I just saw these new behind the scenes shots from Annie Leibovitz’s new Disney campaign and I think it’s time that the question gets asked…
Should the retoucher (in this type of extreme compositing situation) get just as much credit as Annie?
I know my opinion but I’m curious to hear yours first…
little addendum: ... even if it was only to get equal chances to spread our name or our business' name. Sometimes I see a publication of an image I worked hard at and am proud of, the photographer & agency get a small "name dropping promotion". I can't help but feel like it's a perfect missed opportunity to have my business name also put out there. That's also part of the "credit where credit is due" thing :)
I am a retoucher myself and I'm afraid this is the way it works at the moment. I don't necessarily want to put myself in the spotlight but I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. OK, photographers are often chosen for certain jobs because they have a certain vision or style they like to use. But I sometimes wonder why the retoucher is never mentioned, because they/we add a significant part of the final product. But indeed, the same goes for the AD's, who mostly work under an agency's name, "set dressers", DOP in case of a filmset, lighting techs, ... So where do you stop crediting. But I do sTill I feel that retouchers & co work anonymously in the background too often.
What about AD's who conceive the idea and hire a photographer, location manager, producer, and post production house? I also notice that Annie L. gets a ton of help in lighting and PP.
i WAS THINKING THE SAME. iS SHEA MASTER IF SHE'S DOING ONLY A HALF OF THE WORK? sHES GREAT IN LIGHTING (OR HER ASSISTANTS), SHES GREAT AT COMPOSING, OR IMGINING HOW THE PHOTO SHOULD LOOK LIKE AT THE END, BUT SHE DOESNT DO , WHAT IS THE HARDEST HERE. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE RETOUCHERS NAME ON IT TOO.
Hmmm... well this definitely opens up a can of worms. it is a fascinating topic to be sure. I would venture that it elicits more questions. Like, who are the other people involved? looks like they have an army of people in the BTS images. Don't they get credit as well? How much input did Annie have in the final product? What about the art director? They are ultimately responsible for the direction of a campaign and it's cohesiveness. What about the ad agency used? you have to also consider the sheer weight of the Annie Leibovitz name. In and of itself is a brand that helps to sell stuff. Hmmm... some things to think about.
Yes..i agree with most in this post that both are artists, and it is a big collaboration. there is sometimes equal or varying degrees of work put into each production phase..and neither can really be measured on the same scale.
Absolutely. In my opinion, the retoucher probably deserves as much if not more credit than Liebovitz for these extreme composites. I would even go so far as to say that the retoucher could probably have just done the whole thing him/herself. Beyond such extreme retouching examples, yes, I think the retoucher does deserve half the credit. Retouching is an art.
somebody there wrote that he thinks 'the retoucher should get credit (i agree) and assuming that the retoucher was involved in the planning stages of the shoot. i do doubt that. i do this kind of stuff and what i see - the guy shot at the water with that kind of background and then put into a cave? TOTAL (i hope the letters will come out all capital) - so again - TOTAL waste of trip and man power. the shot of the 3 ghosts next to a tree.. do you see that three anywhere? if she utilized the road they stand on, to actually include it in the final picture - i feel thats it. the other thing is - she MUST do this. otherewise she cannot keep the rates if she shoots everything in the studio (which would result in better more controlled conditions for the retoucher (but its not about the retouchers) so - she takes 20 assistants, 80 million strobes and picks a far far location - then you can write those big numbers on the invoice. i LOVE her work, god knows how much i do.. but these few images are... a big disappointment for me
ABSOLUTELY! In this type of picture, in my opinion, the retoucher has the hardest part of the work, and sometimes, most of it, NOBODY knows who did the retouching, its unfair.
obviously both need to be credited the photographer because he has the idea and the one who is capturing the image and also the one who does the digital work because without his/her abilities wouldn't be possible to achieve such a good work, in cases where the photographer does the digital work that's different, in my own case I prefer doing my own digital work and photography
i personally try to do my own retouch work because I believe it is a part of my product that I want to control. However, i do think retouchers should get credit. All people involved should get credit as in any large production. Some retouchers create a completely different image than the one taken which is another issue all together.
I didn't read all the comments so I may be repeating someone's. Isn't the answer of this question based on who gets the initial "vision"? I'M a serious amateur photographer and I enjoy retouching and compositing and I sometmes shoots with a "vision" in mind. So I have to set up the shoot to go along with that vision (the photographer part in me) and I have to influence the shoot so it is not too complicated to play with the result in Photoshop (the retoucher in me). SOmeone mentioned that it may be a combination of the two artists working together; I tend to think that way. But the "vision" person should be the one who gets the most credit.
in the present instance, the photography part of the final product seems a small part of the work. And the final part pertains more to imagery than photography. So for the present work I would highly credit the retoucher, and even credit the retoucher rather than the photographer.
its a composition not a photo. so it should be stated who did the photography and who the compositing. on the other hand if the process of making the comp and the idea of how it should look was all overseen and directed by the photographer at his or her studio it can count as their own work. a fine line. it all depends on who has the creative lead.
Personally, I think there are two ways to be a famous photographer. Either take a famous photograph, this is the harder route or photograph the famous. This second one is easier because you don't seem to need much talent. Look at the work of Linda McCartney (Eastman kodak connection), maplethorpe and leibowitz here. None of these photographers are particularly talented, ok two are dead but they are only examples, but there are others., Here the retoucher made the images, almosy anyone could have taken the photographs, especially when you consider the entourage of assistants she has to hand.
I definitely think so. Both are artists and both played a role (especially in these images). It’s amazing work for both and I think both should be acknowledged. Even for me (who is clearly not famous), I’ve outsourced for wedding album designs and always acknowledge the company.
Yes, definitely. In our digital age, retouchers are just as much of an artist as the photographer. So should the director and producer of such stylized shoots.
Assuming the conceptual was done by an AD, then i think the the agency, AD, Photog and retoucher should share equal credit. someone like dave hill would get the all the credit on this because he does the retouching himself.
I saw A more complete representation of this series on anthonylukephotography's blogspot. Judging from these behind-the-scenes pictures it is obvious Annie has a clear vision and knows exactly how these pictures should look before and after postproduction. That is a far cry from " any decent professional photographer could have photographed these images"... As far as credit goes, I would like to think that everybody gets credit, for it was a group effort, but that Annie's name should be printed in a FONT-SIZE+4.
In this case, I think the retoucher definitely should, because there were material elements added to the shot that the photographer had nothing to do with. If we were talking about simple embellishments and/or standard portrait retouching techniques being applied, it would be different, but as for the two shots in question, the retouching adds more (in my opinion) than the lighting and posing. it's the Photoshop work that really adds the "wow" factor-- no question.
The retoucher absolutely deserves (a lot of) credit! I am a photographer and retoucher myself - enabling me to create art solely by myself. Though both being visual art forms, photography and retouching are two completely different fields of expertise. Most photographers (can) only do basic retouching. Creating complex composites is not really their cup of tea. Ideas however - whether being brilliant or not - are the decisive factor here. If it was Annie's mind's eye idea to create this image then I would give most credit to her.
Just Like a moVIE, A PICTURE IS BORN 3 TIMES. FIRST-OFF IN THE MIND OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER, THAN ON CAMERA, AND FINALLY IN POSTPRODUCTION. THREE STAGES OF BIRTH AND CREATION OF A SINGLE PICTURE.
i think they should do. but the way the industry has been and it's reputation is ... equal credit is far fetched, even though re touchers / post production plays a very important role. very. they should importance for their effort the make final product / look and the way they take it 100 times better.
Definitely should get credit they are also amazing artists who put in alot of work. Same way you credit make up artsits photography assistants the retoucher should be included in that list.
When a photograph is this much of a team effort then credit should definitely be shared. Don't forget hair, makeup, and art directors. This is one reason I like to do my own retouching—I own my vision beginning to end.
Most definitely yes! Since this is a collaboration effort with disney, all should be given credit. I know she's Annie Leibovitz, but how big of a role did she play in this production besides being the photographer? If all were given equal roles, credit to all should be given as well.
If Annie was hired for her vision she should get the credit. The retoucher should be acknowledged but as a subtext.
similarly, Who should get credited between Man ray and Lee Miller? Man Ray may have been the "creative" director" if you will behind much of the work and assignments but miller made a lot of his prints and took over some of his assignments so he could focus on painting, etc, no?
I don't think it's even an issue about who gets credit. It's about HOW it's given. I'd venture to say that Annie never goes around parading these images as 100 percent her own. She was the photographer for the project and so-and-so was the retoucher and Disney was the client. I don't think a photographer of her caliber, much less any self-respecting photographer, would try or need to take credit for something that isn't theirs. And look at all of us commenting, we know it's a collaborative effort. Don't you think the studio execs know that, too?
I would like to see her photograph before it was retouched. that is her work. if she didn't do the re-touching she can hardly call it hers except if it were done under her business name than maybe.. I'm trying to figure out why the re-toucher would've removed the tree from the second photo unless disney told them to. annie's photo looks w/ bare tree in b/g looks like it was awesome!
Assuming it's AL who has the idea, the composition and final image in mind, I'd say its her work. is it up to the retoucher to ask for credit?
RE: Scott's comment, the reason why you shoot on location regardless of how much you're clipping out, is because you want to get as much RIGHT in camera first. It may look as if they're only keeping a small percentage of the actual environment. As for who should get credit - definitely both. In film most roles are credited from the DOP (obviously) to all the compositing studios and the artist. at the end of the day though, it is the photographers vision and the compositor/photoshop lackey (at times the lackey *IS* the photographer though) who makes it happen.
Honestly, I've seen this with Anne's previous work in BTS videos where she comes in, and takes the photo, and leaves. Everyone else does the work for her. Nobody knows who is really doing the work. But, honestly, who's work is it anyway? Is it Anne's or is it just her name that gets the work?
Yeah, I think so. When consider any decent professional photographer could have photographed these images, I think the retoucher deserves all the credit! :)
Absolutely they should. I think in the era we're in the photographer should either 1. be a great retoucher themselves or 2. be able to act as creative director for the overall vision of the shoot (in which they aren't working with another CD). I think this a lot when I see an average shot of a well known figure and people GUSH over the photo. Take the same photo and insert a "nobody" and it's instantly a boring, forgettable photo. So does a good subject and a good retoucher make a photographer? It seems it is so.
Credits are a loose subject. A retoucher deserves no more credit than the guys holding the reflector or the makeup artist, or the wardrobe stylist. It's a team effort that's lead by the photographer. And shooting in an outdoor, overcast setting is like using the world's largest overhead soft box. It's full illumination that a studio can never replicate.
i agree with b. morris in that it is a fully collaborative process. it'd be nice if i got credit for everything i do, but i am also happy working in the background entirely unnoticed. my photog knows he can't do what he does without me, and sometimes that's good enough.
Who was Mappelthorps printer or Weston? Many many historic photographers were not great in the darkroom. Were they given any credit ? Some yes, but we do not talk about them.
That's not photography in the traditional sense. Yes, the retoucher should be getting some credit....however, this is annie's brand. when you use microsoft's brand, the engineers behind the software don't get credit either. in this case, are the retouchers employed by annie, or are they employed by disney? the other question is...did they hire annie for her vision or her style, or did they hire her for her name? I think in this case...they may have hired her for her name - seriously, they couldn't get animators at pixar to do this? why did they need annie at all?
Thought provoking! I think so, yes. iN A MOVIE ALL THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE FINAL PRODUCT ARE CREDITED. IF A PHOTOGRAPHER DOESN'T DO THEIR OWN RETOUCHING, THEN REALLY ITS A FORM OF PLAGIARISM. tHE PHOTOGRAPHER PROVIDES THE RAW MATERIALS BUT ITS THE RETOUCHER IN THE ABOVE INSTANCES THAT IS CREATING THE IMAGE. iTS ALMOST LIKE GIVING SOMEONE A SKETCH, TELLING THEM TO PAINT IT ONTO CANVAS, THEN CLAIMING YOU PAINTED IT! i THINK OUT OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY, PHOTOGRAPHERS SHOULD CREDIT THEIR RETOUCHERS.
It's a pipeline. More and more artist's seem to be specializing in one area. But there always seems to be one creative vision that guides the resulting product.
This is such an important thing to talk about. We need more information. who really was the "creative director" with the vision of all the elements behind this? Annie simply could have been hired for "Being Annie." It does appear that many of the themes of the concept are in the BTS. The hitchhiking thumbs and the Pirate concept WITH RUSSELL BRAND. EVEN STILL, THE ENTIRE "MOOD & effects" CREATED IN POST really help MAKE THE IMAGES.