Photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders opted for "no retouching" in his 8x10 photographs of supermodels from the '70s and '80s for his show now on view at the Steven Kasher Gallery in New York City. "Some of these women have electively turned back 'time,'" he writes. "In a sense, they arrived at the studio already 'photo-shopped.' And that's beyond my control. But how I shoot, my lighting, my choice of camera and lens, that's all my decision. Blame me if you think I should have retouched and retouched and retouched, but I think these women look beautiful just the way they are."
You can read more about his techniques and decisions here.
MikeADDENDUM: It's difficult to know what T.G.-S.'s workflow is—he mentions in his HuffPo article that a) he shot on negative film, b) the negs were scanned, and c) the prints are made on "Ilfachrome" [sic]. But in any case, there's no reason to suspect the borders are "art sauce" (faked): to quote Ctein, "A print from a transparency will always show black borders unless they have been intentionally made white. Doesn't matter what the workflow is." Featured Comment by Ben Syverson: "Just checked with Timothy. He shot the images on color negative (Portra 160NC I believe), drum scanned the film, and had the final prints made on Ilfochrome by Laumont Photographic in NYC.
"For aesthetic reasons, he removed the Kodak logo, notches and other edge markings from the scan, calling them 'very distracting.' He did the same thing to the color chromes on the XXX series and the negatives for the Black List projects.
"Can't say that I blame him—would you leave a corporate logo on a 54" exhibition print going into a museum collection? Does that make them 'touched' as Dennis Ng puts it? He also had the dust cloned out. Do you want to see the dust too as 'proof' that he didn't retouch the photos? I mean, even contact prints are spot toned...."