-Article originally from: JPBlog.co.uk.

Hey Pixels!

Before we begin, I must start this piece off by saying that I’m referring specifically to collaborations on social media/magazines, where the aim is to grow your fanbase/audiences, when appropriate, and all parties agree on written credit.

Hello guys and girls! *waves* welcome back to another blog post! I have to warn you up front that this one is somewhat of a baby megalodon in size, but don’t worry! There are pictures ?

I’ve noticed over the last few years that retouchers are one of the rarest things to see in the credit list of a team. So I wanted to investigate further and start looking at why this may or may not happen and if it does happen to you (as a retoucher), what you could potentially do about it.

This is definitely from my own experience and may not reflect other people’s, though I do believe this to be quite commonplace, more so if an agreement was not in place.

Let’s begin! <3

Over the last few years of retouching, I’ve found myself pushed into a place I never expected to experience.

In my earlier years as a musician, it was easy to obtain recognition for the work you put in. Your name was right there on the album credits. Everyone from the band members to the producers, right through to the “behind the scenes” mixing and mastering engineers.

When people shared your album or shared your band, you were right there on the list, and you used a label to obtain an even bigger audience / reach.

Starting engineers would often work for free or reduced pay to build a portfolio and in exchange be credited on the album for the work they did, in the same format as everyone else.

It was a sense of pride and true family, sharing the honour of making something together with a team of people, knowing that each one was an essential piece of the journey to making something truly great.

Disclaimer: (I shot 3 of the 4 of images below, and I do not post client before and afters. However in this instance with written permission from Riccardo Iozza, Image #3 in the article has been included, this is an exception! As it’s a wonderful example).

As I moved into photography, this mentality was already normal for me. I credited everyone from the models to the brands I used. The reason being that they’d always been a key piece of the puzzle to creating the final product. I literally couldn’t have done it without them.

As a photographer (previously), I had absolutely no idea of what it felt like to be involved in a production and not receive the recognition for it. I was an obvious integral part of the team.

When I got into retouching, something hit me that I find in equal parts odd and deeply saddening. Far too many people have a serious aversion to crediting retouchers as an equal member of the team, even when previously agreed upon.

…Why?

Over the last month alone I’ve had my name misspelt on multiple publications, completely omitted from another and passively-aggressively spoken about from personal messages to status updates for seeking a solution for this.

I find the concept really quite odd. The idea that someone can work for someone else (when they’ve agreed on being credited as an equal member of the team) and in return receiving inaccurate names or in some cases almost backhanded credits, hidden away from the view of everybody else.

Making the audience have to do more work to find out who did it. This isn;t ideal for growing a fanbase or gaining an bigger audience.

It’s frustrating for a retoucher to have to deal with. Not only can it potentially stop business opportunities because new clients cannot find you from the work you’ve done (unless they chase you up specifically), but it also makes the retoucher look and feel like the bad guy when they have to chase the problem up.

As a retoucher (previously a photographer) I can see both sides of the coin, and never before have I ever felt so baffled by the behaviour of people you’ve directly improved the outcome for.

Allow me to share with you some before and afters to show you what it is that I do, that us retouchers do.

Some of what we do:

• We correct colour,
• Often grade the image adhering to a colour scheme (which is VERY important for the brain to be able to simplify an image without subconscious correction),
• Fix texture
• Fix luminosity issues,
• Study anatomy to make sure that we are truly giving the subjects the cleanest look respecting of their bone structures.
• Study colour theory for correct balance of colour allowing the audience to enjoy a cleaner, more harmonious palette, scientifically and psychologically proven to increase enjoyment for most viewers.

Some points FOR excluding retouchers from the process:

• The illusion of perfection has to be maintained. – For high-end client work (Vogue, Nike etc) where the benefits of having the work in your portfolio is far greater than not. And when the focus is not on social media growth it’s on future paid work where discretion is required, this makes sense.
• It looks cheap. – Then remove the credits for the rest of the team or pay for the work done? Why is the retoucher any different from the rest of the team?
• To make it look like the photographer obtains a flawless outcome by themselves. – If you’ve paid for this and it’s agreed upon I totally get this! But in collaborations, this is a bullshit excuse.
• Retouchers aren’t doing what a photographer can’t do themselves, and therefore why bother crediting someone who just saves me time? It’s not like they are a part of the artistic creation? – This is a really inaccurate thought, it devalues the retouchers knowledge and experience to equal nothing. Most photographers do not obtain the same levels of experience in fixing texture, luminosity and colour issues within an image that an experienced retoucher does.

Some points AGAINST it:

• A good retoucher improves your image!
• They can improve the final quality of the makeup, hair, and clothes by fixing lip lines, removing stray hairs, and creases etc,
• They can fix colour issues, removing additional blemishes and distractions,
• A written agreement should already have been made to include them in the credits on a collaboration. -If you haven’t agreed on this up front it’s up to the photographer who they credit.

Here’s another before and after:

So what can be done about it?

There are a few things to take into consideration here as it’s a super complex, multi-layered issue. Before I give you the steps you could take (if you don’t mind potentially losing the client), the Legendary Sef Mccullough offers us the most powerful point of all:

HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE!

But why have an agreement!?

Because having an agreement in place means the following things are set in stone and agreed upon by both parties:

• The delivery time: -This is of value to the client because it shows them when they are getting their files by!
• The compensation:  -This is of value to you both because you know who gets what for doing the work.
  

What can you do if you don’t have an agreement in place?

Not much.

You can simply ask/remind them to include the credits as per your agreement. However, there are also more bonuses to approaching this another way.

Some great advice I’ve had passed on to me from David Neilands is this: Note the issue and say nothing if you expect future work, and the client is bigger / more beneficial to you at that moment in time.

Mention it on the 2nd job and if still ignored, consider releasing the client after their portfolio images no longer benefit you.

The benefit to this method is to build a portfolio with you knowing it’s a client you’ll never potentially grow from via their audience, therefore your expectations have been met. It’s not always the case and sometimes clients will chase these companies/sources up to find out who you are.

So why write this? What’s the point of the whole article?

My point is this; When you work with somebody on a collaborative basis (where the aim is to grow your audiences), if you’ve agreed upon written credits then you should be written as a part of the whole team involved, in the same way, the same style, the same place, the same time, the same platforms as everyone else and by everyone else.

What this does is expose everyone involved to a wider audience, wider network, wider connections and to potentially more jobs. Why on earth would you NOT want everyone on your team to benefit from that exposure?

As an example: Leaving someone with 100 followers to fend for themselves while the other team members get access to 300,000 views is just bullshit. Why would you even want to exclude someone who did a great job for you from more opportunities?

SO WHY CREDIT RETOUCHERS JP?!

There are lots of reasons! Here’s a lot of them that MAY have been done to create the final image everyone else gets to see:

• The first most obvious one is: “Why would you want to omit a member of your team in the first place?”,
• They improved your image!
• They are a part of the team and process that created the final image people follow you for (as a photographer),
• They fix wonky lip lines when required,
• They fix flaky foundation when required,
• They fix the model’s skin texture to be more consistent when required,
• They fix stray hairs over the background and face when required,
• They fix saturation issues in fingers, neck, chest and legs when required,
• They fix lighting issues caused by bad placement of lights when required,
• They fix creases in clothes when required,
• They hand draw hair to cover patches in the hair and fix edges of the subject when required,
• They whiten the teeth when required,
• They reduce and remove veins on the hands, legs and eyeballs etc when required,

Looking at these before and afters above, where do you lie on the input of a retoucher? Are they Self-entitled for asking for an equal share of the credit or a valid member of the team?

Final: Let me know your thoughts below!

For me, as a retoucher, a professional, and educated member of the photographic industry, I fight for my credits to be written or included, unless paid/discussed otherwise. Period.

Just like the models, makeup artist, hair stylist, clothes stylist and photographer, I’ve contributed to the process, often significantly. And especially if I did it for free, I deserve to get access to the same reach, exposure and potential opportunities for more work as everyone else on the team. If I wish to be a part o that list, I should be able to right?

In my opinion:

Any member of a team who benefits the final outcome, in any significant way, when agreed upon. Should be credited. Whether that’s by a firm, group, brand, business, individual or otherwise unless paid for the omittance, or previously discussed and agreed upon.

Ever wonder who the director of photography was on a movie? Or who the actors/actresses were? Nope, because they are credited in the same list as everyone else.

Let’s say I watched a small independent movie and wanted to hire the team who graded it, the chances of finding it on Google would be slim. However, if I look at the list of credits… BOOM, right there. I can now hire them!

Let’s say you see a photograph you love the look of and there’s no post-production or retoucher credited, you’re gonna assume the photographer did it all right?

What about that retoucher who graded the image and cleaned it up? Are you going to know who it was to go and hire them without extra searching on your part? It’s unlikely.

*I specifically left the credits for the end of the article to emphasise my point below.

Without credits during a social media / printed collaboration for small independent businesses, Only the biggest/most popular members of the team seem to benefit from it. For the small businesses, it almost always results in no new clients at all, especially without chasing new ones down themselves. Meanwhile, everyone who did get credited reaps the potential benefits while sitting back drinking a nice tea.

Credits:
1st Image
Photo: Joseph Parry
Model: Richard Saffrie
Retouch: JP Retouch

2nd Image
Photo: Joseph Parry
Model: Luu Woolley
Dress: Molly Mishi May
Retouch: JP Retouch

3rd Image
Published: La Plus Belle Magazine – September 2017 Issue
Photo: Riccardo Iozza
Model: Chiara Pistorio + Giulia Doria
Makeup & Hair: Simona Petrucci Make-up Artist
Styling: Marco Krasiński
Retouch: JP Retouch

4th Image
Photo: Joseph Parry
Model: Luu Woolley
Retouch: JP Retouch

If you guys are looking to work with me in future hit me up on my website and drop me an email!
www.jpretouch.co.uk

The debate about the models employed by fashion photographers and their weight (or lack thereof) is now not just limited to runway fashion photography and the larger fashion industry but also a concern for Getty Images which has issued a ban on all photographs featuring models with their body weight modified through photoshopping. The new guidelines, taking effect October 1, 2017, are in response to developments in the French fashion photography world beginning with a 2015 law regulating the health and employment of fashion models.

photo by Spencer Selover

Ephotozine reports on the ban issued by Getty Images, describing it as a prohibition against the use of photoshopping to heavily modify the body image and type of the models depicted in the photographs submitted to the site with a particular emphasis on those photos that feature models that are “thinner” through photoshop.

In a push for a more natural depiction of the human form, Getty Images also clarifies that the ban, which will come into effect beginning October 1, 2017, will also apply to images in which the model’s body is modified to appear larger, likely in a nod to the body dysmorphia that tends to impact males more frequently than females in which the ideal male physique is depicted as tall and muscular.

The prohibition is in line with recent French legislation that requires photos featuring models modified with photoshop to carry a label identifying it as such. These new guidelines will also apply to photos submitted to sister website iStockPhotos.com. DPReview notes that a 2015 French law comes into effect on October 1, 2017, the same day as the new guidelines from Getty Images take effect.

In an email to DPReview, Getty clarified its new policy with regard to altering model’s body types, specifically in the context of commercial stock photography: “It’s important to be clear that altering a model’s body shape as described by the new French law is quite rare in commercial stock photography (it is time consuming and is also against the increasing trend towards more authentic imagery) so is likely to affect only a small number of images in our collection. Regardless, we will be working with our customers to ensure that they can adhere to Article L2133-2 of the Public Health Code in France.”

The Verge reports that the new law in France will also require models to provide a doctor’s note indicating that the model is of a healthy body weight in order for that model to pursue work with her agency without being reprimanded. Agencies that employ models without a doctor’s note could face heavy fines. A similar law is in effect in the US state of California.

The guidelines only apply to the enlargement or slimming of the body and do not cover alterations such as removal of blemishes or tattoos, altering hair or eye color, or even modification of overall skin tone.

Recently I got to speak to Gilmar Smith. I have been following Gilmar’s work online for a while now and I love it. I wanted to share with you all the creativity and imagination she brings to her images.  Gilmar describes herself as a self-taught photographer, Photoshop addict and a social media junkie specializing in Creative Portraiture and composites, based in Orlando, Florida.
She is a single mother of two amazing kids who are her major source of inspiration. 

DIYP: Tell us a little about how you got into photography.
GS: I never really intended to become a photographer. It’s something that just happened. My ex-husband bought a camera, and it was collecting dust in one closet. One day I picked it up and started playing and fell in love with it. I got obsessed with Photography and Photoshop quickly. I needed an outlet back then. I was going through a lot of personal challenges and, Photography, more than a hobby became my favorite method of self-care.

I went all in and bought strobes, light modifiers and everything I could need or want at the time and set up a home studio in one of the garages at home. I got a few paid gigs here and there, I even shot for a Motorsport team for a while, but it wasn’t until last year that Photography became my main source of income.

DIYP: A large portion of your images are creative self-portraits, how long does it take to create an image from start to finish on a shoot and where do you get your ideas from?
GS: Well, it depends. Self-Portraiture besides of being a great way of expression, and one of my favorite things to do in my free time, is a great tool to learn and improve photography and post-processing skills. Sometimes, I have to make the props, or I spend several hours gluing stuff on my face, or even cooking what I’m going to wear.

If I’m using a new lighting technique, the setup takes a little longer until I get things right. But I’ll say it takes me around 3 to 4 hours from start to finish for a self-portrait. (if I don’ have to glue beads to my face) As for my ideas, inspiration is everywhere. Sometimes it comes from the verse of a song, or my silly sense of humor, my love for food, my everyday life or my broken heart. I have a list on my phone of different ideas I get during the day.

Sadly most of my brilliant ideas come to me when I’m showering or when I’m driving my kid to school, there, I’m not able to write them down on my phone, and some get lost in limbo.Another way to challenge inspiration for a shoot is to think of a word or a thing. Then imagine many ways you could use that particular word or thing on a picture in a creative way. Practice that every day, it will help you see the world more creatively. You also create amazing kids photography tell us more about that side of your work.

DIYP: You also create amazing kids photography tell us more about that side of your work.
GS: I love working with children! Kids know what they want, and they are not afraid to say it. There’s nothing more fun than planning a photoshoot with a kid. It’s so funny the things they come up with.

I usually sketch a concept with them and ask lots of questions about the things they are into and what they would like the final image to be like. Then in the shoot is all about having fun. They pretty much know what to do because we already went through all the planning together, so no fuzz at all!  I got into kid’s Photography a couple of years ago thanks to my son. He was diagnosed with High Functioning Autism when he was about 3 1/2 years old. He didn’t like to have his picture taken. But, then, I noticed he didn’t mind me taking his picture when it was done in his terms. (With a costume he liked, next to a roller coaster, with a toy, etc.)

So, I used that as a way to get into his world. Little by little we started planning photoshoots together, he would tell me what he wanted to wear and how he was going to pose, soon after he also took over the post-processing part and started telling me what elements to add to the picture and where. Those pictures became family projects. Since then I’ve been applying the techniques, I learned with my son when working with other kids.

DIYP: How important is Photoshop in your workflow? Does your work rely on it or could you still create your images without it?
GS: Photoshop is life. I enjoy photography and playing with light, but for me, editing in Photoshop is where the magic is.

Yes, I could make certain images without using Photoshop but my style pretty much relies on it. I won’t say I would stop creating if I wasn’t able to use Photoshop but I would certainly challenge my creativity to create something out of the ordinary using what I have available.

DIYP: What are your influences and who in the photography world inspires you?
GS: I spent almost every summer at grandmas. Clay sculpting, sewing, and painting were my everyday activities while there. That helped me develop my artistic side and my love for art at an early age.I spend lots of time looking at other artist’s work. I love to analyze their images and try to figure out their technique. When it comes to kid’s photography Bill Gekas, John Willem, Adrian Sommeling

I spend lots of time looking at other artist’s work. I love to analyze their images and try to figure out their technique. When it comes to kid’s photography Bill Gekas, John Willem and Adrian Sommeling are an influence in my work. Then Photographers like Jeremy Cowart, Miss Aniela, Glyn Dewis, Rosie Hardy, Mark Rodriguez, Lindsay Adler are a big source of inspiration to me. I truly adore their photography, lighting, and post-processing technique.

DIYP: Most of your images have multiple composited elements, on average how long does an image take to edit an image in photoshop?
GS: About 5 to 6 hours, a bag of Cheetos, a few coffees, a couple of cookies, and some wine if the kids are asleep. It’s tough to put a time on it since there are images that are more complicated than others.It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing this; there are going to be some pictures that are going to require more of your time and patience and are going to make you reconsider every decision you’ve made in life. Then there are some others when everything just flows smoothly, and you feel like a Photoshop rockstar. But with every image I create I learn something new, and I enjoy the process of creating no matter how challenging it can become sometimes.

It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been doing this; there are going to be some pictures that are going to require more of your time and patience and are going to make you reconsider every decision you’ve made in life. Then there are some others when everything just flows smoothly, and you feel like a Photoshop rockstar. But with every image I create I learn something new, and I enjoy the process of creating no matter how challenging it can become sometimes.

DIYP: With the rise of Photoshop, and most people these days having access to it, do you think it is harder to stand out from the crowd?
GS: Nowadays is not just about having access to Photoshop or knowing how to use the software what is going to make anybody stand out. There are plenty of people with mad talent out there, but it takes way more than that. We live in a time when showing your work is not enough. In this creative world, you can’t just be an artist; you have to be a marketer, a social media specialist, a manager, an accountant, a writer, and editor and hustle nonstop. That’s what is going make you stand out.

DIYP: What would be your best piece of advice to people just starting to use Photoshop for the first time?
GS: Learn the basis and then play around. Play with those sliders. Be curious. Experiment. Youtube is your best friend. Selective color pictures suck, don’t do it!

DIYP: Where would you like to see yourself in 10 years time
GS: I see myself sitting on a balcony in Santorini, looking at the caldera while sipping Vin Santo. Photography, Public Speaking, Teaching, and Writing are things I’m very passionate about, and I’ve been working hard on polishing those skills in the past year. (no, I’m not planning on losing my accent). Hopefully, in 10 years I’ll be in Santorini celebrating my accomplishments with my little ones, who won’t be that little then.

The flash market used to be rather simple. You go to one company for speedlights, usually your camera manufacturer or a specialist brand like Metz. Then, you go to another company, such as Bowens and Elinchrom, for strobes when you needed more power. The strobe market stayed largely stable, but then Yongnuo came along and upset the speedlight scene quite drastically.

Last night, as I was in bed browsing Facebook on my iPad, as you do, I ran across a post over on Flash Havoc. Described as “something of an open letter to Yongnuo”, I thought it seemed to hit the mark pretty well on many points.

Why I bought into “cheap flash”

My introduction to Yongnuo was the RF-602 radio triggers back in 2009 or so. I’d heard of Yongnuo, but had never used their equipment. I knew they made speedlights and radio triggers, but I assumed that because they were so cheap, they can’t be very good. After all, Yongnuo speedlights seemed to be around £40-60, while my Nikon SB-900s were close to £400 at the time. Surely they wouldn’t even compare at that price? How is that even possible?

I’ve always believed in “you get what you pay for”, but after having spent far too long waiting for PocketWizard to release their Nikon TTL triggers, I took the plunge. I bought a set of Yongnuo RF-602 radio triggers, for those times when Nikon’s optical CLS system just wasn’t going to work. When I’ve got a flash inside a modifier, or around a corner, for example.

For as little as they cost (£28 for a Transmitter/Receiver pair vs £300 each for the PocketWizard equivalents when they came out), they were amazing. They were supposed to be a short term thing until PocketWizard finally gave me what I wanted. 18 months later, I was still waiting, and the RF-602s had worked beautifully this whole time. And I didn’t really need TTL anyway.

Over the next 7 or 8 years, I picked up a bunch more. Now have a handy stock of a dozen receivers and four transmitters (gotta have backups). I also bought a whole bunch of Yongnuo speedlights for those times when I didn’t want to risk my expensive Nikon SB-900s. My shoots are on location in the middle of nowhere, and those times can pop up quite often. So far, I have drowned two Yongnuo YN560-III, a Nikon SB-900, and a Godox AD360II (it was only 2 weeks old).

The YN460 and YN560 ranges of speedlights were cheap enough that if one fell off a cliff, drowned in a river, or met some other untimely demise, it wasn’t a big deal. Yongnuo literally opened the door for making cheap flashes popular. Eventually they even brought out fully compatible replacements for Canon and Nikon’s flagship strobes, at less than a third of the price.

Yongnuo lagging behind

So what happened?

Every day, I see people posting on Facebook or sending me messages and asking me what speedlights I recommend for beginners. Up until two years ago, my answer was always Yongnuo, without fail. I’d ask them what they needed a flash to do, which would determine which models I’d recommend, but the brand was always Yongnuo. They were the least expensive way to get into flash, while still having some kind of reliability.

When asked that same question today, Yongnuo doesn’t even enter my mind.

While they were once the hot favourite for inexpensive flashes, to put it simply, they’ve been dethroned by Godox.

Of course, the basic Yongnuo YN560-IV is as good today as it was when it was first released, and the Yongnuo YN560-TX is a fantastic trigger offering full remote control over them. And if that’s all you will ever need then that’s all well and good. But for the same money, you can pick up a Godox TT600 and XPro transmitter, which also offers full manual remote control and gives High Speed Sync.

High Speed Sync wasn’t that big of a deal a few years ago, but these days everybody wants to at least try it. For me, I was using it even back in 2009, which is why I held onto my SB-900s even after getting Yongnuo speedlights.

Even stepping slightly up the range, Godox easily stand toe-to-toe with Yongnuo on price, yet often beats it on features. Most importantly, though, Godox have a unifying system that encompasses all of their flash gear, even their older generation lights which don’t have built in radio triggers. You can buy external triggers for the older lights that are compatible with the current 2.4Ghz Godox system.

With Yongnuo, there’s essentially at least three completely different systems (not including all the Nikon & Canon stuff they copied). There’s the fully manual dumb systems of the original RF-602 and 603. Then there’s the manual but remote controllable system of the YN560 range. And there’s the TTL & High Speed Sync capable YN-622 system. Different products within each of these three systems only share, at best, some limited compatibility with the others, if any at all.

Unifying the system

Flash Havoc present a rather extensive conceptual solution, with the goal to unify Yongnuo’s speedlight system. It is a rather elegant one, too.

I do agree that Yongnuo absolutely need to do something to organise their speedlight lineup to unite everything under a single banner. Or completely phase out the older systems and introduce something fresh that’s at least somewhat backwards compatible with each of their existing systems until they die off completely.

Their lineup now is just far too fragmented to be able to recommend anything. And this is the main reason why I no longer recommend Yongnuo. After Yongnuo started to release different communication systems for different flashes and triggers, those people I’d recommended Yongnuo to were coming back to me that they bought some other Yongnuo product and it wouldn’t work with what they had. After seeing what they’d now purchased, I was the one who had to tell them it never would.

They simply expected that two pieces of kit from the same manufacturer would talk to each other. It’s a logical assumption to make, as proven by Godox (and Elinchrom, and Profoto, and countless other companies). Their stuff all works together. Sure, you might have to update your old 433Mhz triggers to 2.4Ghz triggers for your first generation lights to work with the new system. But what you don’t have to do is buy a whole new set of lights.

The bigger strobe problem

The other big advantage Godox has over not only Yongnuo, but just about every other flash manufacturer out there, is that the range isn’t limited to speedlights. Oh no, Godox also produce 200Ws, 360Ws and 600Ws bare bulb strobes (or at least strobe-like). And if those aren’t powerful enough, you can pair two AD600 lights together into a single 1200Ws head. And they’re all part of this unified system, too.

Yes, the same trigger controls everything from your speedlights to 1200Ws strobe heads. You can mix and match. Want to put a TTL 600Ws strobe in an octabox as your key but use a couple of manual speedlights as rims? Want to be able to adjust the power of any of them right from your hotshoe? You can do it with Godox. You can even do it with Profoto now, if you’re willing to splash the cash.

Flash Havoc put forward an idea for a 360Ws strobe head, and while it is much smaller than a typical strobe head, I have to say. I like my AD360IIs.

What’s the real difference between Yongnuo and Godox?

Essentially, at least the way I see it, Yongnuo is a “Me too!” company. While Yongnuo have brought one one or two original products, they’ve largely been a copycat company. They produce items designed to replace other specific products. And that’s not just limited to speedlights, either. I’ve been using Yongnuo MC-36R intervalometers the last few years. They’re pretty much a direct copy of the Nikon MC-36, except with the addition of wireless triggering. Price aside, the 2,4Ghz wireless feature of the MC-36R was the main reason I went for it over the original (ya hear that, Nikon?).

Godox, on the other hand, aren’t really trying to copy anybody. Yes, there might be a little artistic license here and there between brands when it comes to design choices. And sure, you know they had to reverse engineer Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic protocols to produce compatible flashes. But, they’re not trying to replace individual products in an existing brand ecosystem. They’re trying to replace the whole ecosystem in a photographer’s kit collection.

And even though the Godox 2.4Ghz wireless system translates to proprietary brand systems, the protocol is their own. They’re not trying to tack onto somebody else’s compatibility chart. You can’t really fire a Godox flash with a Nikon SU-800 (as you can with the Yongnuo YN685), and you can’t directly fire a Canon 600EX-RT II with a Godox XPro either (although you can with the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT).

So I think that’s fundamentally what’s different between the two companies. One is trying to usurp everybody with a whole bunch of cloned compatible products. The other is trying to stand up on their own, and become a complete and competitive system in their own right. Godox also has a global distribution system in place, through companies like Adorama and Pixapro, like virtually nobody else in this industry.

Would I go back?

Even though I was once one of Yongnuo’s loudest advocates, I can’t see myself ever switching back. Even if they released a complete unified system with every flash I could possibly need tomorrow, I’m happy where I’m at, to be frank. Yongnuo should have done what Godox did, only they should’ve done it 5-10 years ago.

I’ve already sold my Nikon speedlights and Bowens strobes to switch to Godox. I still have my Yongnuo YN560-III speedlights – packed in a box because they’re not worth anything on the used market. I’ll likely never need to use them again. Godox gives me pretty much everything I need already, so why would I go through the hassle and expense of switching brands again?

I’ll never say never, but they’ll have to come up with something extremely special to tempt me back.

So why do I care about Yongnuo getting their act together and stepping up to compete?

Because competition is a good thing, and for consumers it’s a fantastic thing. It drives innovation and reduces costs.

Competition from Godox put Bowens out of business. Bowens got complacent and lazy because they were such a big name for such a long time that they thought their seat was secure. Turns out, not so much. We saw that before with Polaroid and Kodak. Other big names are also feeling the pressure from Godox, too.

While nobody ever really considered Yongnuo a serious major player, at least in professional markets, they’ll probably soon be gone, too, if they can’t turn things around. They were once the mainstay of the beginner flash market. The go-to brand for anybody getting into flash for the first time. And it wasn’t that long ago, either.

Sure, the bigger brands will still give Godox some competition, but those big brands that are also truly innovating are aiming at a different market. Broncolor and Profoto looking to pick up customers who just got their entry level DSLR kit for Christmas. Nobody’s going to spend $15K on a light for a camera and lens combo worth $500.

But at that entry level, for those just breaking in, Yongnuo has the potential to give Godox some serious competition. If they wake up. But if Yongnuo die, there won’t really be anybody to keep Godox in check or keep pushing them.

That being said, Godox seem to be doing a pretty good job of pushing themselves, regardless, taking many customers from those higher end brands. And whether you love their ideas or hate them, they certainly are innovating.

The A1 (the Godox one, not the Profoto one) might be seen as a joke by many, but I’ve had one for a week now, and it’s already found its way into a permanent place in my bag for specific tasks. The new XPro trigger contains a TTL to Manual conversion feature only found in higher end lights from Profoto. At what price? It’s less than $200 for an XPro trigger and TT685.

You can read Flash Havoc’s complete post over on their website, and it’s well worth a read.