't confuse honestly with rudeness, either.

Choosing to be rude is one choice. Choosing to be honest is another, entirely independent choice. If you choose to be rude, ask yourself: are you also being honest? Or are you merely using it as an excuse to put someone else down?

Choosing to be rude and (theoretically) honest is generally the best way to get the person receiving the (theoretical) "advice" to ignore it.

[/meta]

Golden Era Photography wrote:
"May I ask why a retoucher has to use Photoshop???"

The fact that you asked that sums it all up. You're clueless about retouching, but call yourself a retoucher.

Then please answer his question, instead of calling him names. Why do you believe a retoucher has to use Photoshop? Why do you believe that question makes him "clueless about retouching"?

Golden Era Photography wrote:
"Photoshop is not the only program out there."

For professional retouching, it is absolutely the industry standard.

You're disagreeing with something he did not write. Right or wrong, it's silly.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
"I don't understand it, I can use other programs and get the same results."

Do you honestly believe that?

I would expect he does. I believe it myself. I also recognize that it will take a lot more work, and probably half a dozen or more other programs to get there, but that's different than believing that only Photoshop can do things.

People have been doing effective retouching in Photoshop since version 2, and almost every $30 or more imaging package available today, and a lot of free ones have more capabilities than it did. (v1, in my opinion, was a great file converter, but since that's why I bought it, it wasn't a problem.)


Not mutually exclusive. Whether or not he is being rude doesn't somehow make your behavior less rude.

Her not he, LOL

ME_ wrote:
Look, people who are getting all snippy about this, she's a beginner. Unfortunately there isn't a category here for "beginner retouchers" or "hobby retouchers" - so marking oneself as a "Retoucher" brings inevitable comparisons to pro retouchers on the Krunoslav and Natalia level. There are all kinds of retouching between Kruno and absolute zero and there are plenty of people out there in the world who don't need or want Vogue-quality pixel-level frequency separation. Maybe the OP is going to end up working with those people.

I too think she would be well served by learning either PS, PSE, or GIMP; but the fact is there are plenty of people who only want pictures run through Portrait Professional or to have some mass-produced filters applied over them. There's just not a profile category here on MM for that. Cut her a tiny bit of slack. Calling herself a retoucher is no worse than the people calling themselves "photographer" who really would be better served by calling themseves "Button Presser" - but there's no category on MM for that.

Agreed. Let alone this is MM, its social play land with fairies and unicorn poo, not professional.

She doesnt need to keep getting a beating.


However OP do what it takes to learn PS. Slow learner or not just take the time you need to grow your skills. Practice, practice, practice. There are so many free videos on the net. Thats how I learned how to use it.

MMRetoucher wrote:
Again it's funny, everyone assumes I planned on using just that program. In one of my posts I said I would not just use Portrait Professionals. I was only asking what people thought of the program and if they have heard of it/used it. Why did this post end up so personal and about me supposedly using it and only it.

I never assumed anything. I just commented on your statement that PS is too hard for you to learn.

Yes, it's true you can use several other programs to retouch images. The reality is, no matter what other programs you use, PS should be a tool at your disposal, and one that you know how to use well.

There is so much free tutorial help on youtube, and CS2 is free right now...I just can't imagine why you wouldn't learn it if you are an aspiring retoucher.

Kevin Connery wrote:

You indicated she couldn't use other programs to get the same results. I took issue with that falsehood.

I also find your 'guarantee' to be quite unlikely; I certainly don't "know it". The majority of the photographers I've retouched for didn't care what I used, as long as I could provide them with the resulting images in the form(s) they required--I can only recall two who even asked.

Providing someone with reasons for your beliefs is quite helpful, while mocking someone for beliefs different than yours is not.  As noted earlier: are you trying to help them, or prove (tho whom?) that you are better than them?

I said PS is the INDUSTRY STANDARD. That's true, is it not?

You find it unlikely that her potential clients would want to know she has the equipment and expertise to do the job?

As for you not being asked about your equipment/software, it's because your port speaks for itself. I wouldn't question you either. Your work is stunning. I am not going to get into comparing portfolios between her and anyone else, but she admits that she is just learning. I think I gave her sound advice when I said PS is the industry standard and she should learn it, and not rely on automated software like Portrait Professional.

She said PS is too hard to learn. If you don't find that odd for a retoucher to say, then we simply have very different viewpoints and will likely never agree.

I feel like I gave her a very realistic viewpoint from a potential client's perspective, while you make excuses for her.

MMRetoucher wrote:
I actually use a program called Photofiltre. It's free and easier to understand then Photoshop. For me I am slow learner, and trying to learn Photoshop will take me a lot longer to learn then most people. I feel Photofiltre works pretty much the same way.

Most likely I will end up learning how to use Photoshop. I really want to, I am just afraid it will be hard to figure out. Until then I use the program I know and understand.

This is a website I made, so I can post more of my work.
https://modelmayhemretoucher.iconosites.com/

Yes it might be harder to learn but there are so many tutorials on the web that can help you out try looking into that once you do get the program and it will get easier as you go

robert christopher wrote:
Her profile says

Some experience

And for pay she lists tfp

Hardly presenting herself as a professional retoucher

Well I was told by other people in a forum I am not good enough to say I have more experience, or charge people. I wish people would make up there minds. Do I say I have a whole bunch of experience and charge for it or not??

MMRetoucher wrote:

Well I was told by other people in a forum I am not good enough to say I have more experience, or charge people. I wish people would make up there minds. Do I say I have a whole bunch of experience and charge for it or not??

Stay with TF till you grow your skills. Good luck!

KA Style wrote:
Stay with TF till you grow your skills. Good luck!

Thanks very much.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
I said PS is the INDUSTRY STANDARD. That's true, is it not?

Absolutely. You used that as an answer to a completely different question, but it's absolutely true.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
You find it unlikely that her potential clients would want to know she has the equipment and expertise to do the job?

That has been my experience working for many commercial and retail photographers. The only times I've been asked about the software I used was in context of when they asked what they should get. (I recommended Photoshop CS to one and PP Elements to the other, if it matters.)

Golden Era Photography wrote:
As for you not being asked about your equipment/software, it's because your port speaks for itself. I wouldn't question you either.

Exactly my point, though I disagree about my portfolio; it's mid-tier at best. But there's nothing in it that couldn't be done in GIMP, and  little that couldn't be done in Elements, Pixelmator, or any of a dozen other tools...if I were willing to spend 3-10+ times the effort.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
She said PS is too hard to learn. If you don't find that odd for a retoucher to say, then we simply have very different viewpoints and will likely never agree.

As noted, the category includes novices and masters, with most being between the extremes. How many times do 'photographers' ask about what aperture to use, without any qualifications? (OK, they get some abuse too. But not this much.)

Golden Era Photography wrote:
I feel like I gave her a very realistic viewpoint from a potential client's perspective, while you make excuses for her.

Not at all. Read what I wrote. Bursting exaggerated claims isn't excusing.

Do I think someone can become a good retoucher without some effort? Not at all. Do I believe someone can become a very good retouched without Photoshop? Absolutely. Would I recommend that approach to someone who planned on doing retouching at a professional level? No bloody way; possible doesn't mean optimum--but neither does doing something less efficiently equate to being unable to do it, either.

Portraiture, Portrait Pro, and their ilk are legit tools. (Or can be, if used with more finesse that their ads demonstrate.) They're not substitutes for PS, but they can be good adjuncts.

robert christopher wrote:
Her profile says

Some experience

And for pay she lists tfp

Hardly presenting herself as a professional retoucher

MMRetoucher wrote:
Well I was told by other people in a forum I am not good enough to say I have more experience, or charge people. I wish people would make up there minds. Do I say I have a whole bunch of experience and charge for it or not??

MM, he's saying that you are hardly claiming to be a "pro" super-high-level magazine retoucher - you're clearly stating that you are willing to work for trade and are trying to gain experience - and so people should stop ragging so much on you for not having PS and for not having learned it yet. No, do not say you have a whole bunch of experience - you don't. As for charging, there is a worth to everything. If someone wants to pay you for the level of work you are doing, then great.

The problem would be if you are saying you can provide high-level magazine-quality retouching and charging for that kind of work, and then providing work done with the basic level of skills that you currently possess. That would be misleading and dishonest. But it doesn't appear you are doing that so the way you have your profile now is fine. Keep on practicing and eventually you will get better and things will get easier.

MMRetoucher wrote:

Thanks very much.

You're are welcome. Just keep practicing! Stalk Youtube so many PS videos there!

Fast learner or slow learner makes no difference, practice and wanting to keep learning is what does.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Golden Era Photography wrote:
I said PS is the INDUSTRY STANDARD. That's true, is it not?

Absolutely. You used that as an answer to a completely different question, but it's absolutely true.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
You find it unlikely that her potential clients would want to know she has the equipment and expertise to do the job?

That has been my experience working for many commercial and retail photographers. The only times I've been asked about the software I used was in context of when they asked what they should get. (I recommended Photoshop CS to one and PP Elements to the other, if it matters.)

Golden Era Photography wrote:
As for you not being asked about your equipment/software, it's because your port speaks for itself. I wouldn't question you either.

Exactly my point, though I disagree about my portfolio; it's mid-tier at best. But there's nothing in it that couldn't be done in GIMP, and  little that couldn't be done in Elements, Pixelmator, or any of a dozen other tools...if I were willing to spend 3-10+ times the effort.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
She said PS is too hard to learn. If you don't find that odd for a retoucher to say, then we simply have very different viewpoints and will likely never agree.

As noted, the category includes novices and masters, with most being between the extremes. How many times do 'photographers' ask about what aperture to use, without any qualifications? (OK, they get some abuse too. But not this much.)

Not at all. Read what I wrote. Bursting exaggerated claims isn't excusing.

Do I think someone can become a good retoucher without some effort? Not at all. Do I believe someone can become a very good retouched without Photoshop? Absolutely. Would I recommend that approach to someone who planned on doing retouching at a professional level? No bloody way; possible doesn't mean optimum--but neither does doing something less efficiently equate to being unable to do it, either.

Portraiture, Portrait Pro, and their ilk are legit tools. (Or can be, if used with more finesse that their ads demonstrate.) They're not substitutes for PS, but they can be good adjuncts.

Kevin, you're on target 100%.  Photoshop isn't the only game in town though it's an industry standard tool.

1.  The reality is that many people like that  Barbi doll look. I dislike it very much.

2.  More fancy the professionally re-touched photoshop look. I like it better than the Kewpie Doll plastic look, but the reality is that it's just another (very) fake looking application to the skin.  It's just unrealistically-textured-fake as opposed to ridiculously-smooth-fake.  #1 looks fake.  #2 looks fake.  People are arguing over which is the more "professional" fake!     (friendly poke in everyone's ribs)

3.  Many CLIENTS do not like either.  They want tags and blotches removed, and a reasonable 'clean up' of their face, horrible veins tamed, etc.; They wish to look human and they want to be captured as they look at that age, at that moment.  I subscribe to the idea that "real" doesn't often go out of style.

4.  Professional photographers world over are using Portraiture (etc.) as an augmentation to PS, and obviously they tailor it to their needs/client demographic.

I think the OP's question and curiosity was far more reasonable than many of the responses given in return.

Best in photography to everyone.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
Hi, I'm a doctor! I have no training, no medical equipment, and no knowledge of medicine, but if you have cancer I will treat you.

Already exists. It's called "Homeopathy" and people pay billions of dollars for that nonsense.

Kevin Connery wrote:
When I hire a photographer, I do so on the basis of whether I believe he/she can do the job: not whether they have specific tools. And I don't care if "Uncle Harry" has a 1DX while the guy I hired might be shooting a Rebel, so long as they can do the job.

Then, to be perfectly honest, you haven't got a clue how to hire someone to do a job. You just do not. If I am hiring someone to shoot a wedding for me in a church with no flash and they tell me they can get the job done with a Rebel and a kit lens, I have to draw the conclusion that their equipment, regardless of what they say, is incapable of doing the job. Furthermore, hiring anyone who says otherwise is a clear indication that they do not possess the body of knowledge to know good work from bad nor know how to effectively use what gear they actually do have.

Having great skills only goes so far and if the equipment being used to match those skills is not of professional standards then all the skill in the world is irrelevant in this conversation. You wouldn't hire a professional construction worker to build you a road using a teaspoon, would you? You wouldn't hire someone claiming to be an eye doctor who's only tool was a switchblade, would you? Of course not.

If someone out there wants to learn retouching using Portrait Professional or Paint Shop Pro and can make some images look really nice, all the power to them. But when I'm footing the bill for anything, I want that person to not only know their shit, but also be able to have the tools to accomplish quality work as well.

Can you hire someone to dig a hole for a swimming pool with a soup spoon? Yep. The question is, what would ever possess you to want to?

Shot By Adam wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
When I hire a photographer, I do so on the basis of whether I believe he/she can do the job: not whether they have specific tools. And I don't care if "Uncle Harry" has a 1DX while the guy I hired might be shooting a Rebel, so long as they can do the job.

Then, to be perfectly honest, you haven't got a clue how to hire someone to do a job. You just do not.

I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

Shot By Adam wrote:
If I am hiring someone to shoot a wedding for me in a church with no flash and they tell me they can get the job done with a Rebel and a kit lens, I have to draw the conclusion that their equipment, regardless of what they say, is incapable of doing the job. Furthermore, hiring anyone who says otherwise is a clear indication that they do not possess the body of knowledge to know good work from bad nor know how to effectively use what gear they actually do have.

I also find your use of such a ludicrous strawman argument to be disappointing: do you believe what you wrote in any way relates to what I wrote?

Honestly, it's silly. If I believe they can do the job with a handful of flashcubes and a point-and-shoot, it's because I've seen enough evidence to support that belief. I don't give a hoot what they claim, and nothing I wrote indicated that.

There's a very subtle difference between "I believe he/she can do the job" (what I wrote), and 'someone I absolutely don't believe can do the job says they can' (which is what your response boils down to). Perhaps you can find it if you look carefully.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Can you hire someone to dig a hole for a swimming pool with a soup spoon? Yep. The question is, what would ever possess you to want to?

I'm not in any hurry, and they can do the job sufficiently well at a cost that makes the huge delay worthwhile? It's as silly an answer as you can get--which makes it match the question for humorous value.

Golden Era Photography wrote:
This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. It blows my mind that anyone here would defend this girl's statements.

She said she doesn't use Photoshop because it's too expensive (CS2 is free right now, and elements is cheaper than Portrait Professional...the very program she asked about in her OP. And, she said she just can't learn to use Photoshop...yet, there are a billion tutorials all over Youtube, many of which have helped me to learn.

I never said PS was the only program a retoucher, or anyone else should use. I use Nik plug-ins, as well as Portrait Professional myself. I use them to augment my PS workflow on some of my images.

Do I think a retoucher should be using automated programs like Portrait Professional? I guess I don't care what they use on my images as long as they look great in the end. But, I also think that relying solely on programs like these is far too limiting to truly get the best results.

I can say this because I use these products, and I always have to do additional work in PS...and I am NOT a retoucher. I retouch my own photos, but a dedicated retoucher should have skills that I lack.

She said PS is too expensive. Free is as cheap as it gets (CS2), so that excuse is invalid. She said she can't learn to use it. Tutorials are abundant for those willing to take advantage of the generosity of others who have taken time to make the videos, and spend the time practicing. That excuse is also invalid.

What is she left with when you remove the excuses? Laziness? Buy an automated program like Portrait Professional and I guess anyone can be a retoucher.

I have CS6 Master Suite, the entire NIK suite and Portrait Professional, and have spent years working to improve my retouching skills, yet I would never presume to call myself a retoucher.

But, that's just me.

Are you dense? I can get Photoshop CS2 for free, but I am using a borrowed computer until mine gets repaired. I also never said I can't learn it, I said I am a slow learner. I have tried using tutorials for Photoshop and it confused me. I am sure I will learn it, but you are really getting annoying. You are putting words in my mouth, and making me sound stupid. I don't get what your problem is with me. I simply asked a damn question about a program. THAT WAS ALL. Yet you still nag me and talk crap.

Oh and I again never said anything about it being the only program I would use. Should I go back and quote everything I said to prove a point??

MMRetoucher wrote:
Has anyone heard of this program?

Ok I am done here.

The "Ok I am done here" program has only been available in its beta version, which by now I guess you've mastered.

David Nelson Photograph wrote:
I use Portrait Professional Studio Edition or OnOne Perfect Portrait on virtually every portrait.  PP allows me to do in 5 minutes what would take me 30 minutes in Photoshop.  PP allows you to use any portions of it retouching, you can vary the amount, you can turn off various options, etc.  Typically I use the skin softening, enhance the iris and thin the face a little.  My clients love the look.  You can create any type finishing you want, you can smooth the skin and leave the freckles, etc.  I had a client who had a scar over the eye she wanted preserved, because it was her, so I used PP to smooth the skin did the other eye enhancements and then used the restore brush to bring back the scar.

You could do much of the same with automations in CS 6,but why bother.

+1...

Photoshop by itself for Portrait retouching is way too slow and time consuming. I have used PP since version 8 and am quite happy with it. The only gripe I had was when they changed the program interface. Portrait Professional Studio Edition is a rocking product and the folks that sell it have outstanding customer service.

descending chain wrote:
I think a lot of people are not happy with the OP.  She clearly does not believe that anyone should actually have to learn how to do their job before they set up shop, and that pisses people off.

I am surprised though, that nobody has looked at her portfolio.  It is clear from that her before shot was already retouched by someone else.  A quick trip to TinEye showed that to be the case.  Her retouch was stolen from dannysatc on deviantart.

Not convinced those are the same retouches, don't look quite the same to me. Might be my eyesight though.

Which retouch are you saying she copied?

Edit: It is obviously already retouched though, i just don't think its that one.

descending chain wrote:
I think a lot of people are not happy with the OP.  She clearly does not believe that anyone should actually have to learn how to do their job before they set up shop, and that pisses people off.

I am surprised though, that nobody has looked at her portfolio.  It is clear from that her before shot was already retouched by someone else.  A quick trip to TinEye showed that to be the case.  Her retouch was stolen from dannysatc on deviantart.

No it wasn't.  It's different.
EDIT:  Yes the before photos has already been retouched, but she didn't steal it from the photo you linked.  She retouched it more.  His "after" photo is not her "before" photo.

ME_ wrote:
Look, people who are getting all snippy about this, she's a beginner. Unfortunately there isn't a category here for "beginner retouchers" or "hobby retouchers" - so marking oneself as a "Retoucher" brings inevitable comparisons to pro retouchers on the Krunoslav and Natalia level. There are all kinds of retouching between Kruno and absolute zero and there are plenty of people out there in the world who don't need or want Vogue-quality pixel-level frequency separation. Maybe the OP is going to end up working with those people.

I too think she would be well served by learning either PS, PSE, or GIMP; but the fact is there are plenty of people who only want pictures run through Portrait Professional or to have some mass-produced filters applied over them. There's just not a profile category here on MM for that. Cut her a tiny bit of slack. Calling herself a retoucher is no worse than the people calling themselves "photographer" who really would be better served by calling themseves "Button Presser" - but there's no category on MM for that.

like the person said above, it isn't the idea that she is a beginner and somehow inferior that is the problem, its the fact that she is looking for a shortcut so she doesn't have to learn it.

C Benjamin Design wrote:
like the person said above, it isn't the idea that she is a beginner and somehow inferior that is the problem, its the fact that she is looking for a shortcut so she doesn't have to learn it.

She doesn't "have to" learn "it," by which I take it you mean Photoshop. Many people are perfectly happy with pictures run through Portrait Professional and that's it.

She only has to learn PS if she wants to provide the kind of retouching that can only be done through use of PS. If she has no customers who want that kind of retouching and doesn't plan to get them, then she doesn't need to learn PS at all.

descending chain wrote:
I think a lot of people are not happy with the OP.  She clearly does not believe that anyone should actually have to learn how to do their job before they set up shop, and that pisses people off.

I am surprised though, that nobody has looked at her portfolio.  It is clear from that her before shot was already retouched by someone else.  A quick trip to TinEye showed that to be the case.  Her retouch was stolen from dannysatc on deviantart.

Just so you know I didn't steal a freaking retouch photo. The before was posted here in the forums and the person was asking for it to be retouched, so I did. Don't go saying I steal others photos.