So much talk of retouching the last year or so and TONS lately. Now The New Yorker is writing him up. Pascal still seems to certainly have quite a hold the market.

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

"“When I see a print, I could probably tell you if it was a Pascal print,” Charlotte Cotton, the head of photography at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, said. “It’s immaculate, and there’s a kind of richness to the pixellation. It feels like you could almost sink your finger into it.”"

jeez, that guy must have a ton of charm to get away with this stuff. But, you know, high overhead is a bitch during a recession.......

He does indeed have something. He knows how to get the media to come and write a story about him and retouching to keep him in the minds of others.

Something few of us can probably afford.

Interesting article, I almost got sucked in believing they guy has magical powers at one point. It's funny how people become so superstitious that they end up believing no-one else can do the job, when in reality there is probably some kid in russia who has just as much skill. It's like Vogue Italia with Steven Meisel; there are so many talented photographers out there, let someone else shoot the cover for once.........

Very long read, but a good one. Over-hyped, probably, but his clients sure are top of the line...

Very long read, but a good one. Over-hyped, probably, but his clients sure are top of the line...

Yes, but, edit doesn't pay nearly as much as advertising. I just can't imagine he's making very much money doing Annie's comps. That's a lot of hours.

He has cornered the market on the highest end work. He didn't do it through charm alone. Careful not to discount him. I would never work at his place, but if you do work there, you get to work on, potentially and depending on your level there, some of the living legends art.

Certainly there is hype, he seems to be excellent at that and us in the industry in NY don't buy all of it, but it's not like he does shoddy work.

Editing might not pay, but it's not about that. How many houses you work at that do all a photogs editorial for free, perhaps even capture for the understanding that when they shoot a big budget ad job that the house gets to do it? [ Greg Kadel The Veed? ] ;) All shops do that. You build a relationship. Photographers are notoriously neurotic. Pascal provides assurance of excellence, or at least conveys that feeling.

Oh, I agree that his stuff is great. But I'll bet he has, as I mentioned, overhead problems that won't go away. Big staff, glitzy building, PR agents and salesman. Both of which guys like you, Ant, and Cricket and others don't, but can still do the same quality work, probably better at times. We're now at a stage in this biz when someone with the right skills only has to invest 10-12 thousand dollars and find a nice dark room in even an apartment to work in, hook up to a broadband pipe, and they're in business. The only thing I see separating him and you is the hype, and, boy, he does that well. But the magazine business is slowly sinking into the morass that swallowed the newspaper biz, and they just don't have the budgets to justify him.

side note: I'm a long time subscriber to The New Yorker, and, I must say, I'm disappointed at them publishing such a puff piece - I know it's not the same New Yorker from the 50s, but still, it's a great read every week. But it is a Conde Nast rag, and Annie is a Vanity Fair star, so, I guess scratching of backs was involved.

they couldn't find a better picture? so cheeeeeeesy.....

BTW, there is a before and after in the printed version of this article that would be flipped by quickly by most managers looking through a portfolio. Not much to see there. That's the only other image in the magazine with this article.

People are now taking quotes from the article. Today on ad-age: a big huff over the fact that he said the Dove images were heavily retouched.

Funny.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=126914

People are now taking quotes from the article. Today on ad-age: a big huff over the fact that he said the Dove images were heavily retouched.

Funny.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=126914

That's a big deal.

If I hired someone to do a job, and the entire campaign was intended to be "real beauty", I wouldn't be happy about that person telling the world how fake it actually is.

I don't know the details of the legality... but I'm hesitant to show any before-and-afters. Besides, there are very few people in the world who should be able to speak the words "good retouching"... the majority of people shouldn't know it's happened at all.

The Dove campaign that he mentions is kind of lopsided anyway. It shows a lot of larger women but no one else. If you took a random sample of women walking down the street you can bet there would be a good deal women ranging from slim to heavy looking. Dove is showing the extreme on the other end. Equally as bad to me.
Their viral video showing such a extreme retouch is,I suppose, possible. I have never in my 25 year career as a retoucher seen anything done like this. Except to show what MIGHT be done. And usually as a joke.

Ant I'm not discounting him. I just wish that people looked past some of that fluff a little more or that he gives a little more credence to how retouching is wrongly perceived.

Chris

Most People like this guy are great at PR.
Which is whats missing from most peoples arsenal of talents
I know your going to say you need talent,But there are many talented people just as talented and maybe more so than this guy but you do not see anybody writing articles on them
WHY because this guy knows how to schmooz and do the smoke and mirror show thats why

You're right zganie. There is definitely a need to learn how to promote oneself. I have had plenty of interviews and magazine articles written about me, but I still am terrible at self promotion fluff. It isn't in my nature and I doubt that even a business degree will help me out with it.

And there are plenty of good, not great, retouchers/artists out there with way more business than I have because of it. Come to think of it, plenty of great ones also. But that is a fault of mine not theirs.


Chris

So here's the backlash of that article in the Daily News of today.
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx
Pay special attention to the first sentence.
As we're here stroking ourselves about how we might be better than Pascal, we are truly ignoring the message. Yesterday Snook said that we were well paid and shouldn't dare demand credit for what we do. Today the Daily News is saying that retouching is almost unethical and that we should stay in the locked-up basement. For those of you who consider yourselves artist I suggest rallying behind the man and coming to the defense of our profession. People who've just discovered the clone-brush do not apply. Annie claims that she strictly uses him as a printer, which I've heard from fashion photographers all the time. It's their way of saying we're dispensable.
Really want to know what you guys think.

R

Uh.. Rich. I not for a moment stoked myself about being better than Pascal. I have never seen his personal retouching work that I know of. I have reworked a lot from his shop and it may or may not have been his. I do know that he hovers a lot and the retouchers there have strict guidelines as to how to retouch images.

As to coming to his defense, I believe that I said that I just wish he would do something a little more to dispense with some of the real worlds misconceptions of retouching. If he was a little less mystical about what goes on with retouching in his interviews it probably could have helped stop the backlash that is happening. Not just in this article you pointed out but in others.

Annie by no means uses only him for her retouching, as do very few of his other clients.

Odd though that going back through some of his interviews over the years that Patrick and Annie seem to be mentioned the most, or are giving him credit for stuff.

What do you propose we do to help him out with defense? Or rather, defense of retouching. If you have read any of my blog posts you will have seen that I actually do a lot to alleviate what is being misinterpreted with retouching and perception of the media.

Still would love to know what you propose though.

BTW, I could not find the story from the link you supplied. Anything more direct?

Chris

Even though you might not be stoked, the general emotion his name invokes here in NY is one of envy. Many great photogs I've worked mentioned wishing his downfall to me. I've not only reworked box's stuff but directly competed with him on many luxury campaigns. For more realistic results they came to me and the sleek stuff went to them. In essence the high-end retouching industry is not very large.

I completely understand his reason for being mystical. When I used to work on a Scitex my clients never told me which tool to use to accomplish a certain result. But with everyone owning a Mac and Photoshop it will only be a matter of time before everyone claims to be a master retoucher. Go ask the grand chef for his recipe and see how he will react.

Annie and Patrick mentioning his name only means that they're confident and have a certain old school loyalty.

Now I've started a newsletter to reflect my opinion, some history and these type of conversations to educate my direct network. My neighbor who's a photog mentioned having an actual forum in her studio. Get some retouchers, photographers and maybe someone from the artist guild to mediate. And I did notice your positive contribution, and appreciate it.

You mentioned that your PR skillz are deficient, and so are mine. Obviously we're all a bunch of a-social fruitcakes for choosing to spend 8 to 16 hours a day surrounded by humming CPU's. I just came from a framing shop that's mounting my portfolio on mattboard, and the guy says have you ever thought about doing a show with the before afters. I said sure but it would be too delicate. So he brings up the daily news article and we spent half an hour talking about why we are kept under the radar. Then he says, why don't you get a PR person. You see were I'm heading with this.
We don't have agents, and since we don't work for large boutiques anymore we don't have sales people to buffer and protect our interests.

Yet here we are donating tips of the trade that took years to develop to not retouchers but photographers who don't want to give up any credit but would love to know how to do beautiful skin so they don't need you or me or Ant and Benny anymore. Great!!
I am starting to sound bitter, but I'd rather teach a talented art student my tricks so I can groom him and give him a job.

R

Found it on the home site Rich.

Its funny that the rebuttal article actually applies his comment to the wrong campaign by Dove.

Quote: :I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”

His remark was about the larger people ad, not the aging ad.

I wonder how many people would agree with Annie's comment that Pascal is primarily a printer.

Quote: ""Let's be perfectly clear," Leibovitz said in the statement. "Pascal does all kinds of work, but he is primarily a printer, and only does retouching when asked."

So my question now is, is he really doing that much retouching anymore? Or is the work of Box studio only being automatically attributed to Pascal. I have certainly seen this scenario before so it is possible.

Has he stepped out of doing so much retouching and only handles the occasional large campaign that gets some sort of limelight.

Chris

I think that he is somewhat a producer of images. Directing his staff towards the results he seeks for client and self satisfaction.

He is very known for his color treatment so there's some truth to Annie's statement of him being a printer. Excellent photographers can make those claims. Most others can't. Sometimes, in my case, I am the insurance for when a shoot goes miserably wrong.

I just want to know how he feels about being so called reprimanded in the press.

Referencing the Daily article: It probably is not the attention he would want to have. Annie's response is no compliment I would think.

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall".

k

Somebody please direct me to this article. What a weird site.

Multiple people having problems with that link. Here Google this:

daily news larry mcshane snap! &

Oh boy, this is going to be interesting. Betcha there's a lot of cell phones being shouted into all weekend in NYC. Annie doesn't want the world to know that she's no longer shooting full frame Tri-X or Ektachrome through a Nikon F anymore. Somebody get ready to land her work, although I heard just yesterday that she's a little late with payments...........

Benny,

Have you seen the video of the session with the Queen & Annie? It looked like she was shooting a Canon mk II 1ds. Those images appeared to be retouched. Color and background. I think you can find it on YouTube.

k

Mr. Tarantino,

I am a fan of your and Ms. Amy Dresser. =)

Rich,

Your portfolio is rad too. I've visited your website and good grief! Awesome retouching. =)

--Ron

I think that he is somewhat a producer of images. Directing his staff towards the results he seeks for client and self satisfaction.

He is very known for his color treatment so there's some truth to Annie's statement of him being a printer. Excellent photographers can make those claims. Most others can't. Sometimes, in my case, I am the insurance for when a shoot goes miserably wrong.

I just want to know how he feels about being so called reprimanded in the press.

Benny,

Have you seen the video of the session with the Queen & Annie? It looked like she was shooting a Canon mk II 1ds. Those images appeared to be retouched. Color and background. I think you can find it on YouTube.

k

Hey, you know and I know what the modern tools are. But what I'm saying is that some photographers want the world to think that what's exposed is what the world sees. Think about it - has Annie ever talked about her retouching much, or even at all? This is all very threatening to them, yet, at the same time, separates them from the past. Real devil's bargain.

I can completely understand the advantage to be able to sell yourself... and the fact that someone who can talk a great game, but might not have the same ability, might get the work...

maybe I'm misinterpreting... but why worry about any misconceptions about retouching? I assume we're referring to the general public, correct?

Anyone that you might get work from has an understanding of how important this stage is. I doubt that there is a single thing that could convince someone in the industry (any industry involving retouching) to think otherwise.

Anyone that has a misconception, whether it's that retouching contributes to a false sense of perfection, or I don't know, whatever it is... I'm not sure how to finish this thought, but I like to think that in general, our work should be unnoticed, and I guess I'm saying we should be as well... That's not to say you shouldn't be recognized for your work, you will be, but within your industry... The target audience is not your target audience.

I do not think retouching is unethical,commercially that is your selling a Product,and the people of that product want it to look its best.That said:I think there are a lot of sloppy photographers out ther that do not learn there craft.Think its not so?Think about this wedding photographers shooting 3000 photos (or more) do you think when film was used they were doing that,think of the cost.Thats just one example and I know there are many more.The other problem is Restoration people are not restoring photos I have brougth this up before changing backgrounds making people look younger etc... Sorry NOT RESTORATION thats why some of the Photographers I talked with have a problem with people touching there photos

I do not think retouching is unethical,commercially that is your selling a Product,and the people of that product want it to look its best.That said:I think there are a lot of sloppy photographers out ther that do not learn there craft.Think its not so?Think about this wedding photographers shooting 3000 photos (or more) do you think when film was used they were doing that,think of the cost.
I think your argument is sound and valid. However I can say that yes, some wedding photographers shot 1000s of images on film before they had digital. I can cite at least one example from my own personal experience where week after week for years there was a lady that would bring in a minimum 30 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm film for every wedding she did - during her busiest times it was 3 - 4 weddings a week. Maybe she's not an example of the typical pre-digital wedding photographer but it was the norm in my experience. There were other wedding photographers I would see regularly (most shot less than her but they sucked as photographers compared to her IMO) but I would say she was the most successful one that came to the lab I worked at. The cost went way down with digital so more photogs could afford to shoot more pictures... and the profit margins for photolabs was impacted heavily as well... and those wedding photog's margins went way up while their free time probably went down as most of them did their own retouching and in essence took over the role that was once played by the photolab ;)

Back on topic:
http://jezebel.com/386922/french-photo-retouchers-dont-let-famous-women-get-fat

I think it makes for an interesting topic. And am curious to see how the New York media will continue to roll with this. The question of ethics does seem to rise from skeptics and the general public, so were does that leave us. Are we illegal peddlers of the societal ills.
I fully agree with Benny in that what the world is made to believe is not pure photography. And that the term photographer is limited and misleading as well. Here's an interesting quote from the article that VideoSean linked to. Thanks Sean.
-Collins also seems almost resolutely disinterested in exploring Dangin's role in perpetuating unrealistic standards of beauty and when a photograph ceases to be a photograph and becomes, what Redbook editor Stacy Morrison once said, "an image"-