_JAsh 5:43pm, 28 October 2012

Dresser is or was Jill Greenberg's retoucher for a while. Interesting before and afters.
in2food 3 years ago
Interesting stuff but she is annoying as hell to watch......
rudy__ 3 years ago
I didn't find her that annoying.
petepixxx Posted 3 years ago. Edited by petepixxx (member) 3 years ago
Annoying... somewhat interesting... boring... rather quickly! She seemed spot-on to describe herself as not-people friendly early on...
Inpernity [deleted] 3 years ago
As a kid, I once watched a retoucher take out a colour cast on a transparency using cotton wool and dyes whilst he smoked a cigarette and told me about his holidays in Spain. He dried the film using a hairdryer and as he passed me the transparency back asked me why I hadn't filtered it with a few CC's. I told him the boss had sent me, nowt to do with me... etc

Amy Dresser is a class act and like all retouchers, gets little recognition for getting lazy snappers out of the shit...

Annoying ? In what way ? She shows a talent that frankly i'd prefer not to need but admire intensely.

Ignore the lack of speaking skills, admire the ability to transform an image .
AtlantaTerry Posted 3 years ago. Edited by AtlantaTerry (member) 3 years ago
I found her presentation interesting, informative and not one bit annoying.
Inpernity [deleted] 3 years ago
AtlantaTerry.... +1
rudy__ 3 years ago
Yes it was interesting and informative without a doubt. But that doesn't mean she isn't a bit annoying. The parasite element, OCD comment, and others. But its all minimal.
camcleat 3 years ago
Freely admitting to perhaps being in the minority on this, but as usual, I like the "before" images at least as much as the "after." Sometimes, I like the before MUCH better than the after.

Not saying there's no place for 'retouchers,' but my own observation (to my own personal taste) is that it is all too often overdone. Subtlety looks good.
sayhellotomylf 3 years ago
Off topic, but the almost necessity to even have to do this stuff is what turns me off of photography. I guess if your stuff is good enough, or you are shooting the proper subject matter, you wont need to. Just seems those niches are fewer and "farer" between though. I think a large branch of photography is turning into a farce myself.
^M^ 3 years ago
I would say that her use of the word "parasite" was off, and that professional retouchers are more symbiotic in relationship to photographers. I'm not sure if she is aware that a parasitical relationship generally entails harm to the host, while symbiotic adds benefits to both members.

Alfredk PRO 3 years ago
I admire her as a re-toucher, but her social skills are lacking severely and I rather see her work without listening
mybikeisasugar2 3 years ago
I didn't find her annoying in the least, I enjoyed every minute watching and listening to her comments.

Whether or not I agree with how the final image looks, the point is that her clients like her final images and have full faith in her delivering an acceptable if not stellar final image. To have carved out a career working for noted photogs in her capacity is a great thing. They need, she delivers. What's not to like?
camcleat 3 years ago

"What's not to like? "

At some point, it becomes "what do you even need a photographer for? Why not just hire a "computer artist" to begin with?"

At the same time you ask that question (don't get me wrong, it is a fair question and certainly a spectrum of personal taste exists...so I'm just dicsussin' not meaning to argue), I could point out that there are quite a few photographers producing (and selling) beautiful, stellar work without "hired retouchers" completely altering the look of their images.

It's a very interesting ecology, and so long as there is room for both ends of the spectrum, yeah, who really cares.
RexGRP 3 years ago
Most of the work is way over done and has a fake plastic look, but that style has become too common for my taste. I understand her removing lipstick from teeth but I rarely like robot skin on real people. It all starts looking the same and the great thing about people is that they rarely ever look the same.

So many images start as photographs and become computer illustrations.
rudy__ 3 years ago
So many images start as photographs and become computer illustrations.

Because that is what sells. And if that's what the customer wants then that's what they get.
Marc Evans Images PRO 3 years ago
Didn't find her annoying.
Surprised how badly some of those images were lit.
Liked that her skins didn't look like plastic. Still looked like skin.
Sad that we really cannot look at an image and figure out how it was done at the time of capture, since a lot if not most was done in post. There could be a lot more 'lies' out there than we think.
sayhellotomylf 3 years ago
Everything is a lie nowadays. Film is turning into a total lie almost all the time, much of what you see there were just some people standing in front of a green screen. It is cheaper that trucking all that gear someplace + no scouting, but it usually looks crappy.

At this point, photography is a total paradox. Get in there and get the most megapixels and sharpness that you can, then go into photoshop and blur and brush it all out. I think this is the leave it to beaver age of photography myself, never has the medium been this soulless imo.
camcleat 3 years ago
"Because that is what sells. "

Correction? It's what sells to SOME people.
Matthew Halstead PRO Posted 3 years ago. Edited by Matthew Halstead (member) 3 years ago
I thought it was an interesting talk. I think people just need to accept that some elements of photography are changing, with the lines between digital art / photography blurring.

Change is a good thing and folks should just embrace it!
♥ Teto ♥ Posted 3 years ago. Edited by ♥ Teto ♥ (member) 3 years ago
I find her very entertaining and humble. She doesn't have a big ego like most people in this business despite the fact that she outdoes most. I really enjoyed watching this video.
Alfredk PRO 3 years ago
Hehehe, you think this has just happen recently?
Photography has been like that since it's very invention!

It's funny to see people think that manipulation of film or digital has been something new!

I remember a story about a big scandal, I don't know what year it was maybe 1900-1920 perhaps, someone had taken pictures of fairies dancing in the woods and it was discovered that the film was altered and the fairies were not real after all.

As soon as anything gets invented, there will be manipulation!
RexGRP 3 years ago
I know it's very popular and sells. I personally don't care for the trend and I'm puzzled why the cyborg look appeals to so many.

Alfred's right, nipples have been removed long before the baby picture in the video.
Nionyn_ PRO Posted 3 years ago. Edited by Nionyn_ (moderator) 3 years ago
Maybe the Cottingley Fairies hoax (1917 and on)? Although for these the photos were not manipulated after the shots were taken as much as set up in the first place to deceive. The girls who took the photos only admitted the truth in their old age, in1983.
Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, was taken in by the photos. But he was a spiritualist, so that probably counts for nothing... ;-)
shoens PRO 3 years ago
I liked Amy Dresser's presentation. She seems like an uncomfortable public speaker but conveyed a lot of good info.

I particularly liked her take on retaining skin texture and getting rid of variations in skin color. By taking out the color variations she's able to leave a lot of detail in.

Look how often she takes the basic luminosity down and then uses the extra exposure range to increase contrast and definition by dodging and burning.

Interesting lessons in her step by step explanation of retouching a model. Especially the part where she keeps getting rid of the most distracting thing until her time or OCD tendencies run out.

I appreciated her message about photographers who don't want it known that they hired her: "Don't be so insecure."

For people who think that retouching is ruining photography or making it soulless, I suggest looking outside the realm of advertising.
josh.r 3 years ago
well said
sayhellotomylf 3 years ago
I think fashion and commercial photographs used to be much less manipulated and interesting. It seems almost indirectly proportional to me.... kinda like movies.... the more thought that is there, the less they spend (on bs)... the less thought, the more they spend (on bs). I don't "think this has just happened recently", just think it is moving in the wrong direction.

To paraphrase a photographer I recently heard interviewed, I forget his name, "good photographs used to be what counted, nowadays what sells is all that counts". True enough for obvious reasons i'm sure, but I just find it all sad and boring, and as mentioned don't like to open the average omnipresent magazines as much anymore.
shoens PRO 3 years ago
I am an old person. By your photostream, I am going to guess that you are a young person. If so, you'll probably think this is crazy, but I offer this perspective anyway: people are always saying that things are in decline and that they don't do X, Y, and Z like they did in the old days. Since the world has avoided swirling down the drain so far, at least some of this sentiment must be wrong.

Partly this is due to selective memory: what survives from the past is the very best of the era. The mundane and lame are forgotten. And advertising always cravenly moved the goods.

Partly this is due to embracing new ideas and technologies and forgetting (typically just for a while) some of the great old things. But don't worry, because those great old things will be new again someday.

Partly this is due to Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap). The point being, there's no point judging art by the worst examples (of which there will be plenty). The only apt comparisons are against the best. And Patrick Demarchelier is still working.

So cheer up. There's great and inspiring photography out there.
sayhellotomylf 3 years ago
I guess you are right. I still think there is too much fidgeting with images in a general sense, but you are correct in that this comment is really here nor there. I think the best way to actually fine out if i am right would be to take one of the greatest fashion photographs taken in the 70's, and ask a group of talent if that image would make it into today's adverts. It would not, but again, that is perhaps neither here nor there as well.
Groups Beta