marccee wrote:
Thanks, Anthony, for your reply.

I know, of course, that the fact that a photograph has been retouched, is often considered a "dirty little secret". I also do realize that the retoucher is almost never credited. But being credited is not what I am after...

Basically, what I'm trying to do, is leave a way to identify myself as a retoucher in cases where I have no control where the image ends up - without neglecting to also credit the photographer, the model, the make up artist etc.

Let's say, I send a finished work to a client, who then sends it to some agency, who then sends it to a designer, who then sends it to a proofing studio, who sends it... etc. If someone in that chain happens to like the image, they have no chance to trace it back to me.

I do know that that's not the way it's done. But isn't that the way it SHOULD be done?

In my opinion, the work you display in your port/website, it should be enough to represent you, and should not be a need of leaving a trace with your name on it.

Also, not sure if the photographer would be very happy about you tampering his images that way... at the end of the day, he owns the copyright and you either get paid for the job or normally/sometimes get credit for it... what else do you need?? :-)

marccee wrote:
I do know that that's not the way it's done. But isn't that the way it SHOULD be done?

What about the art director, stylist, MUA, assistant, digital engineer or model? Should they be allowed to add IPCT data? We could add a credit layer like the movies, then the food service, janitors and window washer, camera manufacture can be included.

Actually, if the work is good enough, people ask. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, retouch credits are not part of the norm even for editorial credits - where the stylist, MUA and designer get theirs.

Don't think it is a "dirty secret", just credit is not considered as normal.