Master Retoucher

[Ant]

bri775. While at the beginning everyone was retouching in CMYK, most retouchers today work in RGB. However, I often find myself in CMYK when it comes to client supplied, sometimes previously retouched imagery where either going from CMYK to RGB and ultimately back to CMYK, albeit our own CMYK, would degrade the image and/or the file contains certain colored elements (primarily blue and green) that are very important and will suffer the most from conversion from RGB in the color department.

I understand prepress working exclusively in CMYK as that makes perfect sense.

KR1156, yeah people must be sick of that here. A master retoucher is just that - well rounded, quite experienced and should be able to do the simplest of tasks as well as the not so simple with equal end results. That includes masks.... AND COLOR!

[KR1156]

i used to work mostly in cmyk, bc our files were usually supplied by the clients, some already in circulation, but needed fixing, or things cloned or moved around.

then when i started working with beauty/fashion stuff, i learned rgb very well and love it. i love working on a file in it's rarest form, rgb to me is just so much easier.

i haven't had that much experience with going in & out of cmyk/rgb like Ant was saying, but recently i helped someone on a story for elle, and the photog shot these really bright colored clothing and such, and some of the objects were blue, green, purple......anyway it was amazing how much the photog pushed to blow out those blues and greens, bc you know they'll never reproduce that way in offset w/out pms. so i recently saw the story in the magazine, i couldnt wait to see the blues and such, but at least they have a great rgb file!

[BodegaGo]

i was trained to retouch in CMYK, but now work in RGB almost exclusively, which is easier/faster to me

at this point i'd guess 30% of retouching studios primarily use CMYK, the other 70% use RGB, with more moving to RGB as the industry moves away from film and towards digital capture

another thing i've noticed that gets queer when going back and forth between the two color modes (aside from brighter blues and greens) are the quality of the blacks, things sometimes get muddy and there's a loss of detail. but maybe that's just our printer

[superkoax]

bri775: Okey, just to in short words what is the pro's towards retouching in CMYK? I've enver retouched there, I'm not a pro...just wondering

Thanks

Gerry

[bri775]

One of the huge advantages is having a black channel to work with. other than that it's probably better to correct in RGB for the larger gamut. It's just a matter of what tools you're used to using...It will just take some time for someone like me to adjust. It seems to me that smaller moves are needed when adjusting in curves in RGB. For instance to remove a yellow cast in skin tones could potentially be a large move in CMYK without a drastic result. Whereas removing a yellow cast in RGB would take a smaller move in the blue channel to get the same end result. That's just what I've noticed in my limited work in RGB on skintones. I could be wrong however...

[Benny Profane]

If a house is/isn't working in RGB yet, it probably has a direct correlation to their ability, and fear of, color management. Everyone will eventually, but old habits die hard.

Avoid curves in RGB. I use a stack of other functions, but curves are just too wacky.

I've been reading this recently: "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace" and I'm intrigued, and would like to explore this technique more, but it's hard when all the corrections I do for 50 hours a week is in other spaces.

[pixelzombie]

why do you consider curves too wacky?

[Benny Profane]

Did you ever try to put a reluctant cat into a bag of some sort for a trip to the vet? That's what I equate working in curves in RGB, as opposed to a friendly dog who just jumps into the back seat for his trip (CMYK).
I feel like I have no control, no fine tuning ability. Just jumps all over the place.

[pixelzombie]

that's a shame, i luv the fact that can control contrast and color casts from 1 dialog box.....curves are definitely 1 function that every retoucher should know...

[Graphics23]

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

I've been reading this recently: "Photoshop LAB Color: The Canyon Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace" and I'm intrigued, and would like to explore this technique more, but it's hard when all the corrections I do for 50 hours a week is in other spaces.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Did you ever try to put a reluctant cat into a bag of some sort for a trip to the vet? That's what I equate working in curves in RGB, as opposed to a friendly dog who just jumps into the back seat for his trip (CMYK).
I feel like I have no control, no fine tuning ability. Just jumps all over the place.

RGB, CMYK, LAB. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Having command of all three color modes means one has many more opportunities for image manipulation. See this tutorial for more ideas.

I think of CMYK as a tack hammer. It allows for finer control. This is because each channel has less to do, since their responsibilities are split over four channels rather than three. But it means if you need bigger moves you have to use greater effort.

RGB is the carpenter's hammer. It's a good general purpose tool. Besides allowing for smaller file sizes, some Photoshop features only work in RGB and some editing moves yield better results in RGB, most notably channel blending.

LAB is the sledge hammer. If you find RGB curves hard to control, you ain't seen nothin' yet! LAB curves are capable of asking for colors which are completely outside of the visible spectrum, never mind out of gamut for printing or display on screen.

But the point is, knowing how to utilize the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of all ten channels makes for a more capable and versatile retoucher.

Regards,

Michael

[dvaught]

Personally, I prefer to work in CMYK because that is how most of my shops images will end up printing. It does me no good to see a color on screen that looks good but is not reproducable in print. Working in RGB is fine, but you have no control over the conversion to CMYK when it goes to print. For instance, how do you achieve a black only shadow working in RGB. During conversion to a 4c profile it breaks it up among all channels. Get that file on press and your image looks to cool you might push magenta or pull cyan, but then your shadow goes pink. CMYK gives you more fine tuning adjustability over color for images going to press. I am open to changing and will likely begin doing most retouching and major color moves in RGB, then convert to CMYK for fine tune color correction. Just my .02

[musicman_bmh]

strange question for the pros...do you find that most photographers are giving you quality images to work with, or do you find that they are seriously lacking many of the qualities that make good photos, causing you to have to "make" them look good. I only ask because i am more of a photographer than a retoucher, and I am concerned that alot of well known photographers have amazing portfolios only because they have great retouching. People like Annie L, or Jill Greenburg, where would they be with out their retouching team?

[pixelzombie]

it depends on how much the agencies want to pay, i've seen some very crappy images supplied(from applebees) to the shop i used to work for while other agencies might have a bigger project and can afford better photography...speaking of Annie L, i used to scan her transparencies(they were dupes) that she shot for conde nast and the lighting and exposure were always top notch...

[Benny Profane]

heh.

This has been knocked around before here in another thread. I forget where. I remember Chris Tarantino starting a argument about how retouchers get no credit at all for what sometime is a LOT of major work on images.

I think that digital has recreated some new boundaries in thinking by creatives and salespeople that didn't exist before. What I mean is, with film, it was pretty much what you see is what you get, to a certain extent. But with digital shooting and post production ("don't worry. we'll fix it in post"), some think anything is possible. Or, they can ask for pretty much anything, with either a plaintive plea or a stern threat, because a lot of times a good retoucher can do it at a reasonable cost. I've been working on some fine China the past week that was shot digitally by a hack. Just awful pictures, that I'm guessing cost some decent money, since it's a good company with a nice budget. And yet, after hours of work, the salesperson can stand there with the product and show you some detail on the actual product in a light booth this photographer had no ability to extract, and basically demand that I put it on paper. At his point, I shrug, walk over to the computer, and tell myself "X dolars an hour, X dollars an hour"....

Oh, and I think of photogs like Annie as more like film directors than your everyday photographer. She can afford (or Conde Nast can) a staff of people to do the dirty work, including retouchers, and she is free to create her vision. It works out well. Didya see her Queen portraits recently? Or the Sopranos portraits in Vanity Fair? Nice stuff.

[Heretic]

2 years of creating clipping paths and watcing the older retouchers. Then I created projects for myself to learn different aspects of Photoshop. You have to do the work to get good.