Masters of color photography. 2006 advertising nominees

Should be of interest to members here. Labeled as photography, however there is quite a good deal of retouching here of course. For those that aspire to be retouchers and those that wish to be inspired.

http://www.thecolorawards.com/2006presentation/gallery/photoshow/nominations/3_advertising/index.htm

Thanks for the link. There sure is some beautiful work there.

My favorite concept listed on that page --
My favorite (http://www.thecolorawards.com/2006presentation/gallery/photoshow/nominations/3_advertising/pages/04_15_23_Schurman_Greg_Fishy_Idea.htm)

No "skin" to worry about, either... ;)

Stuff like this REALLY annoys me. IMO, nominees for photography competitions should be sans retouching - or at least do their own.
It just isnt fair. For example - take Luminous Lily 'by Kate Turning' http://www.amydresser.com/pages/luminlily.html - the straight out of the camera picture wouldnt be winning any awards for 'master of colour photography'. The end product bears very little relationship to actual photograph that was taken. The lion's share of the work was done by Amy Dresser and yet she doesnt even get a mention

Photography is a collaborative effort. Without the photograph to work on, the retoucher has nothing. You see the name of the model, hairstylist, makeup, clothes stylist, assistant, digital tech, studio? The photographer or ad agency works closely with the retoucher to acheive the desired result. I seriously doubt it was the photographers art direction that drove the concept even - most likely an idea of an AD. Your annoyance is misplaced.