[byRo]

A retouch aiming for a perfect final image without necessarily respecting complete semblance with the original subject.

This is the present definition and may be improved upon. If you have any suggestions or comments please post them in this thread.

[byRo]

A retouch aiming for a perfect final image without necessarily respecting complete semblance with the original subject.

This is my first atempt. The idea is to use the word "Retouch" as a base and add qualifiers. Comments and suggestions are, of course, most welcome.

I'm still looking for a good word for retouches that DO have to respect the original subject. I've used "cosmetic", but that doesn't seem to cut it.

Rô

[MBChamberlain]

These are the levels I use.

Enhancing - Changes made to parts of the image to draw attention to, or distract from details within the image. (Dodgeing, burning, partial or selective color correction.)

General Retouching - A variety of alterations that include the removal of temporary imperfections and anything visible to the camera, but not the naked eye, with the goal of showing the subject at their best. This respects the reality of the subject.

Glamour Retouching - Alterations intended to "perfect" the subject. All imperfections, whether temporary or permanent, are removed and, though the resulting image will resemble the subject, it will not be an acurate representation.

Mastering - Changes made to the image as a whole to perfect tone, color, and exposure.

I charge different rates for just enhancing and mastering than I do if they want general or glamour retouching.

Michael

[byRo]

Thanks Michael Very interesting.

I especially liked the distinction between "Mastering" and "Enhancing", hadn't thought of that.

So in sequence (time and $$) we'd have....
- Mastering;
- Enhancing;
- General retouch;
- Glamour retouch.
Where each will englobe the previous "level".

Not too sure about the word "General". Anybody have a word that implies that the final image "respects the reality of the subject"?

Rô

[MBChamberlain]

What about the word "Portrait"? Yeah, that is the order of the pricing. My list was in the order they get done.

Michael

[byRo]

Portrait (slaps forehead), that's it!

Yes, I did (sort of) understand that the list was in execution order. Thanks for making that clear.

When I said "englobe", I was thinking in glossary terms.
If I'm doing "Mastering" then I would be doing that and nothing else.
If doing Enhancing, that would include Mastering..
If ... etc...

So when I say "Glamour Retouch", my idea is that this includes all of the others.

Hope that makes sense.

Rô

[MBChamberlain]

Yes, but ideally an image must be remastered for each size if you want prints in different sizes (color tweaking, sharpening, contrast and the like change depending on print size.)

Michael

[briarrose]

Michael, can you explain to me why you'd need to remaster anything other than sharpening, for different print sizes? (Unless you knew you'd be printing to different printers, based on sizes--I could see more changes being needed then...) Not trying to be contentious--just genuinely curious... :-)

[MBChamberlain]

It has more to do with the likely viewing distance than a difference in printing. A 4x6 is probably going to be viewed from a close distance, whereas a 16x20 will be viewed from a farther distance. Having a slightly higher saturation and contrast makes it easier to see the detail from a distance. It is a slight difference mind you, and I have scripts that do the final mastering to various sizes, labs, even paper types. Mind you I only do the final mastering when they are going to one of the labs I use. When the client does the printing I do a general mastering that will look very good at any print size, on any paper, from any lab (McPhoto places like Wal-Mart and the corner pharmacy don't count as labs BTW). When I'm picking the lab, it is this little extra step that makes the photos really pop.

Michael

[briarrose]

That makes sense...I was wondering if that's the way you were thinking of. I'll have to have some test prints done, for comparison. Thanks for the excellent explanation!

(And yeah, I too, only do my final work just before I send 'em off to print--and then, specifically for wherever I'm printing to. I'm willing to believe McPhoto places aren't "real" labs, although I've never used 'em, so I'm being snooty on hearsay alone! ;-))

[byRo]

Michael, this is most interesting.

I was thinking, up to now, that by "mastering" you were referring to overall initial adjustments such as levels, white points, colour cast elimination, etc.

But the way you descibe it now is more like a small final nudge.

Or maybe there are two - Initial Mastering and Final Mastering?

Rô

[MBChamberlain]

I guess you do kind of split it up like that. I'd never really thought of them as separate, but, yes, initial and final mastering would be in separate places, but they aren't billed separately.

Michael