Welcome to a design and digital culture magazine devoted to empowering and stimulating creativity.
We champion the LUV of design worldwide, online and beyond.
_______
Swatch Young Illustrators Award
Unique competition awarding creativity and innovation in personal contemporary illustration and graphics.
Deadline: September 30
A professional journal edited and planned by Seecoo Culture Communication was founded in 2004. Since, the magazine has achieved good reputation and become a representative and one of the most influential design journal (several hundred thousands readers) in China.
_______
Logo competition is opened to both professional graphic designers and students and is organized by New Graphic magazine.
Deadline: October 31
International designers Network is a publication for creative people on a mission to amplify and unify the design community.
We search wide and far for talent! Free poster!
It's all about being creative!
_______
Sharing this special gift with you. Free to download, share and print.
_______
Free poster to download, print and share. Tx for being such a terrific audience!
Wanna see what creating for yourself a powerful niche for your skills and services? Peter Schafrick photography is such a paramount example of liquid journeys taken to the hilt.
How does one do that? Any clues?
_______
Well it seems a “retoucher” is involved. Who gets credit for what? Schafrick or MacLeod? The photographer or the retoucher? What do you make of that? Post it.
Be positive (wo)man! Moma reads this.
Netdiver magazine © champions the LUV of design worldwide since 1998 — ISSN 1911-866X
Carole Guevin editor lead imagineer designer — J-F Simard creative code
precision hosting by 2Advanced — RSS 
— Show da LUV 
Peter Schafrick’s work is fantastic. Steve MacLeod at http://www.Onwhite.ca/ does his retouching. His site has some of the deconstructions of these jobs.
Love this stuff.
..mmm.. this opens up a whole new topic to debate.
Peter Schafrick does say in the ‘info’ section that he has “a full-time retoucher on staff”.
Steve MacLeod states “we provide individual retouching services”.
There seems to be a ‘conflict’ of statements here.
If I take the example of the ‘Dove’ water pitcher now who should get most credits? The photographer? Or the retoucher who in this particular, did the (final) image montage?
Looking at Schafrick site – I certainly don’t get the impression that the Dove picture leads to credit someone else.
What do you make of that?
I actually went to school with Steve. It’s definitely a collaborative work environment.
I think for photography it’s weird to define. Yes Peter did the photography, and Steve did the retouching. Looking at the bits and pieces on Steve’s site you do still see what the photographer did (lighting, all that) come across even though retouching has happened.
That said the creative work, design, layout, colour ideas, etc. probably came from some creative director. Peter is one of the few photographers that actually says he’s got a retoucher. Apparently retouchers are these mysterious non existent entities that clients and/or consumers don’t know about.
I think credit goes to the team that makes the concept happen. Seems that the art director, photographer, producer (if there is one) and retoucher all have to know what the end result needs to look like. The photographer is the interpreter. Of course, if it is set to text, the copywriter as well.
^ exactly. The end result is a collaborative effort, so why not credit everyone involved?
I enjoy the “magic trick” of Schafrick’s presentation, as well as the “behind-the-scenes” look from MacLeod.
Being Peter’s only retoucher for the past 5 years, I’ve been fortunate enough to also be on set for every shoot I’ve done the post work on. I’m there when the file is first captured and I’m the last person to touch it before it goes to the creative agency.
I’m not saying I deserve more credit then anyone else on the team. I’d just like to say that I have a very unique opportunity working with Peter and have enjoyed having my hand in all stages of each project. Everyone brings something to the table and that’s when great things happen.
A good retoucher will always cover his tracks and leave you wondering how much has been actually done.
Stephen,
First, tx for sharing – you are hitting right on what is bothering me.
Someone submitted this website for possible inclusion. It is presented as a ‘photographer’ portfolio which upon visit, has definitely a high – very high level of quality which makes it an instant must for ND audience. So I reviewed it.
By your own admission, all the ‘work’ we see on Peter Schafrick’s portfolio website, has been to a certain level, retouched EXCLUSIVELY by you. Which in my book, makes you pretty much ‘accessory’ and as deserving of the final portfolio pieces recognition and perhaps, even fame, they could garner.
Derek pointed to your website, I went back to try to find information about ‘you’ sorta speaking. I’ve got enough experience to know that the ‘final shots’ (and making comparisons with ones on your website) that something was odd.
Once I read about this ‘full-time in-house retoucher’ then without a doubt this ain’t Peter’s sole work.
So why not make this proeminent of PS website?
The very least that could have been done is having ‘credits’ copy added and shown for each of the shots that you were involved.
Lastly, I find it condescending that you would be referred to ‘as in-house’ whereas we all know now, that your relation is a pretty tight collaboration.
So why not state so?
Why do we need to see on your website the ‘behind-the-scenes’ retouching instead of adding these, to the PS website too?
At least it would have been honest, transparent, candid.. and showing professional respect for the people you are evidently so intimately depending on to create the final shots.
I think the big issue is that (at least in Toronto) there are a few retouchers that work in there own studio instead of working at the photographers studio who get absolutely zero credit. Michael Fellini http://www.felliniaerographics.com/ is a freelance retoucher, 3D artist that has his own studio and he gets no credit outside the photo community.
It may be similar to how the movie industry operates. Most movies only really prominently credit the Director, or Producer, or a few of the lead Actors. All the other production staff get stuck in a 30 second credit list at the end.
There was a documentary a few months ago about whether or not retouchers should get credited in fashion magazines along with the photographer, or if photos should be marked as retouched.
I definitely think retouchers should get credit. The photo industry needs a bit of a make over because of this. I mean, there’s usually a dozen people involved in a photoshoot from assistants, to retouchers, producers, props people, etc.
Anyways, that’s my two cents, wasn’t trying to stir a debate, but this is a good one to have. Peter is a good guy and probably gives Steve more credit than any other photographer who’s got retoucher(s) working with them.
Derek,
Agree on the revisiting of ‘credits’ and redefining what is a final ‘photographic’ work… because too many people are missing their time in the limelight and become silent heroes (I dare not say ’slave laborers’).
The thing is the whole ‘retouching’ business and the art of photomontage – since it requires humongous skills and equally unfathomable time investing in acquiring these – has gone too long under the radar.
If the business of ‘photography’ is slicing up to become more of a niche skill discipline – so be it – but let’s state it proudly.
In this particular case, I feel it is ‘almost’ misrepresentation. If you had not brought Steve URL – Peter would have gotten ALL the credits for his portfolio.. from an ethical point of view, unacceptable. Period.
It has happened to me in the past, and probably a good number of you, whereas you came up with the ‘idea’ and all of sudden somebody appropriated it and left you out in the cold.
I think it should be mandatory to state clearly who has done what – this way it is fair, but most importantly it leverages the value of each skilled worker, making our industry something that has a stronger base than ‘me’ for ‘myself’ only.
And that.. raises another set of questions.
What if somebody don’t intentionally want to share publicly what they owe to somebody else as a major contribution, in ref with getting success with a particular project?
What about the visibility afforded that person to the detriment of the other?
Loss of peer recognition?
Carole,
Slave labour?
Misrepresentation?
Unethical?
Those are very strong words, and border on defamation.
I don’t understand your bitterness and attacks.
Be positive woman! Moma reads this.
Peter,
ND is devoted to discovering amazing talents, which you definitely have, and affording them visibility and peer recognition. Through the years we’ve contributed to the success of hundreds and hundreds of them.
In recent weeks, industry related issues following content published on ND (ethics, best practice, fair use, plagiarism) are currently generating big questions/reactions.
That being said, here is an example. VarialStudio (Cedric Houin) does all the photography AND retouching. I know for a fact.
http://www.varialstudio.com/
Whereas, had Steve’s URL not been provided – this thread would not exist. So it is based on the work shown on his website, how Steve describes his role while working with you and how, it is expressed on your website.
Perhaps something to revisit.
Hm, it seems we’re all debating on the same side. I never understood why photographers always used their own name as the company name. It’s clearly a studio, with employees. Either full timers, full time contractors, freelancers, etc.
I guess it also depends on the situation the team is working in. Maybe they’ve discussed the credits or haven’t. That always seems like something that is probable. There could be a bit of brand recognition, perhaps on one part.
I’ve been in situations where I’ve done jobs that I can’t put in my portfolio (that I’d kill to have there) but signed an NDA. I think looking at the work you can tell there’s a bit of me still there. But that happens. There’s definitely a sense of (in the work that I was doing) the credited parties not wanting to lose any sort of brand or peer recognition.
This one is a tough one for me cause I’ve worked in this type of environment before (not with Schafrick) and I gotta say I don’t think there’s an intentional attempt to not give credit. It’s just a studio setup I guess.
Carole,
I understand quite well the discussion taking place, I just have an issue with the impression that I alone am doing something unethical, undertaking in slave labour and somehow misrepresenting my work. I am not and just want to be clear that’s understood.
The argument of receiving credit is an interesting subject.
100% of photographers images used in advertising are retouched. Each and every commercial photographer has retouchers involved in the process. Some hire freelancers as needed, some do their own, some have multiple retouchers on staff. Most ad agencies also have their own retouchers on staff. None of these give credit or byline to the images. Advertisements don’t give credit to the photographer or agency either. Not agreeing with it, just saying that’s the way it is.
The copyright belongs to the photographer because, well, because it’s the photographers name on the door. Does Toyota or Honda put each worker/designer/engineers’ name on the car? Nope. Just Mr. Toyota and Mr. Honda have their name on the car. Besides, copyright belongs to the creator, and ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Shall I give credit to the camera manufacturer? My landlord of my studio? The paint company when I use paint to create images? The electric company for powering my lights? The computer manufacturer used as my workstation? Or how about the courier who delivered the products I shoot? My wife for her support? The bottle of wine used for inspiration?
I take nothing away from Stephen. He’s an extremely integral part of my business. But I take offense at suggestion that he is not valued by me or my clients. Clients are well aware of Stephen’s role and the value he brings to each assignment and he is compensated handsomely for it.
IMO, credit and the exposure it potentially provides can’t pay the bills, and is therefore somewhat over-rated. Same with peer recognition. It may feed the ego a bit, but I run a business, and my business is creating images for clients. And so my efforts are focused on what my clients need and expect.
I believe I’m doing a fairly decent job of that.
Business as usual is not a sufficient statement to prevent from reevaluating a field practice or process.
Has the discipline complexified? Reason even more to question it.
Is there a need to redefine what a ‘final’ photography consists of? Definitely.
Who owns creation rights and credits? Welcome to the gray zone.
Cooptation? Probably a good solution.
Forget me not:
#1) On the Internet everything is opened to scrutiny once it entered (world) public domain status
#2) Listing team members (in a website) in a transparent manner eg. full name/role, increases the value of a company.
Very few (wo)men are an island.
#3) Giving is good and will return in ninth fold so “Give back to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar” as a rule of thumb.
Giving never hurts.
#4) The Internet prime directive was to find and create ‘links’ to similar/related content/topic etc within a huge document based framework.
Upon publishing a website it is a good policy to assess where and to whom you wish to extend growing the significance of your web (literal) and agrandize the knowledge of a particular topic or field of expertise within the related larger community.
Wow! I’ve never heard so much talk about retouchers before. It’s kinda nice in a way. Maybe we’re getting more important? The bottom line is, as Peter said, in Canada photographers get the copyright, retouchers don’t. So it’s the photographer’s choice to credit (or not) anyone else in the process. In the past, doing traditional retouching, we were unseen/unheard of. To me it was a compliment when the viewer didn’t know it was retouched. We only received credit when the ads won awards and the agencies remembered to list us. Usually they didn’t. And that’s fine with me on the photo enhancement retouching for the purpose of quality reproduction.
But when a retoucher takes an image and creates something totally new utilizing many techniques including 3D and 2D illustration, well then there lies the grey area, since Canadian illustrators do have copyright privileges.
Think about this; if I was commissioned to create an illustration and I hired Peter to photograph one element for me, would I credit him? If he gave me full usage rights to the photo, then probably not. If he didn’t, then I would.
But who cares anyways? Clients don’t care who had a hand in getting something done; they just want a great image. People will get credited when it’s appropriate. Agencies don’t credit anyone on their websites.
It’s not necessary for Photographers to credit retouchers on their websites. I’d be happier with a pleased client and return business.
Oh and a glass of wine with Peter would nice too!