Peano wrote:
I think of retouching as comparable to cosmetic surgery, auto body repair, and home remodeling. To judge the quality of a finished piece of work, I'd like to see what it looked like originally.

+1

David Thorpe wrote:
When I look at a retoucher's port, the only way for me to see what you've done and not what the photographer or MUA has done is by before & after photos.  Without them, I really have no idea how good you are unless it's all composites.

Agree
and I knew this, just wanted to hear it from other people in the field!

I also agree that people in the field should be able to look at a retouched port and see what you've done and visualize how it looked before, but a lot of clients wont have this sense.

Mainly my concern was is it "ok" to have every image on you port a B & A,
There are no rules, just wanted opinions!

AKMac wrote:
....
Regarding photographer's permission. Most won't give it, understandably. And you should be considerate in your selections of examples from those who do. Very often an image which is very good to start with, can be made to appear less good when compared to the retouched result, and you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you by embarrassing your clients.

^^^^

If you are going to publish B/A, please use an appropriately processed RAW image as the before. For example, if the photographer shot a white balance card, please don't publish a before that is not color corrected. Take the 1 minute to make the image look as good as possible using the RAW converter, and then use that as the before.

That more accurately demonstrates what most photographers are paying you for.

FLEXmanta wrote:
My actual opinion is really that before and afters will only attract amateur clients.

I feel the same way about before/after images on the site. You get credibility by different means.

Now case studies are the totally different beast and it's the right place to show before/after images at if one decide to.

FLEXmanta wrote:
My actual opinion is really that before and afters will only attract amateur clients.

True, We have all been in this situation!!

Alexey Adamitsky wrote:
I feel the same way about before/after images on the site. You get credibility by different means.

Now case studies are the totally different beast and it's the right place to show before/after images at if one decide to.

Exactly, but case studies belong to rather huge visual projects such as CGI with compositing, creativity, etc. You can't do a case study like: Here she is, ugly, in an ugly photo, and this is what I've done to her. I'm a retoucher.

Case studies are usually a thing of the advertising side of the visual arts industry. That is so, because the process those projects go through, really is interesting for future employers to see, because it shows the solution provided to make an idea, a visual reality.

http://www.garrigosastudio.com/

FLEXmanta wrote:
Exactly, but case studies belong to rather huge visual projects such as CGI with compositing, creativity, etc. You can't do a case study like: Here she is, ugly, in an ugly photo, and this is what I've done to her. I'm a retoucher.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's harder to make good case study for retouched images yet not impossible. It will much shorter thought. Two things come to mind.

First you can take a project you worked on like for example beauty advertising campaign or advertising for a cloth brand. Describe your involvement in the project what others did and how you improved the final images with maybe sneak peak to raw files. Of course it will a pain in the ass to get a permission for showcasing unretouched images if not impossible

The second option will be to take a number of images from certain genre and make a case study of your work. Explain your workflow and thought process with showcasing before and after images. There are more options to be creative here.
While case studies are more difficult yet they would work much better in my opinion for those who wants to show before/after images in a clever way.

P.S. By the way if you're into advertising you really should have a look at Taylor James site. These guys use the power of case studies for 150%.

http://www.taylorjames.com/

Alexey Adamitsky wrote:
Yeah, I know what you mean. It's harder to make good case study for retouched images yet not impossible. It will much shorter thought. Two things come to mind.

First you can take a project you worked on like for example beauty advertising campaign or advertising for a cloth brand. Describe your involvement in the project what others did and how you improved the final images with maybe sneak peak to raw files. Of course it will a pain in the ass to get a permission for showcasing unretouched images if not impossible

The second option will be to take a number of images from certain genre and make a case study of your work. Explain your workflow and thought process with showcasing before and after images. There are more options to be creative here.
While case studies are more difficult yet they would work much better in my opinion for those who wants to show before/after images in a clever way.

P.S. By the way if you're into advertising you really should have a look at Taylor James site. These guys use the power of case studies for 150%.

http://www.taylorjames.com/

Exactly, but not for fashion or beauty. Such detailed explanation of how it was done only makes sense when the project was complex, and future employers need to know how you roll, so they can know what to expect when the time comes and they have to write a check.

Before and afters or case studies of standard photography retouching, are just entertainment for retouchers who visit your website.

I know Taylor James' studio. They're represented by the same company that represents the studio I usually work for when I do advertising.

http://www.digitalartstudio.es/en/proye … nso&id=NTI


Wanna know what a high end fashion and beauty retouching studio website looks like? Check out Velem.com. They're as important as it gets. Yes, Pascal Dangin's Box Studios is not the only important studio out there. Velem is far bigger than BOX. No images in their website.

My website is a good example of how an established retoucher's website should NOT look like. Too many images and too big images. Too much information. I used that website to get me where I am today. The time will come when I'll be able to afford having a blank website as well, but not yet.

What I'm trying to say is. If you do creative retouching and work on complex projects with interesting processes like the guys at Taylor James or Garrigosa, then, by all means, show the world how you work. If you're just a photography retoucher, like me, then rule number one is: Keep your website clean and elegant. Nobody needs to see the original images. Showing them will only show that you don't get that retouchers in fashion and beauty, who work with famous models, should stay unnoticed, behind the scenes, and should not make too much noise.

James Ogilvie wrote:
That's the risk.

Is this just your armchair guess? Or do you have any credible empirical evidence for this alleged risk?

Sorry, but I see this continually on this forum. Someone claims that "most people" or "most photographers" do such and such -- or "everybody" or "nobody" likes thus and such --  or "professionals" do X but only "only amateurs" do Y -- etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

My point is that all statements like these are empirical generalizations, and as such, they have zero validity if they aren't supported by empirical data (surveys, polls, etc.). Rationalist guesses made from the armchair don't constitute empirical data. They're just rationalist guesses made from the armchair.

/rant

James Ogilvie wrote:
It's passable, but he didn't fully respect the light sources and shadows - they don't quite match.  He shows the before and after, and reveals the sloppiness.

For the approximate value of that observation, scroll over to about the 26:30 mark on this video and check your opinion against that of a forensic expert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKJ6gP5lJY

Peano wrote:
Is this just your armchair guess? Or do you have any credible empirical evidence for this alleged risk?

Sorry, but I see this continually on this forum. Someone claims that "most people" or "most photographers" do such and such -- or "everybody" or "nobody" likes thus and such --  or "professionals" do X but only "only amateurs" do Y -- etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

My point is that all statements like these are empirical generalizations, and as such, they have zero validity if they aren't supported by empirical data (surveys, polls, etc.). Rationalist guesses made from the armchair don't constitute empirical data. They're just rationalist guesses made from the armchair.

/rant

Yeah, it's called an 'opinion'.  Your first clue should have been the first two words I used in my reply.

Was I supposed to provide something else?

Peano wrote:

For the approximate value of that observation, scroll over to about the 26:30 mark on this video and check your opinion against that of a forensic expert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKJ6gP5lJY

Holy shit dude - why the hostility?  It's just my fucking opinion.

Disagree if you like, I don't care.  But jesus.

James Ogilvie wrote:
Yeah, it's called an 'opinion'.... Was I supposed to provide something else?

Yes, at least some gesture toward factual support would be helpful. Absent that, an opinion is like .... well, you know how it goes. Everybody has one.

James Ogilvie wrote:
Disagree if you like, I don't care.

Disagree with what? An unsupported opinion is empty. There's nothing to disagree with.

Peano wrote:

Disagree with what? An unsupported opinion is empty. There's nothing to disagree with.

And therefore the opinion you gave as response #2 in this thread is equally empty?

Got it.

James Ogilvie wrote:
And therefore the opinion you gave as response #2 in this thread is equally empty?

No, I was stating my own personal preference: "To judge the quality of a finished piece of work, I'd like to see what it looked like originally."

I wasn't claiming that others share my preference. Do you really not understand the difference between a personal preference and an empirical generalization? Perhaps we've isolated the problem here.

Peano wrote:
No, I was stating my own personal preference: "To judge the quality of a finished piece of work, I'd like to see what it looked like originally."

I wasn't claiming that others share my preference. Do you really not understand the difference between a personal preference and an empirical generalization? Perhaps we've isolated the problem here.

The problem here is that you don't understand the definition of 'opinion'. You seem to think that because I 'believe' that others share my opinion that all of a sudden my opinion is invalid.  Well, sorry to break it to you, but the very first internet definition of 'opinion' I came across was: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

How do you get so far along in life without knowing the definition of such a common word?

Odd that you chose my opinion to harp on about given that others before me also expressed the opinion that before/afters are a mistake as well.


Look dude, I get messages all the time from people like you wanting me to pay them to retouch my work.  It seems almost every FR from a retoucher is followed up by a message looking for that.  So clearly retouchers here think I'm a potential client.

And as such, I'm just providing my opinion about what I think about what the OP asked.  Given that you're NOT a client but rather someone offering said service, you'd be well advised to listen to what potential clients think.  You can disagree with it all you like.  I just don't think it's exactly very tactful to shit all over someone for expressing their opinion.

But, you know, do your thing. Whatever. 

Last word is yours.  Have at it.

James Ogilvie wrote:
Last word is yours.  Have at it.

Semantics is the last refuge of a failed argument.

Peano wrote:
Yes, at least some gesture toward factual support would be helpful. Absent that, an opinion is like .... well, you know how it goes. Everybody has one.

Fascinating use of deflection to avoid incrimination!

Since the door has been opened to discuss semantics, I thought I would offer up a few words that some of you might argue over.

Narcissistic
Effeminate
Arrogant
Infallible
Pathological
Ineffectual
Effete

Robert Randall wrote:
I’ve worked for some fairly popular photographers, and I always felt showing before and after images would be a slight to their abilities, so I’ve never included them in any portfolio. As far as my own work is concerned, I’ve always felt that the final image I show is what I would like people to judge me by, therefore, I don’t need to show a before image.

That being said, I really like the direction in which Piano has taken this thread. I’m especially interested in the topic of semantics. For instance, using the linguistic form of semantics, basically interpreting signs and symbols in context, it could be argued that Piano called James an asshole in the following quote…


Fascinating use of deflection to avoid incrimination!

Since the door has been opened to discuss semantics, I thought I would offer up a few words that some of you might argue over.

Narcissistic
Effeminate
Arrogant
Infallible
Pathological
Ineffectual
Effete

The Invisible Touch wrote:
Not a fan of B/A as I think your client should be able to see your level by just looking at the end result.

The big problem is if you are good, clients can't tell what you retouched and therefore have absolutely no idea how good the retouch was.

I get that feedback all the time from clients and models I shoot, after showing them before and after or their own retouched images the typical comment is oh wow I didn't know how much you do to your images.

Peano wrote:
For the approximate value of that observation, scroll over to about the 26:30 mark on this video and check your opinion against that of a forensic expert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKJ6gP5lJY

If you go back and listen to what he said, you'll notice he said "people" don't care about shadows and such. The context was people in general, and it could be argued he was talking about the kind of people that buy tabloid rags at the checkout counter. I would argue that in the specific context of photographers or retouchers, his statement would be categorically incorrect. That's my opinion of your forensic experts conclusion.

And now for your rebuttal...


"Many children want to have the last word, of course, but here are eight types of adults who may always seem to need the last word. These are people who are:

know-it-alls
dense
stubborn
intoxicated
excited
always needing to be right
consensus-driven
conversation hogs
The most important thing to remember when handling a "last worder" is that the last word has no value in itself. When you accept this, you will experience less annoyance and a reduced temptation to battle over the last word."

Robert Randall wrote:
The context was people in general, and it could be argued he was talking about the kind of people that buy tabloid rags at the checkout counter.

No, that wasn't the context. Had you actually listened to what he said, you might have heard him say this:

"This is a good 120 degrees wrong. I mean it’s really unbelievably broken. And what’s amazing about this, and I do this for a living, is that when I first looked at it I didn’t notice. It was only after the cognitive exercise" [emphasis added].

I would argue that in the specific context of photographers or retouchers, his statement would be categorically incorrect.

No, in the context of photographers, retouchers, and even forensic image experts, his statement still holds. Farid isn't "the kind of people that buy tabloid rags." He is Distinguished Professor of Computational Science at Dartmouth College, and chair of Dartmouth's Neukom Institute for Computational Science. He specializes in image analysis, human perception, and has been called the "father" of digital image forensics by NOVA scienceNOW.

Revenge Photography wrote:
The big problem is if you are good, clients can't tell what you retouched and therefore have absolutely no idea how good the retouch was.

I get that feedback all the time from clients and models I shoot, after showing them before and after or their own retouched images the typical comment is oh wow I didn't know how much you do to your images.

Read below...

FLEXmanta wrote:
I think b&as give an amateurish feel to your website.

Any photographer who knows what he's doing, already knows what an original looks like. They don't need to see how many hairs you cleaned... they need to see the final color and the name of the photographer or publication that have trusted you with images.

My actual opinion is really that before and afters will only attract amateur clients.

This is exactly what I mean why you shouldn't use b/as

Peano wrote:
For the approximate value of that observation, scroll over to about the 26:30 mark on this video and check your opinion against that of a forensic expert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKJ6gP5lJY

And the reason ? no editor is going to spend a shed load of money to set up a shoot of these celebs/actors. Option ' picture library'.

FLEXmanta wrote:
It could not be easier to understand:

TYPES OF WEBSITES

-Begginer retoucher:
You need a website for people to know you exist. Your images will likely be not too good. You can't allow the bad quality of the images to hide how well you can retouch. Have example, lots of them, and maybe before and afters too.

-Established retoucher:
Have a website but get rid of all the amateur stuff. Only show your best work there. Show the covers and tearsheets. If the photographer you work for is also established, make sure his name shows. If there are big magazines in your portfolio, give them priority. If you have a couple top models in your portfolio, that is what you need to show.

-Established retoucher who retouches for famous photographers (Steven Meisel, Mert&Marcus, etc):
You don't really need a website anymore... If you want to have one, make it blank website with only some information. At most, only show the magazine covers, but I wouldn't. A blank website with contact information would be more than enough. When you work for Steven Meisel, part of your job is to keep it a secret.

God Omar... that's just a perfect explanation of reality!! +1