Retouching images?
 

I'm not a photographer, I suck with graphics...

Are there any decent programs that are good at automating retouching images?

you wanna hire someone to do the job for you?

no, there are not.

Automated retouching is like automated thumbing... it works 80% of the time but the other 20% blows

See here's the deal... I have 25 photos that need retouching that were taken of my fiance at some photography place. They charged me $50 for unlimited retouching, but then they have to print the images which are $40 a sheet.

When I could just have them retouched them myself, then I can get cheap copies someplace else.


Or should I just go with them?

i suggest you hire someone to do it for you...

I am sure your Fiance' would be happy to know she's not worth the $90 :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

$50 for unlimited retouching is a fucking deal if you ask me.

$40 per sheet for prints....? Gonna need more details on that one. What do you mean "sheet"?

$90? i was planning on getting quite a few pictures... not just 1 sheet.


1 sheet consists of 1 9x10, or 2 5x7's, basically a standard sheet of paper filled with photos.

i've already spent $600 on a cd with all the pictures (untouched) and some other photos. but i'm rethinking how i'm going to do the rest.


but yea, you're right... i'm cheap, fuck her i'm not going to spend $90.

I was just giving you shit... sheesh, so serious.

If you can get the retouching for $50, that's a great fucking deal, so just have them retouch them, then take the images to some where else where it's not so expensive for a print.

they won't give me digital copies of the images retouched... or should i just get a printed copy then take it someplace? won't it lose a lot of quality?

You can setup a batch command for photoshop that will do any number of things that are completely customizable through the interface. I think thats as good as it gets..

Ahhhh, so the $50 retouching is only if you are going to get the $40 prints... that's a nice little scam they have going there.

Try geting the retouch done, get one print, then ask for a back up CD.... $90 is still a pretty good deal for just retouching.

OH yeah, and "if" you need some retouching. I can get your photos, scan them at 300 dpi (or more if ya want) retouch them to your specifications and send you the photos back with a cd of the digital versions. You can go and print em out wherever you want. If your interested, email me, I charge for something like this 1-2$ per photo depending on your specifications...

I'll keep you in mind thanks :)

You should talk to Greg at xxxoutsourcing.com he has retouchers.

try this: hxxp://imagenomic.com/pt.aspx

you can contact me for Retouching. Click the sig

retouching
 

Once you learn a few tricks it's pretty east. Get the Scott Kelby book and a version of Photoshop called CS, or 8. After a a few months learning curve, it takes me less than 15 minutes to batch process and retouch 100+ photos so that they're "pretty much" how I like it. For the main pics, it takes maybe 5 minutes a pic to fine tune...I didn't think it would be that important, but it turns out to be fairly easy to learn.

It's either that or outsource.

You realise that this is probably copyright violation? If a photographer is mandating high priced prints then I doubt he's releasing copyright to the customer. Scanning such a print is illegal.

No I doubt it. He was paid for a service, he didnt pay them. Illegal? lmao Id love to see that lawsuit. :1orglaugh

personally i like to break the photographers balls by saying 'if you took good pictures to begin with they wouldn't need retouched'

auto/batch retouching leaves a lot to be desired.

In general the person who takes the photograph retains copyright unless explicitly stated. Paying a photographer for his services does not change this.

BTW, I hear there's this cool mag called Playboy, why not scan in some pics and open a paysite. :thumbsup

if he hired the photographer to take the pictures for playboy and bought the pictures he could scan them all day long and edit them however he likes.

he paid a guy to take these 25 pictures. hes been supplied the untouched pics in digital format. he can do what the fuck he likes with them.

So are you saying that playboy doesnt have the right to retouch and use photos that they paid their photographer to take? lol Whole different deal there bubba. If I pay a contractor to build me a house do I have to get his permission when I decide to redecorate?

Its the other way around if I pay a photographer to take pictures FOR me then the only way he has explicit rights is if I sign a photo release giving him those rights.

Hi! I've been into photo editing for two years now. I have expertise in advance color correction, restoration of old damaged photographs, removal of scars, spots, marks, abrasions, obstructions, tattoos etc. I do best in Photo enhancement.

Allow me to give you FREE TRIAL on my services. Send me sets of your photos that needs editing and i'll retouch them free of charge! contact me by email or on icq.

I'm assuming we're talking about USA laws. Playboy own the images because the photographer is an employee, and reassignment would be mentioned in his contract. For an individual photographer, they own the copyright by default unless they explicitly transfer it. When you pay a guy to take photos at your wedding he is not an employee... you're a client.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

"In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a ?copy? of a photograph ? the tangible embodiment of the ?work? ? is distinct from the ?work? itself ? the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the ?work? is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer?s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

If you're willing to pay, then ask someone to do that stuff for you.

You are not right

Well depending on what service you purchased from the photog and the rights that were or weren't sold you might not be able to have someone else do the retouching. In the old days, most photo studios made their money on prints and retouching fees and the images were copy written and they took it very seriously. If you shot with a less than pro studio then they might release the images to you and let you have them retouched somewhere else but I find that doubtful that they would agree to that since this is how they make their money.

I retouch all of my work because, to be honest, most people fuck up my stuff when they retouch it and I end up looking like a hack shooter. So if i shoot someone I sell them x number of retouched images and give them a low res disk of proofs of the entire shoot. If they then want additional images I charge a modest retouch fee and so far everyone has been happy. I have had one or two models play some stupid games with the pics i've shot and once i explained to them that I wanted to be sure that they looked their best and my work was also well represented they understood.

It's cheap, his fee and you won't have to fuck with it or learn some other software do why the hell not support the photographer that shot her!

Yes they are, here you go: http://www.neatimage.com/

you're kidding, right?