Carlie Lawson wrote:
Hey,

I recently worked with a photographer who (oddly enough) only provided me with un-retouched photos (not proofs, the full-sized images). I *can not* use them in my print or digital port this way. I messaged him, asking him if he'd like me to have someone else do the re-touch or if he wanted me to let him know which shots (3) I wanted done. I have had no response.

Basically, I wonder, are other models having this issue? I am accustomed to reading photogs complain about models who use the un-retouched photos in their ports. I am the opposite - I'd never do that and wonder why a photog would provide the un-retouched photos. IMHO, it would make us both look bad (i.e. unprofessional) to use them before the post-work has been done.

All the best,
Carlie

I had that happen once too.  And before he handed me the CD said, I think you'll really like them they turned out great!  That's what happens when someone else casts you for a project than the photographer.  He actually published some of those photos too and I will never understand that. 

Basically some people are idiots.  And I'm sure if you have a professional edit them he will say that they have been "ruined" by a lowly wannabe photographer.

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Hey,

I recently worked with a photographer who (oddly enough) only provided me with un-retouched photos (not proofs, the full-sized images). I *can not* use them in my print or digital port this way. I messaged him, asking him if he'd like me to have someone else do the re-touch or if he wanted me to let him know which shots (3) I wanted done. I have had no response.

Basically, I wonder, are other models having this issue? I am accustomed to reading photogs complain about models who use the un-retouched photos in their ports. I am the opposite - I'd never do that and wonder why a photog would provide the un-retouched photos. IMHO, it would make us both look bad (i.e. unprofessional) to use them before the post-work has been done.

All the best,
Carlie

We spend our time in the shooting,  and  do not retouch often..  But we do it when needed.     As you may notice  some magazine ads do not allow retouching..  part of the  advertising agreement..       The viewer gets the truth..

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Hey,

I recently worked with a photographer who (oddly enough) only provided me with un-retouched photos (not proofs, the full-sized images). I *can not* use them in my print or digital port this way. I messaged him, asking him if he'd like me to have someone else do the re-touch or if he wanted me to let him know which shots (3) I wanted done. I have had no response.

Basically, I wonder, are other models having this issue? I am accustomed to reading photogs complain about models who use the un-retouched photos in their ports. I am the opposite - I'd never do that and wonder why a photog would provide the un-retouched photos. IMHO, it would make us both look bad (i.e. unprofessional) to use them before the post-work has been done.

All the best,
Carlie

If your usage license doesn't restrict you from doing so, you can retouch them yourself.

I can't imagine a Photographer giving un-edited images to a client.

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Hey,

I recently worked with a photographer who (oddly enough) only provided me with un-retouched photos (not proofs, the full-sized images). I *can not* use them in my print or digital port this way. I messaged him, asking him if he'd like me to have someone else do the re-touch or if he wanted me to let him know which shots (3) I wanted done. I have had no response.

Basically, I wonder, are other models having this issue? I am accustomed to reading photogs complain about models who use the un-retouched photos in their ports. I am the opposite - I'd never do that and wonder why a photog would provide the un-retouched photos. IMHO, it would make us both look bad (i.e. unprofessional) to use them before the post-work has been done.

All the best,
Carlie

It also depends on what you mean by retouching (See thread https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=737284) and what your original agreement was.  If it were me, I'd certainly send him another message and/or give him a phone call to try to straighten it out.

As to your having them retouched, what you are allowed to do depends on both the venue and your agreement with the photographer.  Most retouchers won't (or at least shouldn't) do the work for you without permission to do so from the photographer.  You might want to look over your initial correspondence and your model release/usage agreement to verify what was agreed upon

Another example of why clear and complete communication among all parties before the shoot is essential.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
He probably doesn't know how to retouch a photo, so you're stuck with what you got from him.  I see that a lot from the photographers who say,  "I don't have to photoshop my photos because I'm so good behind the camera."  Gee, you would think the Pros that do all the high fashion magazines covers can't take a good photo and have to use photoshop to fix all their mistakes, ha, ha, ha.

Who are the amateur photographers like that trying to fool?

she must have liked his stuff before she shot with him

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

she must have liked his stuff before she shot with him

She must be a newbie, and doesn't know better.

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:

If your usage license doesn't restrict you from doing so, you can retouch them yourself.

I can't imagine a Photographer giving un-edited images to a client.

----
I do it all the time on TFCD projects.  I shoot RAW images for myself and, simultaneously small JPEGs for the model, which she gets unedited. They're normally fine for posting here.

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Actually, I had shot with him before. He shoots art. (He shot a few images for my book after we shot for one of his art projects.) He doesn't know how to do commercial/fashion re-touch. He knows the absolute basics of PS but, no more. He has now texted me permission to have a retoucher do the work so I can use the images.

He's a nice guy and terrific photographer. It turns out, he's just not used to retouching faces and I can't provide a raw image to my agency or print it for my portfolio.

Thanks again for the replies.

All the best,
Carlie

So you already knew

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Actually, I had shot with him before. He shoots art. (He shot a few images for my book after we shot for one of his art projects.) He doesn't know how to do commercial/fashion re-touch. He knows the absolute basics of PS but, no more. He has now texted me permission to have a retoucher do the work so I can use the images.

He's a nice guy and terrific photographer. It turns out, he's just not used to retouching faces and I can't provide a raw image to my agency or print it for my portfolio.

Thanks again for the replies.

All the best,
Carlie

Then I would suggest posting links to your favorite ones on the retouchers forum, and tell them that you have permission and they can use them in their ports as well as long as they give you the full sized edited ones.  A lot of retouchers like to have stuff to work with for practice.  Then just pick the best and use those.

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:
I can't imagine a Photographer giving un-edited images to a client.

Hmmm  I did about 10 years of high end fashion editorial and beauty before I ever retouched a photo....

here is an example....

120 film, exposed for highlights, developed for shadows, scanned and saved....



That said photoshop is a wonderful tool, but over used these days and in my opinion this strange estetic of over retouched images is counterproductive to beauty and character.

I so often find that when browsing websites and the portfolios here I will see thumbnails and think hmmm nice, then I open up the higher res (still screen res) and it looks lousy....

As far as models books go I completely ignore any images that are visably retouched.

Even when looking at retouchers before and after samples I nearly always find the model looks more interesting in the before shot. More alive, have a skin you feel you would like to touch etc. Of course I'm not talking about dissaster recovery retouching.

I think a lot of this comes from insecure photographers. It also comes from photographers not knowing their equipment and just not getting waht they should out of their film or sensor.

I find it interesting that the great photographer Peter Lindbergh is pretty vocal against this overdone makeup and retouching. It's also interesting to see that he is shooting his way for American Vogue.

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/03/ … for_v.html

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I don't touch models at all

That really defeats the purpose of becoming a photographer, doesn't it?

Carlie Lawson wrote:
I can't provide a raw image to my agency or print it for my portfolio.

Really?? How much do you want retouched? In my experience the agencies don't want pictures that are retouched much at all - I have several in my portfolio that are not retouched  (but used great light).
But, anyway, good thing that he's given permission for you to get them done to your liking:-)

Carlie Lawson wrote:
Hey,
I recently worked with a photographer who (oddly enough) only provided me with un-retouched photos (not proofs, the full-sized images). I *can not* use them in my print or digital port this way. I messaged him, asking him if he'd like me to have someone else do the re-touch or if he wanted me to let him know which shots (3) I wanted done. I have had no response.
Basically, I wonder, are other models having this issue? I am accustomed to reading photogs complain about models who use the un-retouched photos in their ports. I am the opposite - I'd never do that and wonder why a photog would provide the un-retouched photos. IMHO, it would make us both look bad (i.e. unprofessional) to use them before the post-work has been done.

First, I think you should define what 'retouch' is. Or some people refer it as 'edit'. Before the digital age, no models test shot ever had any done done on it, nothing.

Some consider edit as color and density adjustment, like myself. Some retouching work are nothing really matter, done and over with in 10-15 minutes while some retouching work takes 10 hours per image. So you need to specific what you are expecting from your photographers. I don't see anyone would spend 10 hours per image for every single one of your shots.

Barrett Graphics wrote:

That really defeats the purpose of becoming a photographer, doesn't it?

no

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

So you already knew

Um, no Churchill. He had done retouch on the art images I had shot with him last year but, it was a totally different type of thing. (He water colored the image then.) It turns out he just does not know how to do commercial style retouch.

Barrett Graphics wrote:
He is either lazy or he simply doesn't know how to retouch. Retouching is a skill that most, not all photographers possess.

If he won't respond to do retouching, there are scads of people on here who will do retouching for you, myself included.

Except you couldnt, without express permission from photographer.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Hmmm  I did about 10 years of high end fashion editorial and beauty before I ever retouched a photo....

here is an example....

1) nice shot
2) *loads roll of Neopan, drops few more in the bag* thats it.. i will blame you tomorrow, once i processed it..

Reality is - film is much much more forgiving to skin than digital. Digital is just way too sharp. Hence all the unnatural smoothing... Analog media seems to do it much better. But then again.. How much real post processing was done with film and in dark room.. good grief.. Standing them with masks, fingers smelling of fixer/developer.. Cup of cold cofee.. brushes with acid.. Yay..