My Photo Editing Website

[DigitalEditor]

In addition to what Snerd said, I'm afraid I don't find your work very appealing. Much of the processing seems very crude and heavy handed, and images where you've used layer masks show a distinct lack of finesse in the masking process. There is a large market for professional digital retouchers, but I think your client base is going to be very limited unless you can show a higher caliber of work.

What do you mean by crude and heavy handed ? The work posted has also been resized so it loses its quality, as stated on the website. What exactly do you find lacking in the work itself ?

Most of the edits look like really basic stuff, certainly without the finesse and smoothness that I would expect back if I sent any work out.
Any of the 'after' photos posted here would get panned immediately based on the edit work alone.

Lastly, you are spamming a community.
If you want to advertise, advertise.

Basic stuff would mostly be retouching colours or contrasts, I showed a different variety of edits, not just basic. Second, "spamming a community" ? This website allows up to to promote our websites, which is what I did. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I suggest you don't say anything at all.

Your first post on the site is a post of self promotion, so yeah, that's a wee bit spammy. As far as what constitutes a basic vs advanced edit, I'd say your ideas of basic and mine are a bit different. Changing colors is easy. Cloning is pretty straight forward as well. Yes I'll grant that reconstructing areas can require finesse and an eye for detail, but at such a small resolution it'd be hard to tell if you had that eye. Adding a Gaussian blur is both very easy and usually in poor taste. High quality retouching is more about attention to detail than it is about wizz bang effects. You don't want your processing to stand out.

Well I appreciate this response for you as it is more constructive rather than bashing or trolling. I posted my website here as it is a forum to promote websites. A lot of the photographers who promoted their websites here do in fact offer services, so you can call it advertising anyway, not "spamming". Spamming would be promoting your websites on forums that are not related to your topic, etc. Anyway, you must understand that what you find appealing is not what someone else will find appealing and vice versa. You may not be a fan of soft focus looks but plenty of people do like that effect. I may not be the best editor but I have edited for a large amount of people in the past who liked the effects used as they are ones who choose which effects they want the overall look to be. And believe me, some of the edits I posted were not "basic" editing at all. Basic editing is something anyone can do without any knowledge of editing.

 

[tirediron]

... I think you are looking at these images as a "photographer" and are searching for more "detailed" looks. I appreciate the feedback.

Absolutely; that's how I look at all images, and as a digital retoucher, that's who your prospective clients will be, so you need to be thinking along those lines. Your own interpretation of a magazine image is NOT going to attract clients.

 

[DigitalEditor]

Basic stuff would mostly be retouching colours or contrasts, I showed a different variety of edits, not just basic. Second, "spamming a community" ? This website allows up to to promote our websites, which is what I did. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I suggest you don't say anything at all.

Typically people here are not 'promoting' a website that sells services to the members, but websites that display their own photography.
What you are doing is what is called 'advertising.'

Constructively I can say that your work as shown is way, way below the quality level that anyone I know would expect.
In regards the website, using public domain or creative commons sources for edits really screams beginner without clients or one's own work to provide examples..
Not believing in yourself enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars for a basic website using any of the many theme-based sources signals insecure and inexperienced.

Well I have had photographer opinions view my work and certainly do not find it "way way below" in quality level. You also may not be a fan of it because you use your own methods or you are only into detailed looks.

 

[DigitalEditor]

... I think you are looking at these images as a "photographer" and are searching for more "detailed" looks. I appreciate the feedback.

Absolutely; that's how I look at all images, and as a digital retoucher, that's who your prospective clients will be, so you need to be thinking along those lines. Your own interpretation of a magazine image is NOT going to attract clients.

What do you find unappealing with the magazine image look ? The hair being too contrasted ? Or you feel the overall look is too dramatic ? Let me show you an example of a magazine cover where the hair is very contrasted: http://www.pozitiv.com/images/news/2011/2011-07-10-Look-Magazine-Cover-LQ.jpg

 

[tirediron]

... I think you are looking at these images as a "photographer" and are searching for more "detailed" looks. I appreciate the feedback.

Absolutely; that's how I look at all images, and as a digital retoucher, that's who your prospective clients will be, so you need to be thinking along those lines. Your own interpretation of a magazine image is NOT going to attract clients.

What do you find unappealing with the magazine image look ? The hair being too contrasted ? Or you feel the overall look is too dramatic ? Let me show you an example of a magazine cover where the hair is very contrasted: http://www.pozitiv.com/images/news/2011/2011-07-10-Look-Magazine-Cover-LQ.jpg

If that's the look and market you're going for, then perhaps you're well on your way, but as far as more mainstream clients...

 

[Trever1t]

I don't know where you are or how long you've been doing what you do but I'd venture you are young and not so experienced. I don't mean that in a degrading way but after a quick look at your page and your edits...ya, not nearly at the level I'd want to send out for.

Like photographers who get their first camera, so many become "pro" overnight and start advertizing....when they really have no ability to deliver consistent, quality workmanship. You posted here, that opens yourself up to advice and I see you have taken some of it with a good attitude. Keep listening, post some of your works and learn. Stay open-minded to the critique and you might just learn

 

[DigitalEditor]

I don't know where you are or how long you've been doing what you do but I'd venture you are young and not so experienced. I don't mean that in a degrading way but after a quick look at your page and your edits...ya, not nearly at the level I'd want to send out for.

Like photographers who get their first camera, so many become "pro" overnight and start advertizing....when they really have no ability to deliver consistent, quality workmanship. You posted here, that opens yourself up to advice and I see you have taken some of it with a good attitude. Keep listening, post some of your works and learn. Stay open-minded to the critique and you might just learn

... I think you are looking at these images as a "photographer" and are searching for more "detailed" looks. I appreciate the feedback.

Absolutely; that's how I look at all images, and as a digital retoucher, that's who your prospective clients will be, so you need to be thinking along those lines. Your own interpretation of a magazine image is NOT going to attract clients.

What do you find unappealing with the magazine image look ? The hair being too contrasted ? Or you feel the overall look is too dramatic ? Let me show you an example of a magazine cover where the hair is very contrasted: http://www.pozitiv.com/images/news/2011/2011-07-10-Look-Magazine-Cover-LQ.jpg

If that's the look and market you're going for, then perhaps you're well on your way, but as far as more mainstream clients...

No, no, it's not the market I'm going for. See, I am just merely presenting and offering many different kinds of looks. I'm not simply just advancing or making an image more fine print or detailed, unless that is what a client requests. The magazine look is just "one" offer to those who desire that look, it's by no means a standard thing. I appreciate your suggestions and feedback.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Basic stuff would mostly be retouching colours or contrasts, I showed a different variety of edits, not just basic. Second, "spamming a community" ? This website allows up to to promote our websites, which is what I did. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I suggest you don't say anything at all.

Typically people here are not 'promoting' a website that sells services to the members, but websites that display their own photography.
What you are doing is what is called 'advertising.'

Constructively I can say that your work as shown is way, way below the quality level that anyone I know would expect.
In regards the website, using public domain or creative commons sources for edits really screams beginner without clients or one's own work to provide examples..
Not believing in yourself enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars for a basic website using any of the many theme-based sources signals insecure and inexperienced.

Well I have had photographer opinions view my work and certainly do not find it "way way below" in quality level. You also may not be a fan of it because you use your own methods or you are only into detailed looks.

It has nothing to due with "only being into detailed looks". If you want to have a go as a professional retoucher, you need to demonstrate a mastery of the skills most commonly associated with the field.

First would be dodging and burning. Knowing how to accentuate shape and form through the manipulations of highlights and shadows. Dodging and burning is like painting; very simple in concept but can be difficult to master. I don't see any examples of dodging and burning on your site.

Second would be skin retouching. Being able to fix blemishes in skin without making it look like plastic (on in the opposite direction making it look like a plucked chicken). Fixing skin and dodging and burning are where most retouching time is spent.

Third would be color corrections. Not changing colors, correcting them. Knowing where things like skin and grass should fall in RGB or CMYK values and knowing how to get them there when they don't. Being able to color correct an image and make sure that those colors are properly within gamut for the intended output medium is critical.

Next up would be color grading, something else I don't see demonstrated on your site. Creating a cohesive color palette for an image by blending in other colors to help pull the palette of the image together for a more pleasing, harmonious look.

Don't forget the liquify tool. Being able to slim down a subject, or fix, for example, an arm that may have had some weight added via perspective distortion.

Proper sharpening for output is also important.

The ability to add "atmospherics".

etc., etc.,

My point being, you're not really "there" yet, insofar as being a professional retoucher is concerned. The ability to clone out people and objects from a background is considered easy. The ability to balance colors and tones isn't. Not because the techniques are inherently hard (they aren't) but because it requires a level of time, dedication, maturity, and attention to detail to get them right.

 

[DigitalEditor]

Basic stuff would mostly be retouching colours or contrasts, I showed a different variety of edits, not just basic. Second, "spamming a community" ? This website allows up to to promote our websites, which is what I did. If you don't have anything constructive to say, I suggest you don't say anything at all.

Typically people here are not 'promoting' a website that sells services to the members, but websites that display their own photography.
What you are doing is what is called 'advertising.'

Constructively I can say that your work as shown is way, way below the quality level that anyone I know would expect.
In regards the website, using public domain or creative commons sources for edits really screams beginner without clients or one's own work to provide examples..
Not believing in yourself enough to spend a couple of hundred dollars for a basic website using any of the many theme-based sources signals insecure and inexperienced.

Well I have had photographer opinions view my work and certainly do not find it "way way below" in quality level. You also may not be a fan of it because you use your own methods or you are only into detailed looks.

It has nothing to due with "only being into detailed looks". If you want to have a go as a professional retoucher, you need to demonstrate a mastery of the skills most commonly associated with the field.

First would be dodging and burning. Knowing how to accentuate shape and form through the manipulations of highlights and shadows. Dodging and burning is like painting; very simple in concept but can be difficult to master. I don't see any examples of dodging and burning on your site.

Second would be skin retouching. Being able to fix blemishes in skin without making it look like plastic (on in the opposite direction making it look like a plucked chicken). Fixing skin and dodging and burning are where most retouching time is spent.

Third would be color corrections. Not changing colors, correcting them. Knowing where things like skin and grass should fall in RGB or CMYK values and knowing how to get them there when they don't. Being able to color correct an image and make sure that those colors are properly within gamut for the intended output medium is critical.

Next up would be color grading, something else I don't see demonstrated on your site. Creating a cohesive color palette for an image by blending in other colors to help pull the palette of the image together for a more pleasing, harmonious look.

Don't forget the liquify tool. Being able to slim down a subject, or fix, for example, an arm that may have had some weight added via perspective distortion.

Proper sharpening for output is also important.

The ability to add "atmospherics".

etc., etc.,

My point being, you're not really "there" yet, insofar as being a professional retoucher is concerned. The ability to clone out people and objects from a background is considered easy. The ability to balance colors and tones isn't. Not because the techniques are inherently hard (they aren't) but because it requires a level of time, dedication, maturity, and attention to detail to get them right.

I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps I should put more examples of some of the skills you suggested. I have done work with dodge and burning, especially when it comes to portrait features. I may have to include those. As for removal of blemishes, I have done that all too often as well. The example I provided I did not feel had a "plastic" look, but everyone will have their own opinions. I appreciate the help.

 

[jsecordphoto]

if you can get people to pay for work like that, then more power to ya. The members of this site are VERY knowledgeable, and are offering you good advice, I'd listen up...particularly Scatterbrained's. Not even trying to be offensive, just honest. The website just looks very low budget (which it is), the quality of your work just isn't there. That's not to say you can't learn, but the retouching/processing- especially on some of the portraits, is just poorly done.

 

[DigitalEditor]

if you can get people to pay for work like that, then more power to ya. The members of this site are VERY knowledgeable, and are offering you good advice, I'd listen up...particularly Scatterbrained's. Not even trying to be offensive, just honest. The website just looks very low budget (which it is), the quality of your work just isn't there. That's not to say you can't learn, but the retouching/processing- especially on some of the portraits, is just poorly done.

Whenever a person posts their work on any forum or site, it is best to critique it in a more constructive or helpful manner, whether the critique is positive or negative, but resorting to immature tactics or coming off harshly or insulting does not show good character for the commenter. Also, being "very" knowledgeable is highly subjective to opinion. I posted on this forum for constructive feedback, and I did and do appreciate those that gave it to me. You say some of the portraits are poorly edited - in what way ? What in the retouching do you find should be done differently ? Please understand that the work I posted were different kinds of looks, they weren't just retouching to make the image look more high-definition. Do you have an example of a before / after portrait that you have done and can share here ? That goes for the other commenters on here as well. Thanks.

 

[Buckster]

There seems to be quite a bit of agreement here (like 100% except for the OP himself) that the work is not up to the standards one should expect from a professional retoucher charging for such a service.

As I tend to just tell the truth as I see it, which is often perceived as too blunt, I will reserve comment other than to say that I agree with what the others have tried to impart to the OP.

 

[jsecordphoto]

if you can get people to pay for work like that, then more power to ya. The members of this site are VERY knowledgeable, and are offering you good advice, I'd listen up...particularly Scatterbrained's. Not even trying to be offensive, just honest. The website just looks very low budget (which it is), the quality of your work just isn't there. That's not to say you can't learn, but the retouching/processing- especially on some of the portraits, is just poorly done.

Whenever a person posts their work on any forum or site, it is best to critique it in a more constructive or helpful manner, whether the critique is positive or negative, but resorting to immature tactics or coming off harshly or insulting does not show good character for the commenter. Also, being "very" knowledgeable is highly subjective to opinion. I posted on this forum for constructive feedback, and I did and do appreciate those that gave it to me. You say some of the portraits are poorly edited - in what way ? What in the retouching do you find should be done differently ? Please understand that the work I posted were different kinds of looks, they weren't just retouching to make the image look more high-definition. Do you have an example of a before / after portrait that you have done and can share here ? That goes for the other commenters on here as well. Thanks.

You haven't accepted any feedback thus far, just giving reasons why you don't agree or just excuses, thus I chose to be a bit more blunt. At this point you feel like your work is great, and deserving of people actually paying you, so....best of luck.

 

[runnah]

I believe the point has been made.