Portrait Professional 10

ShawWellPete

ShawWellPete

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,699
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
I downloaded this for a play around today. Amazingly simple to use but I wonder if should be using this for family and friends?

Before

PeterBlandford-1.jpg


After

PeterBlandford-2.jpg


I wrote up a quick blog post on it

What do you thing guys? valuable tool or delusional nonsense?
 
If you do a lot of portraits it's a tool, however I would set my own preset as the default is pretty strong. Although we do use it personally it's not a replacment for proper retouching, handy for a quick fix but for a serious job I'd rather do it manually.
 
Current tool does look slightly strong however it works... And no reason why you shouldn't do a little touch up here and there. Regarding family, as long as on a personal level -it doesn't feel like your changing your families faces then go for it!
 
i always thinks it portrait pro looks ... like a portrait pro touchup. you can spot it a mile away on most images presented. I am sure there are people who use it more subtlely but i havent seen many.

I prefer portraiture and above that i prefer the healing brush, the clone tool and a dodge and burn.
 
It's useful in moderation and if you have to retouch a stack of photos quickly. Won't find the professional retouchers using it though - it's a dirty program to them and not up to scratch with the high end requirements! If you're sensible with it and know it's limits it can save you hours.

Quick tips - clone the biggest / most noticeable blemishes up using the clone or healing brush tool in PS before using it. Once its done its thing put a mask on that layer and remove processing from the eyes / hair / lips so that they are still sharp. PP has a habit of making things look blurry after processing.
 
Last edited:
For me it's biggest weakness is it doesn't do the neck/chest area, I know theres a brush but it's a shame you can't make some sort of selection and have it tweek that as well.
 
adamus said:
i always thinks it portrait pro looks ... like a portrait pro touchup. you can spot it a mile away on most images presented. I am sure there are people who use it more subtlely but i havent seen many.

I prefer portraiture and above that i prefer the healing brush, the clone tool and a dodge and burn.
Click to expand...


I prefer portraiture too, I usually blend it at about 50-70% opacity. Also use healing brush and patch tool in CS5 on a separate layer and also blended.
 
POAH said:
so are you unhappy with the way your wife and child look?
Click to expand...


I can't stand wrinkles on babies :bonk:

Maybe his wife likes her photo retouched, I have never met a woman who objects to having the appearance of their skin improved in post. I'm not talking making it plastic, but just making it look like shes having a great skin day with good makeup. But I think he was just using the pic to try it on.
 
Frankly Pete, I think it's awful - it doesn't do your good lady or your nipper any favours at all. Just don't trust anything which professes to be a one button solution to all problems - they just don't work. Rest assured that the real retouching pros wouldn't touch software like this with a bargepole. Retouching needs to be subtle and localised - it's always done by hand using a little good judgement

Apart from being overdone, it hasn't even addressed the very basic problem of the badly over-saturated skin tones. This is just a quick 5 minute job on a pretty low res image.


PeterBlandford-1-edit by tonky8203, on Flickr

I'm more than happy to help out on a larger version of this Pete .
 
Last edited:
CT said:
Frankly Pete, I think it's awful - it doesn't do your good lady or your nipper any favours at all. Just don't trust anything which professes to be a one button solution to all problems - they just don't work. Rest assured that the real retouching pros wouldn't touch software like this with a bargepole. Retouching needs to be subtle and localised - it's always done by hand using a little good judgement

Apart from being overdone, it hasn't even addressed the very basic problem of the badly over-saturated skin tones. This is just a quick 5 minute job on a pretty low res image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonky8203/5694198005/
PeterBlandford-1-edit by tonky8203, on Flickr

I'm more than happy to help out on a larger version of this Pete .
Click to expand...


I just had a look ay the images you posted on the computer and have to agree, it hasn't done a very nice job. I prefer to retouch using things like the patch tool, healing brush, etc. in photoshop. I also use portraiture quite a bit for general skin smoothing, but you can apply it to selected areas and do it on a separate layer for even more control and blending options.
 
lensflair said:
I just had a look ay the images you posted on the computer and have to agree, it hasn't done a very nice job. I prefer to retouch using things like the patch tool, healing brush, etc. in photoshop. I also use portraiture quite a bit for general skin smoothing, but you can apply it to selected areas and do it on a separate layer for even more control and blending options.
Click to expand...

Well we're not disagreeing much then, other than the bit about general skin smoothing - that's where the overall plastic doll look tends to come from. I prefer to use a retouching brush on very low opacity and just smooth out any slight imperfections locally - it's rarely necessary to treat the whole of the face which tends to end up looking very unnatural.

If you can use this software selectively then so much the better - at least you're using some good photographic judgement, whereas left to it's own devices it will in all probability produce a pig's earole. :D
 
CT said:
Well we're not disagreeing much then, other than the bit about general skin smoothing - that's where the overall plastic doll look tends to come from. I prefer to use a retouching brush on very low opacity and just smooth out any slight imperfections locally - it's rarely necessary to treat the whole of the face which tends to end up looking very unnatural.

If you can use this software selectively then so much the better - at least you're using some good photographic judgement, whereas left to it's own devices it will in all probability produce a pig's earole. :D
Click to expand...



Thing is it takes too long to retouch lots of images from a.wedding etc. I find portraiture does a nice job quickly, it has a masking feature based on tonal ranges and you can tweak the smoothing effects. Nik software has a plugin that does a nice job also. I find for images where the persons only occupies about 25% of the frame, it just cleans the skin up a bit but you can still skin texture if used sparingly.

Of course choosing the right makes a huge difference to the look of skin etc. and can be generally more flattering and saves a lot of work in post. Flat lighting hides skin detail but is unflattering in other ways. Soft directional lighting is my preffered method, then just a sprinkle of post retouching :)
 
CT said:
Frankly Pete, I think it's awful - it doesn't do your good lady or your nipper any favours at all. Just don't trust anything which professes to be a one button solution to all problems - they just don't work. Rest assured that the real retouching pros wouldn't touch software like this with a bargepole. Retouching needs to be subtle and localised - it's always done by hand using a little good judgement

Apart from being overdone, it hasn't even addressed the very basic problem of the badly over-saturated skin tones. This is just a quick 5 minute job on a pretty low res image.


PeterBlandford-1-edit by tonky8203, on Flickr

I'm more than happy to help out on a larger version of this Pete .
Click to expand...
:wave:

Hi CT,

I was playing with the software to see what it was like rather than anything else. My point on the blog was how ridiculously easy it was to use and how it change Claudia so much and, to the layman, how hard it is to detect.

Jessica, the baby, was not touched at all by the way. Skin tones were probably a bit saturated but the picture was taken on holiday with a tan and I am going through a bit of a "camera vivid" stage at the moment which I am sure I will grow out of soon!
 
lensflair said:
Thing is it takes too long to retouch lots of images from a.wedding etc. I find portraiture does a nice job quickly, it has a masking feature based on tonal ranges and you can tweak the smoothing effects. Nik software has a plugin that does a nice job also. I find for images where the persons only occupies about 25% of the frame, it just cleans the skin up a bit but you can still skin texture if used sparingly.

Of course choosing the right makes a huge difference to the look of skin etc. and can be generally more flattering and saves a lot of work in post. Flat lighting hides skin detail but is unflattering in other ways. Soft directional lighting is my preffered method, then just a sprinkle of post retouching :)
Click to expand...

Ah.. well I can see the appeal for tackling a lot of shots as in a wedding job, and as long as you have some control over the level of smoothing it obviously alleviates a lot of time consuming tedious editing. :)
 
swanseamale47 said:
For me it's biggest weakness is it doesn't do the neck/chest area, I know theres a brush but it's a shame you can't make some sort of selection and have it tweek that as well.
Click to expand...

Hi.
If you go into the skin area options you can extend it to the neck and chest.

I like this program and use it along side photoshop for slight mods when I'm feeling lazy. I agree the default modes are very strong.
You can't beat doing it yourself though.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
don't think so - why would you want to change the way your child and wife looks.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you are just trying to be confrontational.

It is true that my post, without reading the linked to blog, did not make things particularly clear.

I do not want to "change the way my wife and child look", I am very proud of both of them. I did not alter the baby in the photos at all, by the way.

I find that with good quality lenses and lighting every imperfection is very clear in the photograph.

Here is an extract from the blog

Point a full frame camera with a 2.8 aperture lens lit by an off camera flash in softbox at a 40 year old woman and she won't compliment you on the perfect catchlights in her eyes, she'll scream and shout that she looks old. The fact is the camera pics up every line and imperfection in her skin and that is not what anybody over 19 wants. There's a good reason why I'm rarely in front of the lens and always hiding behind it.

So I sometimes use some tricks to gently soften the results that the camera produces, pushing the fill light in Lightroom and converting to black and white is a nice simple method, for example.

I downloaded Portrait Professional 10 to see if it would improve my workflow and had a bit of a play with it today.

It is amazing how much you can change a picture in very little time and how subtle the individual steps are but how much of a difference the combination makes.

I have posted a before and after photo here so you can see.

This is my wife Claudia with Jessica, the latest addition to the family. I am doing a 365 of Jessica where I am sharing the best 7 photos I take of her every week for a year. As you can see, Claudia is pretty easy on the eye and looks great for her 41 years, which is more than can be said for her husband.
Click to expand...

I then showed the photos before and after and concluded

I'm a bit torn with this, I'll be honest, I think she looks great in both pictures, but more herself in the original so I will probably be using the tool very sparingly.

The point I wanted to make though, is how easy it is to do, it only took a few minutes, and how subtle it is.

Nearly every advert, feature, cover, glamour shot has been edited far more than this. I hope by the time Jessica is old enough to look at them she is bright and confident enough to understand those photos are not something to aspire to.
Click to expand...

That was the point....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top