A whole lot of time and trouble

[Live the Lie]

This is my first thread, so I think this is the right place and everything is posted right. If not I will update it.

We all know that it takes a combination of a good photographer and retoucher to make great images. Also there are other people like a MUA, Stylist, and other people contribute greatly. But sometimes, someone has a bad day beyond their control, and someone has to help. I am posting an image I retouched, and due to the "bad day" i spent over 15 hours of retouching (this estimate of time does not include research, filters, and other misc things).

FYI I am a photographer and also retouch images for other photographers. The image i am posting is a before and after (web quality), I might post the full-res if there is enough interest. And before anyone asks, I do have permission from the photographer.

p.s. After said image was retouched and shown to the bride, the mother of the bride was so difficult to work with, the photographer ended their business relationship. And there were just as strong picture from that engagement session (if not better), but this was the photograph they chose. The funny part is that the bride to be said "if you get rid of the hair in our faces only, it will be okay"... and i don't know about you, but no one I know would let that photograph surface and be attached to their reputation for public consumer view (wedding, invitations and such.)

[crazyfly1]

Hmmm, looks like the photographer was having a bad day.
On another subject; Did you mean to say that you spent 15 hours to get the result you posted?

[Live the Lie]

Yes it was over 15 hours. I went pixel by pixel, there is so much more i could have done to finish it off. The sharpness of the lense is exquisite, and every fine hair and highlight is there. I would have removed them from the background but i had to work within the parameters I had. If you would like to see the full resolution image (before and after) i can e-mail it to you. It is so hard to see any detail with web quality.

[crazyfly1]

Yes, I'll PM you.

[ktg222]

I'm sorry, but I don't see 15 hrs of improvement in that image.

[Live the Lie]

I understand because of the quality, let me find a way to post this image in it's full resolution form.

[Live the Lie]

Okay here is the before/after full resolution image. If someone thinks it will take less time and keep the integrity of the pixels. Let me know how many hours it takes you, i would be very interested to hear how long it took them. FYI, i had to keep the background and only used dodge, burn, some healing brush, some clone stamp, patch tool, and liquify. And if it is of any consolation i work in L*A*B* exclusively. Unless i need to make a mask. Then the power of ten come into play. This is being hosted off of my photography website, since everyone else (mage hosting sites) resamples to lower quality.

http://www.christophergrangephotogra...touch/0001.jpg

[JD Spears]

I see 15 hrs. Personally, I would have left SOME of the fly away hair.

[lurch]

Clearly a lot of work there, not just on the hair. That ktg222 doesn't see 15 hours of work is a real compliment.

[Live the Lie]

Thank you very much about that last couple posts. I would have left some of the fly away hair, but once you start removing hair and the delicate interlacing parts, you get perfectionistic. I tried to stay very realistic. There is tons more that can be done, but the cost versus the benefits is minimal at best.

[smak]

I don't understand what the original post is about. What are you saying about the image?

Another question: Are people willing to pay 15 hrs. X PAYrate/hr.
for one photo?
That has to be a lot for one image.

[JD Spears]

Originally Posted by Live the Lie

Thank you very much about that last couple posts. I would have left some of the fly away hair, but once you start removing hair and the delicate interlacing parts, you get perfectionistic. I tried to stay very realistic. There is tons more that can be done, but the cost versus the benefits is minimal at best.

I would have left some of the fly away hair, but once you start removing hair and the delicate interlacing parts, you get perfectionistic. I know what you mean.

[Live the Lie]

I get paid flat rate per month up until a certain number of hours, and then everything else is negotiable for that one person. everyone else is "x per hour"

[wtowle]

I do 200 pics per day of people with wind hair(beach shots) for one of my bulk clients in the summer season. You will never make any money spending 15 hrs. on a picture like that. If that is truly the full resolution of the image that should have taken you no longer than 20 min. max. Taking in to consideration, smaller images that can't be blown up are hard, but seriously 10-20 minutes . You talk pixel by pixel but there isn't enough information there to do pixel by pixel on that pic any way. Am I missing something??? If I am , please enlighten me. I do not mean to be rude, just trying to help.

[Live the Lie]

I understand your point, and it shouldn't have taken me that long to that photograph. 15-20 mins seems very quick fix to me. I don't have that workload of 200 photographs a day so my learning curve might not be up to where you are at. I don't use any other plug-ins, but i am not sure it would help in the first place. There is more done to that photograph than just the hair, but the hair was the longest part. When i said pixel by pixel, i meant the pixel structure of the photograph itself or it's native resolution. True pixel by pixel at 1600 percent is something completely different, though your perspective about it is well taken. And i am well aware of the cost vs benefits of the time per image, this image isn't as successful as i would like it, but i didn't want it too obvious that something was changed. Anyone that works in retouching can tell what was done to a photograph, even in print (with a half-tone pattern). We are all aware that something is done to photographs in print, but most can spot areas where we know what was done and why. Beginners learn, and experts teach.