Question of the Day: Should Retouchers Get Photo Credits?

Yesterday I bumped into the inimitable Laurie Kratochvil, photo editor par excellence, who told me to make sure and read the profile of digital retoucher Pascal Dangin in this week’s issue of The New Yorker
   The profile is interesting, in the thoughtful, thorough, and long way that New Yorker articles tend to be. But it raises some important points about the art of photography now.
     Dangin is the owner and resident genius of Box Studios in New York, the place where lots of big fashion photographers, magazines, and advertisers get their images perfected for print. “His success lies…in his ability to marry technical prowess to an aesthetic sensibility: his clients are paying for his eye, and his mind, as much as for his hand,” writes the article’s author, Lauren Collins.
     At this point I think we’re all aware of how important retouchers have become to the photographic process. Often, as the article points out, it is Dangin who creates a successful image by altering the work a photographer has already done.
     So I have a question I’d like to put out into the world: Should retouchers like Dangin be given photo credits when their work results in something useful? If it truly is his artistry that makes an image work, shouldn’t we know that? Of course that might upset lots of photographers. But what do you think?
     (Above: A photo of Dangin for the New Yorker by Josef Astor. I don’t know if it was retouched.)—David Schonauer

Comments

[Sean Cayton]

I think they should. I find it increasingly difficult to recognize the difference between what was shot and what was shown.

And somewhere in the near future, there will be born (if it hasn't already) something that isn't photography and isn't painting.

It's that something that needs to be recognized and rightly credited.

[Jordan]

That's like asking if art restorers should get credit on a Michaelangelo. Should Murakami or Koons' assistants get credit on their bosses' work. The answer is no. They are part of the whole picture, hired by the photographer, and should not get any more credit than the lab that prints the photos.

[New York City Wedding Photographer]

I have wondered about this myself. Personally, I enjoy retouching my own work. From time to time I have allowed others to do it, however, I think knowing how to retouch your images is a critical element of our craft as photographers. That being said, I think high-end reotuchers are like "ghost writers" in the music industry, insiders know who they are and they build a reputation through word of mouth.

At the end of the day, this reputation is built on maintaining the illusion that the photographs (and all elements that created the final image) were made possible by the photographer.

I think most of us can accept that the images we see in ads, movie posters and billboards are a far cry from the original image the photographer shot.

To an extent we all allow ourselves to play into this idea because it keeps the fantasy going. That being said, I think these people should remain in the background (should they choose). I can also imagine that with a high-end retoucher you are essentailly paying for their "silent partner" status.

New York City Wedding Photographer

[David Mills]

Of course they should, to the extent that their work is contributory and meaningful.

Anyone who equates the job with restoration has lost their ability to think critically to whatever they're drinking or smoking.