Just had to point out that many people in the biz got credit for these cool images. Art Directors, Art Buyers, Stylists, Makeup, Copywriters. Yes, Copywriters.

But, not one Retoucher is mentioned. Not one. sigh.

And this coming from a journal that features a monthly "how was it done" real life retouching process.

Benny, can I add you to a newsletter. It's purpose is to educate the masses. Pascal Dangin had a long but I think important write up in New York Magazine.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all

Gonna need your e-mail

Rich, you think that was an important article? I think it was fluffy for the New Yorker and read like all the others on Pascal. Look around, the last year is full of interviews with him.

Ant, wouldn't it be nice if we could all fluff a bit without risking bruising some egos or ultimately loosing that client. Remember the article in the Times 4 years ago when he categorically refused to talk about his clients because it would be bad for them. The tone is a little different in this one. Now I do admit that it was long as hell.

I'm having some fun showing that article around at work today. You should hear the reaction from high level retouchers. Envy? Maybe. But I'll bet Pascal is envious of some major accounts floating around town that pay a whole lot better than Annie.

Oh, BTW, I wrote a Letter to the Editor, Ms. Hughes, and she wrote a very nice response back about this problem. Maybe next year we'll (sweating and straightening tie, Rodney style) get some respect.

Ant, wouldn't it be nice if we could all fluff a bit without risking bruising some egos or ultimately loosing that client. Remember the article in the Times 4 years ago when he categorically refused to talk about his clients because it would be bad for them. The tone is a little different in this one. Now I do admit that it was long as hell.

That's true, I remember that article. Retouching in general is big in the public eye lately. (Can't believe they still use that airbrushing term so much)

Thing is, Pascal sells really well. He sold some of the right people and others jump on board. I know ad agencies don't like to deal with Box, but he's big with the big name editorial photographers that trust him and don't really want to deal with it. So, when they get an ad gig, he gets that as well. Funny, because he really hasn't even been around that long. We've been retouching nearly as long as he has, or more - you especially. He's become more of a respected art director and PR magnet for himself who happens to run a company that manipulates photos than anything else. In many ways, it's similar to the fashion industry in general - really makes a difference who's parties you go to and who you nuzzle up to.

I know that you and most of the people that we know wouldn't come near Box with a ten foot pole. Having said that, didn't Nickie, in the way back, do some time with him (like 10+ years ago?).

I noticed the absence Benny. Its not really surprising (to me I guess) though for them. I took out a 1/2 page ad in the PDN Photosource Studio Guide in 2006. Wasn't cheap. I think I was the only retoucher in there and they stuck the ad in the back among all of the classified ads. They never even returned calls for me to OK what they were doing with it.
They had the cojones to send an email yesterday too get me to run an ad again, as I was "a great part of it in the past".
And I wasn't even looking for credit, just clients. : )

As far as Pascal I give him credit. As much as I don't like to ( I have had to fix his studios work a lot in the past) he did pretty much get the retouching industry a huge boost. We both started retouching around the same time. He just happened to be in NYC while I was in Ct. As Ant said, the right place and the right people. And its not just Ad agencies that don't like to deal with Box. A lot of the major Mag Pubs don't either. I could go into more detail but its not right in Public.

I just wish some of the "fluff" would alleviate some of the huge misconceptions that the world has about retouching. BOth in how much is actually done and how it affects the "Youth" of today.

Chris

I find it almost a bizarre situation at times, this position we find ourselves in our profession. The public sees our work all the time, from billboards to magazine covers at checkout, and yet regard it with almost superstitious ignorance and awe. "We" get blamed for anorexia, and yet their appetite for Britney's latest train wreck is undeniable. I turn on my TV and see how the vacuous culture of empty headed celebrities rules our culture, so I understand how Pascal gets away with this crap. Did you read that article? Dear Lord, what a bunch of ___. And yet, in a very smart and hip town, he has a ton of people believing his stuff. Just imagine how it plays in Podunk.
Did he really give the industry a boost that it wouldn't have had? And what is he doing right now with this thing? I think he's hit a wall. Because people like you are better than him and cheaper, and less desperate.
Don't worry, sex always sells, beautiful people rule our fantasy world, so our profession is safe. They need us to fix things and make the world shiny and happy.

Dude I have thought a lot about this but that is just the business.. Does the Songwriter or Producer get all the Credit for the Super Star SIngers..
NO WAY.
Do you know who or in what studio the latest Madonna album was produced..
NO
It is just the nature of the business. I happen to be a Photographer and I retouch basically all my stuff. And That is just the way it is..
Maybe you should think of a Career change if you have gripes with the Photographers..
And I do not mean to sound harsh but that is just reality.
Retouchers where I live are getting Big $$$$$$'s for what they do.. getting close to what I charge for Shooting... Plus you want all the credit for the image..:+}
Like I said.. I think you need to get over it.. and fast..:+}
It is a little different for guys that are doing full Composites that looked like they come from another planet.. But for touch-ups like Annie's doing.. Forget it.. there a ton of retouchers out there that would do it with out getting their egos involved..
You know what I mean
Might be something to think about.
Snook

Snook

I can see where you are coming from.

However your examples are not that good.

Songwriters get credit listings on Song sheets, Lyric Sheets, Album covers and more.
Studios are also listed on wrappers for the cd's or album covers. As are producers, sound technicians, studio musicians, remixers, and more.

What Benny is saying is not new nor is it greedy. I am on the line about this as you will see in some of my older posts. I don't see it happening, but it would be nice if it did. I have seen some terrible photographs worked to death and ending up looking like something even the Photographer did not at first envision. In cases such as those it is clearly a collaboration between the two and in the majority of creative industries fair due is given.

Just a what if her to think about.

A photographer is hired by a ad agency or a Magazine to do a shoot for them. They tell the Photographer what they want and what they are looking for. The Photographer does a bang up job with the shoot and every one is pleased and thrilled at the results.
The raw materials are supplied by the ad agency/magazine art director and the Photographer makes them look nice together.

Shouldn't the Ad agency/Magazine get the credit for the image and not the Photographer? After all, all the Photographer did was put some life to the Agencies vision.

If not, then how is this different from a Photographer giving a raw file (or even a processed one) and handing it to a retoucher to make the Photographers vision become a reality?

Like I said, I am on the fence. I get credit sometimes and sometimes I don't. No biggie to me at this point in my career. I just like helping Photographers get further in their career.

Chris

Snook, I'm not asking for full credit. Where's you read that? But just a little. As I said, Copywriters got a mention on a few of those pix. Please.

And did you ever hang out in the theatre and watch some credits to a movie? Man, that's a lot of people getting credit. Including our equivalent, special effects and all that stuff.

Snook, if all retouchers decided to change their careers to photography, you would be whistling a different tune. However as an artist you decided to evolve and add that extra medium, image manipulation, to your arsenal because you realize the powers. Years ago I did a cover for the Face, a famous model holding a cat. Probably a day and a half worth of work for editorial rate. Swapped the cats head, fixed the girls posture, retouched skin evened out the background, fixed make-up, changed colors etc etc. On a Scitex, no layers! It was my first face cover so I ran to the store to pick up my copy when it released only to find that the cat and everyone else was mentioned in the credits but not the retoucher. Photography is pretty much one of the only creative industries that apply these methods of systematically suppressing acknowledgment of the collaborative element. For this however photographers are not to blame, we are. For not demanding.

Rich

I get credit occasionally. I just look at it as "that's cool" and move on. If an image you worked on appears in LeBook or other source book you often get credit; it's just not standard practice editorially. Then there are times when I'm made to do things I don't like or which in my opinion are over the top or just plain look stupid. In those cases, I want no mention of my name and am grateful for not being credited..

I think a better move would be to be included in some royalties/usage and or copyright when the image has been manipulated to such an extent that the original is nowhere near the end product or wouldn't have existed at all without the creation done by the retoucher.

It would take acknowledgement first before making such demands. That's why I thought the Pascal article was important as it ads to the general publics awareness. When people are more knowledgeable than these goals will become easier.
We do not have law on our side either because the altering of digital data and it's ownership are rather new.
It becomes easier when you create things from input that wasn't produced by the hired photog, like a background for example.
I recently used a stock image of ink in water to create a fire and smoke background, to go along with a product shot for a baccardi brand. I brought the royalty issue up to my client by via e-mail. Got a call a few minutes later saying "off course we were going to give you royalties for the background". Naturally this was a unique case, but if you do a lot of product ads this can occur quite often. So when in doubt ask. I'm thinking the disagreement with Snook might stem from the extent of his knowledge of our jobdescription, or lack of it. No disrespect to you Snook.

Rich

Snook

I can see where you are coming from.

However your examples are not that good.

Songwriters get credit listings on Song sheets, Lyric Sheets, Album covers and more.
Studios are also listed on wrappers for the cd's or album covers. As are producers, sound technicians, studio musicians, remixers, and more.

What Benny is saying is not new nor is it greedy. I am on the line about this as you will see in some of my older posts. I don't see it happening, but it would be nice if it did. I have seen some terrible photographs worked to death and ending up looking like something even the Photographer did not at first envision. In cases such as those it is clearly a collaboration between the two and in the majority of creative industries fair due is given.

Just a what if her to think about.

A photographer is hired by a ad agency or a Magazine to do a shoot for them. They tell the Photographer what they want and what they are looking for. The Photographer does a bang up job with the shoot and every one is pleased and thrilled at the results.
The raw materials are supplied by the ad agency/magazine art director and the Photographer makes them look nice together.

Shouldn't the Ad agency/Magazine get the credit for the image and not the Photographer? After all, all the Photographer did was put some life to the Agencies vision.

If not, then how is this different from a Photographer giving a raw file (or even a processed one) and handing it to a retoucher to make the Photographers vision become a reality?

Like I said, I am on the fence. I get credit sometimes and sometimes I don't. No biggie to me at this point in my career. I just like helping Photographers get further in their career.

Chris
You right probably but ad agency that I work with are always just ripping ads out of magazines and copying that.. Seriously!

I think if you have a "marriage" with a certain retoucher I could see your point a little.
And Agian that is if your both are creating something new or different.
But the basic retoucher, I do not see the point of even mentioning it..
There are a lot of guys that can do that... especially since the digital age where everyone is a photographer/Photoshopper....
Snook
Hope that makes sense.

Snook, what do you think is an appropriate way for a high end retoucher to show what he can do.

You right probably but ad agency that I work with are always just ripping ads out of magazines and copying that.. Seriously!

I think if you have a "marriage" with a certain retoucher I could see your point a little.
And Agian that is if your both are creating something new or different.
But the basic retoucher, I do not see the point of even mentioning it..
There are a lot of guys that can do that... especially since the digital age where everyone is a photographer/Photoshopper....
Snook
Hope that makes sense.

Agreed on all points here Snook.

Chris