pixel dimension ilusion wrote:
Natalia Taffarel

Why?

FLEXmanta wrote:

Why?

cause she is cute and have a sexy accent

FLEXmanta wrote:
Why?

Koray wrote:
cause she is cute and have a sexy accent

Not only that. She is just sexy with a fiery personality.

I should rename the title, top retoucher I want to date in the world. 

FLEXmanta wrote:

Why?

She explains things well in her seminars not just I did this I did this ect.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

She explains things well in her seminars not just I did this I did this ect.

So she's a good retouching scene personality and a good teacher you mean. And you happen to like her.

R G wrote:
http://glossstudio.com/

Yeah, I'm familiar with their work.

Here are some more:

http://www.theshoemakerselves.net/
http://www.touchdigital.co.uk
http://www.morph-retouch.co.uk
http://solsticeretouch.com/
http://carrienyc.com/
http://www.retouchinghouse.com/
http://www.laboutiqueny.com
http://www.canttouchthisinc.com/
http://blankdigital.com
http://primaryphotographic.com

I can't remember the name of the studio that used to work for La Chapelle, they have a black website, but I have no idea what their name is. They're based in NY.

Also, there is this fantastic woman based in UK, but I can't remember her name, she has a typical name something like Emma retouch dot uk or elizabeth retouch dot uk, she did fabulous things for Vogue portraits.

EDIT: Found her http://www.stelladigital.com/

Australia has some great publications, I wonder if anyone knows great retouchers from down under?

P.S. Here are some retouchers that aren't into reality, but it is still obviously retouching, not CGI or anything of that sorts:

http://www.happyfinish.co.uk
http://www.studiobased.com/
http://www.monicachamorro.com/
http://www.redfishblack.com/
http://www.omarjosef.com/
http://asiriscreative.com/
http://amydresser.com
http://redlanternstudio.com
http://www.qstudiosinc.com/
http://sebastianreuter.net/

I wish to see some more names, maybe some I haven't heard of?

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Yeah, I'm familiar with their work.

Here are some more:

http://www.theshoemakerselves.net/
http://www.touchdigital.co.uk
http://www.morph-retouch.co.uk
http://solsticeretouch.com/
http://carrienyc.com/
http://www.retouchinghouse.com/
http://www.laboutiqueny.com
http://www.canttouchthisinc.com/
http://blankdigital.com
http://primaryphotographic.com

I can't remember the name of the studio that used to work for La Chapelle, they have a black website, but I have no idea what their name is. They're based in NY.

Also, there is this fantastic woman based in UK, but I can't remember her name, she has a typical name something like Emma retouch dot uk or elizabeth retouch dot uk, she did fabulous things for Vogue portraits.

Australia has some great publications, I wonder if anyone knows great retouchers from down under?

P.S. Here are some retouchers that aren't into reality, but it is still obviously retouching, not CGI or anything of that sorts:

http://www.happyfinish.co.uk
http://www.studiobased.com/
http://www.monicachamorro.com/
http://www.redfishblack.com/
http://www.omarjosef.com/
http://asiriscreative.com/
http://amydresser.com
http://redlanternstudio.com
http://www.qstudiosinc.com/
http://sebastianreuter.net/

I wish to see some more names, maybe some I haven't heard of?

Not anyone is making a difference between a photographer and a designer? Most of your examples are photographers and if you shoot your own stocks almost all photographers can create easily and good quality.

FLEXmanta wrote:
So she's a good retouching scene personality and a good teacher you mean. And you happen to like her.

I'd say everyone that meets her has a liking for her. Highly motivated and has the drive that inspires people.

Marieljn wrote:
I love http://www.christophehuet.com/ along with his ASILE-paris team.

I know him, but he has crossed the line into graphic design. and it is no longer in the same league.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

I know him, but he has crossed the line into graphic design. and it is no longer in the same league.

Christophe Huet is a real master and he is 10 leagues above then "your leagues".
He is top retoucher , not graphic artist.
You are young in this field and sometimes is hard to realize what is top photography and which master in composite work you have to be to produce top files.
Simple "fashion retouching" with D&B steps and color grading with curves which you can see on  blogs and magazines can do every better talented medium level   retoucher .
By default if you are "fashion victim" ( I don't speak about "you personally" ), everything you see on some blogs or magazines for you can be "top work" , even medium level files with amateur level of work , from photographer up to retoucher, which you can see these days in industry.
But to make master files like Christophe's files, that is really another league of retouching.

Best,
ST

Jakov Markovic wrote:
Okay. I am a fashion obsessed. But when something is no longer a portrait, it is no longer retouching. Simple as that. He is amazing, don't get me wrong, but I would never buy a magazine that is filled with that much fantasy. Nor would I buy clothes that are advertised that way.

He can do "just retouchng", but it's obvious that most of his work is advertising, and that's what comes to mind when I think of him.

A cake is great. Cake that has an interesting shape is even better. A cake that needs led lights, and moving parts, and the music, and the fireworks, and the dancers going around it... well the cake isn't that good if it needs all that; is it about the cake anymore?

How you mean when something is no longer a portrait , it is no longer retouching?
High end fashion retouching with real high end fashion files ( no ordinary cheap editorial shots from streets or solid background covered with color grading ) means amazing scenery with real high fashion backgrounds.
That is high end fashion photography - amazing dresses,amazing costumes ,amazing models, amazing styling, amazing backgrounds , amazing scenery.
Everything else is less or more ordinary fashion photography photographed on streets or some cheap/free locations with cheap production for editorial submission to magazines and blogs.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
When the graphic design takes over the expression, the pose, the moment, the scenery, it becomes illustration, advertising and design, and is no longer photography.

Retouching is done on photos, Illustration makes the photo. There is nothing wrong with illustration, but it isn't retouching.

Style is the right measure of things.

I sure don't think Kadel, Meisel, Sundsbo etc are "cheap", and I've listed the studios that work for them.

I didn't say that.
Some of them are iconic photographers.
Just I said that you are new in this field and you watch things through "eyes of young fashion victim" .
Whatever you see or read somewhere from fashion industry or blogs you think that is the best.
If you want to learn photography , you have to open your eyes and to realize what is real master photography and which are real master retouchers.
Christophe is one of them.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
I have a LONG way to go... and while skill and style may and should be combined, it is quite clear that many demonstrate only one of the two... while ALL my examples demonstrate both, and I stand by it.

And I am not talking about photography, I am talking about retouching in all the above.

Illustration != Retouching

Retouching = Photography
Illustration = Drawing

About which illustration and drawing you are talking about?
Where you see illustration and fake drawing in top retouching with composite work?
I think you don't even see the difference between powerful composite work and fake illustrations and fake digital art.
In realistic composite work there are no fake drawing or any fake illustrated work, everything is with real elements ( or in some cases, very very rare CGI elements which are 1:1 real like real photography)
That's the difference between master retouchers and other retouchers.
If you spend 1/2 hour on Christophe site you can feel what I am talking about, his files are with real touch, they look like  straight from camera.
By the way a lot of files which you can see on sites or blogs which you visit  are done in composite work , but you don't realize that , because there are no before/after samples and you are not retoucher to realize that, you think they are straight from camera.
I can send you links from at least 10 fashion Ad campaigns for brands from this year which are done with composite work, But I won't do that, try to discover that alone, that is one of the ways how to learn photography.

Best,
ST

Joseph Chen NY wrote:
Who do you think are the top 15 retouchers in the world? (art and technic wise)

Is this a popularity contest?

As ST mentioned above, high production value is important, but technology is making it more and more difficult to justify the expense. You can add a lot of things to the environment, without shipping animals or flying to exotic locations.

In the purist sense of the word, retouchers make the photo look its best, without changing much of the content.
The best are likely to remain unknown to the general population, because they are stuck in the world of corporate cubicle farms in third world countries.

ST Retouch wrote:
About which illustration and drawing you are talking about?
Where you see illustration and fake drawing in top retouching with composite work?
I think you don't even see the difference between powerful composite work and fake illustrations and fake digital art.
In realistic composite work there are no fake drawing or any fake illustrated work, everything is with real elements ( or in some cases, very very rare CGI elements which are 1:1 real like real photography)
That's the difference between master retouchers and other retouchers.
If you spend 1/2 hour on Christophe site you can feel what I am talking about, his files are with real touch, they look like  straight from camera.
By the way a lot of files which you can see on sites or blogs which you visit  are done in composite work , but you don't realize that , because there are no before/after samples and you are not retoucher to realize that, you think they are straight from camera.
I can send you links from at least 10 fashion Ad campaigns for brands from this year which are done with composite work, But I won't do that, try to discover that alone, that is one of the ways how to learn photography.

Best,
ST

He is a photo manipulator/illustrator. One of the best in the world. NOT A RETOUCHER.

Never have I said that compositing is bad, or that any of the techniques he uses are bad, I have said that it is illustration, and it is illustration.

I'll continue to be inspired by the interviews and editorials in the likes of Vogue, Dansk, Numero, V, Interview, LOVE, Vanity Fair etc. thank you very much.

They're the best because they're the best.

I'm trying to explain the difference in taste between portrait and illustration, and why his work is suited for advertising, not portraits, but you're not ready to hear it. So I give up.

P.S. I hope someone visits all the links I've posted, there is some good retouching there.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
He is a photo manipulator/illustrator. One of the best in the world. NOT A RETOUCHER.

Never have I said that compositing is bad, or that any of the techniques he uses are bad, I have said that it is illustration, and it is illustration.

I'll continue to be inspired by the interviews and editorials in the likes of Vogue, Dansk, Numero, V, Interview, LOVE, Vanity Fair etc. thank you very much.

They're the best because they're the best.

I'm trying to explain the difference in taste between portrait and illustration, and why his work is suited for advertising, not portraits, but you're not ready to hear it. So I give up.

P.S. I hope someone visits all the links I've posted, there is some good retouching there.

If you call Christophe  illustrator and not retoucher, my GOD what I can tell you.
It is really funny to discuss about these things.
Definitely you don't see the difference.
You don't see the difference between top high end composite work and fake digital illustrations and fake drawing which you can see on some sites and profiles  where kids play around with files
You think that you know the job and if you think so, I am good with that.
Stay with your favorite  "online blogs" and read post on blogs and buy magazines only with files and covers  from solid white backgrounds ) or in special cases captured on the street  or local park , or on local sea beaches with cheap speed lights where shooting is free
This is real high fashion photography, believe me:)
All the best on your journey.

Best,
ST

ST Retouch wrote:
If you call Christophe  illustrator and not retoucher, my GOD what I can tell you.
It is really funny to discuss about these things.
Definitely you don't see the difference.
You think that you know the job and if you think so, I am good with that.
Stay with your favorite  "online blogs" and read post on blogs and buy magazines only with files and covers  from solid white backgrounds ) or in special cases captured on the street  or local park , or on local sea beaches with cheap speed lights where shooting is free
This is real high fashion photography, believe me:)
All the best on your journey.

Best,
ST

Well, I'd take white over cheap looking computer rendered castle with butterflies, thunder and what not any day. It's called style, and quality has nothing to do with a price sticker.

As far as cars go...he is a retoucher if he retouches an image of a car. If he renders the image, he is a 3d modeler.

I compare everything to analogue. The fact that everything is done on the same machine, and that many programs serve different disciplines, doesn't mean that those same disciplines no longer exist.

I wouldn't call pin-ups a photo discipline, as they are illustrations, being based on a photo or not.

WHEN THE FOCAL POINT OF THE IMAGE IS NO LONGER A PHOTO, BUT THE FINAL LOOK, THAT IS ILLUSTRATION.
Illustration is not evil, it's not bad, it's not horrible, it's not forbidden and when done right it both amazes and amuses, Christophe's work comes to mind strait away. And don't get me wrong, he did do a lot of retouching, it's just not who he is anymore, he went beyond.

Yes, many photographers are credited in illustrations simply because their photo is featured in the illustration, but the digital artist is the one who also made it happen.

And as far as style goes, anyone that would take a pimped up ride over the stock Bentley has none.

MnPhoto wrote:

Is this a popularity contest?

As ST mentioned above, high production value is important, but technology is making it more and more difficult to justify the expense. You can add a lot of things to the environment, without shipping animals or flying to exotic locations.

In the purist sense of the word, retouchers make the photo look its best, without changing much of the content.
The best are likely to remain unknown to the general population, because they are stuck in the world of corporate cubicle farms in third world countries.

+1

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Well, I'd take white over cheap looking computer rendered castle with butterflies, thunder and what not any day. It's called style, and quality has nothing to do with a price sticker.

As far as cars go...he is a retoucher if he retouches an image of a car. If he renders the image, he is a 3d modeler.

I compare everything to analogue. The fact that everything is done on the same machine, and that many programs serve different disciplines, doesn't mean that those same disciplines no longer exist.

I wouldn't call pin-ups a photo discipline, as they are illustrations, being based on a photo or not.

WHEN THE FOCAL POINT OF THE IMAGE IS NO LONGER A PHOTO, BUT THE FINAL LOOK, THAT IS ILLUSTRATION.
Illustration is not evil, it's not bad, it's not horrible, it's not forbidden and when done right it both amazes and amuses, Christophe's work comes to mind strait away. And don't get me wrong, he did do a lot of retouching, it's just not who he is anymore, he went beyond.

Yes, many photographers are credited in illustrations simply because their photo is featured in the illustration, but the digital artist is the one who also made it happen.

And as far as style goes, anyone that would take a pimped up ride over the stock Bentley has none.

As an outside observer with no dog in this fight, you seem very judgmental and prone to relying on labels. In my experience, artists do not normally exhibit those qualities. So, I’m left to wonder what the point of your argument is.

FLEXmanta wrote:

Why?

cause she understand color,ilumination and shadows  and has an bag full of technieks and her d&b is of the hook