So, as I was downloading some music tonight, I noticed Carrie Underwood's album cover. It's disturbingly overtouched in my opinion, and considering it's a high level job, it just surprises me.

Since the rules of the board are to not post copyrighted photos, I will link to the largest version of it I can. I'd like the opinion of others. Am I being too picky, or is this actually considered well done? I don't mean to criticize, I'm just trying to learn what is considered to be good in the professional world!

:right: See the album cover here (http://www.continental.com/web/format/img/travel/entertainment/airwaves_carrieunderwood.jpg)

Hi mellyrose,

Covers are not stand alone they are allways among each others in the shop so i think good cover what you can recognise in bulk when You looking on. I make lots of book covers a year, i think what gives the cover existence the contrast does.

anyway i think it's a well retoched picture

saby

You must keep in mind that you are viewing a jpg. Also, this art was produced for multi use, meaning that while it may be her album cover (cover is key here as a cover of a magazine is treated the same way while the images on the inside may be less 'done') it will also be used for posters and point of purchase displays. Who knows, it may be a billboard as well. And, all art directors are not the same. The art director may wish it to be more done than normal and only until he/she is happy will it then get sent to the client (artist and the artist's pr person) for comments and approval. Look for a poster and see if there is more to be seen.

For the record, it's too done for my tastes also, but at least it's well executed for the most part.

Not to my taste either, but as Ant said the retoucher will have been working to a brief and therefore the final result is what fills that brief.

No use producing a fantastic, subtle, realistic end result if that's not what's been asked for.

The essence of being a pro (not that I am one), is to give the client what they want, not what you want.

The essence of being a pro (not that I am one), is to give the client what they want, not what you want.

I agree on that Gary, But in this case maybe the designer is a pro retoucher, but a amateur designer, i noticed that there is left over from the masking on the top left corner (flower)...

it looks terrible, and very unprofessional...

I agree on that Gary, But in this case maybe the designer is a pro retoucher, but a amateur designer, i noticed that there is left over from the masking on the top left corner (flower)...

it looks terrible, and very unprofessional...


…i'm sure that was intentional aesthetic.

I agree that it looks intentional. I guess that besides the flat feeling to her skin, something about her eyes just doesn't sit well with me. I see some green tint around the edges, and I think the irises are oversaturated...borderline demonic.

But, I do agree that what the art director wants, the art director (and the client) should get!

The essence of being a pro (not that I am one), is to give the client what they want, not what you want.



That is the kernel of retouching


A picture/cover can be well done when the client gets she/he want. We can talk about our experiences.

saby

A picture/cover can be well done when the client gets she/he want. We can talk about our experiences.


--i started out in the design/art direction field, and quickly became tired of trying to sell great concepts to bs clients. It sucks when you have an entire team with many years experience in a field and you work hard on great creative and it gets turned down by a client with minimal experience in that field.

Retouching also became more challenging and fun to me, i got to use my "eye" a little more and just had fun with the work.

i'm not the oldest, or most experienced in advertising, but does it bug anyone else how easily the title Art Director is obtained?? i remember ppl working for a few yeas getting the title JR. AD was a big deal, now its like everyones an AD.....and forget about Creative Director... i see 20 something CD's around now and im like you gotta be kidding me.

in my experience, most all covers are a bit overdone, more as a result of how many hands it passes through and how much attention it gets, than any one person's preference

between the art director, the photo editor, the photographer themselves, the stylist, fashion editors, and everyone else by the 8th round of retouching it can't help but look over-retouched. each person feels like they need to add/change something and they go through as many rounds as possible till the last minute of the deadline (most times many days past it), cause if anyone sends something back with the words "looks perfect! don't change a thing!" they feel like they're not doing their job

big business, go figure

"looks perfect! don't change a thing!" they feel like they're not doing their job

that statement couldn't be any more true.

--i started out in the design/art direction field, and quickly became tired of trying to sell great concepts to bs clients. It sucks when you have an entire team with many years experience in a field and you work hard on great creative and it gets turned down by a client with minimal experience in that field.

Retouching also became more challenging and fun to me, i got to use my "eye" a little more and just had fun with the work.



Same here. I used to do design in marketing, and no matter what concepts and designs you liked, they were likely to get shot down by someone who had no eye for what looked good, etc.

**

With retouching, I usually am either left to do what I see fit within certain parameters, or I will sit with the subject (since 95% of the time I am the photographer) and do a retouch of one photo with them, so I know what they want touched and what they don't. This way, I'll know in the future how far they want the photos taken.

Also, regarding the overdone look of album covers...I wanted to mention another one I saw last night within the same 10 minutes I posted this thread. Gwen Stefani's new album, The Sweet Escape, is definitely not natural looking, but I think it suits the style for an album cover (see below).

I still think, no matter what the CD might have wanted, Carrie Underwood's cover looks mediocre.

jill greenberg shot the gwen album cover

I think it's fabulous....and like I said, even though it's certainly not natural looking, it suits the style for that album.

as a retoucher, i've lost count of how many photos i've turned in as final versions that i personally thought looked terrible, but that's what the client wanted

i've also lost count of how many art directors i've wanted to strangle, or stab in the throat with my stylus

this is becoming a funny thread, because we're working with design/marketing people right now who just pitched a bunch of ideas to us, and quite frankly i think they all stink, and i don't know how to tell them nicely

i have very minimal design experience, but i know what i like. and i'm the client

jill shot the gwen cover, but jill didn't retouch it...amy dresser did...the amy dresser retouching is awesome...

the underwood picture is ok, i hence of picture, positure and the clisjee of smiling in this type of angel as well...they wanted a sweet young, american, next door girl and that is what they got...but remember one thing! This picture is not meant for retouchers,,,,it's meant for the consumers...people who don't spend hours upon hours finding flaws and correcting bad photos...we don't see pictures as they are...we see what we can change, manipulate etc...i would judje her music instead of the cover...remember, boys and girls, don't judge the book by it's cover!!! :D


Gerry