Reading mode: Light Dark

Portrait Professional in the hands of an amateur...

Go to last post
O

Old Pirate

Senior Member
Messages
1,530
Solutions
2
Reaction score
228
Location
NC, US
The following post contains a camera created jpeg followed by about 3 minutes in Portrait Professional. To me it works well even with glasses!
 
Original:



Portrait Professional: Slimmer face, smoother skin, sharper and clearer eyes

 
I really don't like the output from that package. To me the original images looks far better. The tweaked image looks, well, tweaked and frankly unnatural.

Sorry to be so negative but I have yet to see a natural looking 'enhancement' from that program.
 
I understand with what is here and should I take more time it could have been better. I simply did this one to see if I could get the masking to work with tinted glasses. Just playing with it for family as a hobby. The children of the woman liked the PP version best.
 
I must agree here,

the original is real life, it shows the character of who the subject is. A program that alters ones appearance is fine for add work and such but IMHO not for portraiture, we are who we are, for better or worse. Now I am not totally against retouching a image, but lets keep it to the blemishes, stray hairs and such, or sharpening the eyes to add that sparkle. Not recreation.
 
If the 'client' was happy then it has served it's purpose. I was responding to you "works well" statement as I have yet to see it work well. Frankly even the images they use in their advertising I find decidedly off putting, but this may be more related to my esthetic than anything.
 
What a lot of hoo-ha!

How about a little clear thinking:
For documentary/reportage portraits re-touching is generally not appropriate.

For artistic/personal portraits anything goes - to the extent that the client is happy.

I wonder what you lot would have told Rembrandt or Raffael?

--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
Gregg Helleren said:
I wonder what you lot would have told Rembrandt or Raffael?
Click to expand...
You don't want to seriously compare the quite poor results of a fully automated software to the art of those two masters :-)

There is nothing wrong with a little retouching when it comes to portraits. But it should look good (the fact that the picture has been retouched should not be obvious) - and that takes time and skill.

But yeah, as some people might actually like the look of someone like Jocelyn Wildenstein, I guess some people might like the results of said program as well.
 
I have used this program for over 6 months and have learned to tweak the dials and not just use it in its preset form right out of the box. I find it to be very useful and a great timesaver. I too dislike it when all the character of the client disappears but by tweaking the dials, one learns to just soften the wrinkles and touch up skin flaws and blemishes. I have fun playing with the sculpturing controls and became adapt at sliming down some areas to be very pleasing for the clients. My wife loves what I did for her sister's portrait but hated what I did to her portrait. She like it better without the default PP process.

I took portraits of two female friends who are also portrait and wedding photographers and turn them loose with PP on my computer. They had great fun exploring and playing with their own portraits and loved the program. Both were totally amazed by it and end up buying it and using it in their businesses.

Try playing with all the setting and dials. I think you will find a use for it in your portrait tool kit. Most of all, have an open mind, explore and have fun!
 
Great idea - we need a version of portrait-professional that can enhance imperfections (or even create them) - Rembrandt would be proud :)

Seriously though: the great masters did allow the fashion of the times and their own style to influence how they captured their models. This was especially the case for commissioned portraits of popes & royalty: bolster a weak chin, straighten a crooked nose, extend the forehead, diminish the ears, add a twinkle in the eye, reinforce a battle scar.

Humans have not changed so much in a few hundred years, but fashion has. Look closely at the portraits of powerful people from a past era and you will see many similarities in how the eyes, brow and other aspects are rendered. Did ALL the people actually look like that? I suppose we will never really know for certain.
Geedorama said:
Gregg Helleren said:
I wonder what you lot would have told Rembrandt or Raffael?

--

Their paintings look natural..rembrandt made a sport out of painting irregularities in peoples faces..if they where there ofcourse.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido_2007/

Ideally, the lens captures what the eye had in mind...but the damn
thing won't listen.
Click to expand...
--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
I agree - this software can achieve some wonderful subtle effects that would otherwise take a great deal of effort. Consider the effort otherwise required to gently smooth the skin of the bride and vanish the sweat of the groom - multiplied by the number of wedding photos. The software quickly pays for itself and, when used judiciously, the results aren't questioned (unless you give the customer the original images).
VIPZone said:
I have used this program for over 6 months and have learned to tweak
the dials and not just use it in its preset form right out of the
box. I find it to be very useful and a great timesaver. I too
dislike it when all the character of the client disappears but by
tweaking the dials, one learns to just soften the wrinkles and touch
up skin flaws and blemishes. I have fun playing with the sculpturing
controls and became adapt at sliming down some areas to be very
pleasing for the clients. My wife loves what I did for her sister's
portrait but hated what I did to her portrait. She like it better
without the default PP process.

I took portraits of two female friends who are also portrait and
wedding photographers and turn them loose with PP on my computer.
They had great fun exploring and playing with their own portraits and
loved the program. Both were totally amazed by it and end up buying
it and using it in their businesses.

Try playing with all the setting and dials. I think you will find a
use for it in your portrait tool kit. Most of all, have an open
mind, explore and have fun!
Click to expand...
--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
if one takes the time to learn it and how to tweak the controls. In that respect it is like most good and powerful PP tools; you seldom use the "auto" function of any tool.

Here is one I did:



One rule of thumb; NEVER show the client the before and after shots! NEVER!

--
Busch

Take the scenic route! Life is too short to do otherwise.

http://www.pbase.com/busch
 
I don't take photographs for money, but I have found that some people...women especially, prefer an airbrush to their current state of aging. Movie cameras have used "airbrush" or soft lenses for years to get what many have called ......"the Barbara Walters effect". This software attempts to do the same thing after the fact.

In retrospect I should have taken more time with the example above, but it was the first one I'd done with tinted glasses and I wanted to see how PP would work with them. I may have spent 4 minutes with the program and that picture.

I'm not advocating this program as an end all and have no financial interest in PP or from them whatsoever, but in some cases programs like this are quite an aid. They, like others, allow people to try their software for a period without buying.

Anyone who takes pictures of people in digital may at some point wish to try such programs. This is but one!
 
Since I now sort of resemble both of the above subjects....

If one is going to "doctor up" a portrait (of a woman), do not forget to do the neck, too. A lot of us show our age in our necks.... and some of us are not happy with that.
--
Karen Brittan, Minnesota, USA



'The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep
coming along and sticking things in it.' Berkely Breathed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top