Portrait Professional Software

I tend to use it when I want a quick result. As long as you don't simply let it do it's own thing, and turn off the face sculpting you can get some pretty impressive results for very little effort.
The current version is a huge improvement over early versions.
 
I used it for a while but not any more since I lost all in a crash and never bothered to renew it.
 
Soda Farl said:
Downloaded the trial version of this seems to work very well if you want that airbrushed look so considering purchasing it. Has anyone any experience of using it?


http://www.portraitprofessional.com/
Click to expand...

I use it. Don't let it do its own thing. Set it how you want it and save some presets that you can use as a starting point. You don't have to go as far as plastic looking skin the sliders will let you back it off. If you buy it now there is an offer of half price with a free upgrade to V10.
 
If you have lightroom 3 you can easily do the same but with more control. LR3 does so much more I would put the money towards that TBH....
 
haggis said:
I tend to use it when I want a quick result. As long as you don't simply let it do it's own thing, and turn off the face sculpting you can get some pretty impressive results for very little effort.
The current version is a huge improvement over early versions.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Rocket58 said:
I use it. Don't let it do its own thing. Set it how you want it and save some presets that you can use as a starting point. You don't have to go as far as plastic looking skin the sliders will let you back it off. If you buy it now there is an offer of half price with a free upgrade to V10.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Dave Pickett said:
If you have lightroom 3 you can easily do the same but with more control. LR3 does so much more I would put the money towards that TBH....
Click to expand...

I already have LR3. Going by the trial version of Portrait Pro it offers a much quicker alternative than doing everything manually.
 
i bought it at beginning of the year and find it is really good for portrait work to smooth skin etc. the only thing i would say (which i think someone else has mentioned above) it that it can go a bit over the top with the face sculpting so generally i reduce the sliders for this to zero as im more bothered about making the persons skin immaculate than i am of changing the shape of their face-lol! But i would say its a worthwhile investment and does save time than doing similar on photoshop.
 
Does anyone know how it compares to Portraiture? I've been very happy with Portraiture, but just curious!
 
sparklies said:
Does anyone know how it compares to Portraiture? I've been very happy with Portraiture, but just curious!
Click to expand...

We have both in work (I always use portrait pro) but I'll try a comparrison later and post the results.
 
Soda Farl said:
I already have LR3. Going by the trial version of Portrait Pro it offers a much quicker alternative than doing everything manually.
Click to expand...

Indeed it maybe quicker to use a standalone like Portrait Pro but the results frequently remove all the nuances in skin, leaving the subject to vaguely resemble this fellow from Star Trek:

odo.jpg


The above look can also be a result of aggressive blur filtering, which I also would avoid in general practice.

Lightroom and Photoshop is all a retoucher really needs IMO. Both have the facility to do far better jobs than any standalone.

IMO, it's just a case of spending some time and finding a process that suits your workflow.
 
Last edited:
Tyke Tiler said:
Indeed it maybe quicker to use a standalone like Portrait Pro but the results frequently remove all the nuances in skin, leaving the subject to vaguely resemble this fellow from Star Trek:

odo.jpg


The above look can also be a result of aggressive blur filtering, which I also would avoid in general practice.

Lightroom and Photoshop is all a retoucher really needs IMO. Both have the facility to do far better jobs than any standalone.

IMO, it's just a case of spending some time and finding a process that suits your workflow.
Click to expand...

If you're regularly getting that effect you don't know how to use it properly.

BTW it also installs as a plug-in in Photoshop under the Filters menu, look for Anthropics.
 
haggis said:
If you're regularly getting that effect you don't know how to use it properly.

BTW it also installs as a plug-in in Photoshop under the Filters menu, look for Anthropics.
Click to expand...

Just look at the examples, the majority, if not all examples on their own website - are appalling.

http://www.portraitprofessional.com/gallery/

Impossible plastic skin with absolutely zero texture. It's comical. Reminiscent of your man from Star Trek there.

Is it a case of poor use of the software or rather the programmers have tried to condense a process that ultimately requires a unique and individual approach?

I really don't know but every facility in Portrait Professional is already on offer with photoshop. It's just a case of learning and intergrating them. :)

There maybe many happy users of Portrait Professional, but IMO it's a waste of money and ultimately prevents the user from digging deeper into the world of retouching that offers a much more advanced level of control and thus far more benefits.
 
Last edited:
I use lightroom 3, portrait pro is not worth the money.
 
Portraiture seems to do a reasonable job, there isn't the "set up" that you have with portrait pro (clicking the eye corners etc)and you haven't got the face sculpt that PP has for for skin softening it's not bad.
 
Tyke Tiler said:
Just look at the examples, the majority, if not all examples on their own website - are appalling.

http://www.portraitprofessional.com/gallery/
Click to expand...

Holy Cr@p that's much worse than I expected!

Some of those shots only needed a slight tidy up, not the big t***ting with the blurry stick they've recieved. And the reshaping of the faces is just plain wrong. It's one thing to tidy a muffin top or bingo wing, and another entirely to reshape the orbital socket..

Where they've annihalated freckles and texture is appalling.

Hmm, I feel a comparison blog post coming on....
 
Those samples are horid, I use the software, but never let the shot end up like that, as for the reshaping, that is the first thing I turn off.
 
Maybe the Photoshop experts and purists should accept that some of us don't want to spend forever learning techniques that we might use once in a blue moon and accept that, used conservatively, Portrait Professional has a place albeit not in their "perfect" world.

You can make an equally hideous job in Photoshop, the only difference being that you will do it and not the software. Anyone who allows any retouching software alone to it's own devices needs a reality check (IMHO) - Rant over!
 
Portrait Professional have a call out now for user examples to be used on their website - maybe they have realised how bad the current ones are.

It is a perfectly good program for a quick retouch. I am not going to get a shot in Vogue out of it, but for a quick polish of a friend's office portrait between dinner and the pudding it is fine. Especially when blended via Photoshop.
 
haggis said:
Maybe the Photoshop experts and purists should accept that some of us don't want to spend forever learning techniques that we might use once in a blue moon and accept that, used conservatively, Portrait Professional has a place albeit not in their "perfect" world.

You can make an equally hideous job in Photoshop, the only difference being that you will do it and not the software. Anyone who allows any retouching software alone to it's own devices needs a reality check (IMHO) - Rant over!
Click to expand...

:lol: Why would you have to spend forever learning? It's not particle physics, it's retouching.

Purists? How is suggesting that learning techniques, that inevitably would be of benefit to you, some how be purist?

Besides, there is very little chance of a purist even considering learning anything about retouching never mind applying it in all honesty.

All there is here, is the suggestion to save some money and instead spend a little time getting to know the tools that you've most likely already sprung for.

Take it or leave it.
 
Last edited:
I have a copy and have dabbled with it. Left to its own devices it can be a bit enthusiastic, but you can turn things down quite easily and there are lots of controls that you can tweak. Here's an example of mine where I have allowed face sculpting to do its thing. I don't recall whether I made any adjustments to the PP default processing....

20090831_203711_9414_LR.jpg
20090831_203711_9414-Edit_LR.jpg


Here's a quick snap taken across the dining table, with the PP adjustments left at defaults....

20100808_140851_1227_LR.jpg
20100808_140851_1227-Edit_LR.jpg


Studio shoot....

20100801_125053_4672_LR.jpg
20100801_125053_4672-Edit_LR.jpg



For £31 for the software and 2 minutes effort per image I'm not unhappy with the tool's performance. I don't use Photoshop. I could get some of the way there with Lightroom, but PP is not bad for a quick fix.
 
I notice the eyes are not as sharp in the edits Tim, mature women need facial lines or it looks tacky.
 
tiler65 said:
mature women need facial lines or it looks tacky.
Click to expand...

ooh I dunno!! I wouldnt mind looking tacky!!! :lol:

I think you've done a good job with those, Tim. Specially the last one, just enough for the subject to like it but without going overboard.
 
Last edited:
Janice said:
ooh I dunno!! I wouldnt mind looking tacky!!! :lol:

I think you've done a good job with those, Tim. Specially the last one, just enough for the subject to like it but without going overboard.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Janice, but I can't take the credit for the transformation. That was all down to the software. All I did was to mark out the positions of the details within the eyes, nose and mouth and the software did the rest. That was really the point in posting - to show what the software can do on its own. I agree that the gallery examples on the PP website are pretty freaking ghastly. The software really does not seem to be as bad as all that. If the default results look overdone then it is very easy to dial things back a bit, or a lot.
 
tiler65 said:
I notice the eyes are not as sharp in the edits Tim, mature women need facial lines or it looks tacky.
Click to expand...

I don't think the sharpness of the eyes has suffered as a result of processing by PP, although something a little strange has happened at the edge of the iris. That might be down to poor placement of the iris boundary by me, or just the way it is. Here are 100% crops. The original is out of Lightroom with sharpening at defaults...

20100801_125053_4672_LR-2.jpg
20100801_125053_4672-Edit_LR-2.jpg


I think it's fair to say that neither the before nor after version suffers from that ridiculous oversharpening favoured by some people. Given the magnification level I would say that is a pretty natural looking level of sharpness.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
Thanks, Janice, but I can't take the credit for the transformation. That was all down to the software. All I did was to mark out the positions of the details within the eyes, nose and mouth and the software did the rest. That was really the point in posting - to show what the software can do on its own. I agree that the gallery examples on the PP website are pretty freaking ghastly. The software really does not seem to be as bad as all that. If the default results look overdone then it is very easy to dial things back a bit, or a lot.
Click to expand...

Cheers for posting up some comparisons Tim. Initially, I think the portraits are great, nice poses, comfortable feel, good lighting and great tones. :)
The originals do need a slight retouch but, being honest, the edited versions re-enforce my opinion on the software.

We're all entitled to our preferences, tastes and methods so of course, feel free to disregard my following thoughts :)

In the first shot, the smoothing has taken all subtleties away, leaving an unnatural skin texture.
I agree with Tiler65, more 'mature' subjects/models shouldn't have every crease and wrinkle 'ironed' out, it looks very forced.

In the second example, admittedly this is a difficult one as there is some oily shine to tone down (happens to us all), however in the edit, the lady's nose almost blends completely with her top lip.
Also, why alter her lips and nose? She almost looks like a different person on the edit..

The third example is the most subtle but still could do with backing the smoothing off IMO. Definitely the better of the three though :thumbs:

Although they are all considerably better then the examples on the Portrait Professional website, there is still the same distinctive 'signature look', most likely due to the minimal or condensed functionality in the software (iris points, face altering etc) rather than your skills in the post department being to blame. :)
 
Last edited:
In defence of the software, I don't suppose you would get perfect results every time, from running auto tone in Lightroom, or having your ACR settings on auto. That is effectively what I have done here with these examples - just let the software run on its best guess at what is needed. If you want results to exactly suit your tastes, or someone else's, I guess it is inevitable that you will have to get a little more involved in tweaking, as you would with most editing software.

In some warped way I can actually see a sort of logic to the software taking things this far by default. It gives you a rather extreme starting point from which you can then dial back a bit. If it was more conservative in its initial draft then it may be less obvious to see what could be achieved, for better or worse.
 
but i can get those results by blending 2 versions in ACR, 1 with -75 clarity to one set on zero and then just using a grouped mask to paint on the skin, as for the changing of the bone structure and stuff ewwwwwwwwwwww.
 
tiler65 said:
but i can get those results by blending 2 versions in ACR, 1 with -75 clarity to one set on zero and then just using a grouped mask to paint on the skin, as for the changing of the bone structure and stuff ewwwwwwwwwwww.
Click to expand...

Exactly how do you blend 2 versions in ACR? it doesn't support layers.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Exactly how do you blend 2 versions in ACR? it doesn't support layers.
Click to expand...

Surely he means opening through/via ACR? i.e = photoshop.

Just in case there's any confusion:

Adobe Camera Raw is a raw converting engine, Lightroom and Photoshop both rely on this identical engine.
Raw files must first be opened opened via ACR, whether it is within Lightrooms develop module or through photoshop.
 
Tyke Tiler said:
Surely he means opening through/via ACR? i.e = photoshop.

Just in case there's any confusion:

Adobe Camera Raw is a raw converting engine, Lightroom and Photoshop both rely on this identical engine.
Raw files must first be opened opened via ACR, whether it is within Lightrooms develop module or through photoshop.
Click to expand...

It must be. ACR will open Tiff and Jpeg (as well as Raw) but doesn't support layered tiff or PSD.
You could also use the surface blur with a layer mask if you wanted to.
 
swanseamale47 said:
It must be. ACR will open Tiff and Jpeg (as well as Raw) but doesn't support layered tiff or PSD.
You could also use the surface blur with a layer mask if you wanted to.
Click to expand...


I n e e d t o m a k e m y s e l f c l e a r e r n e x t t i m e .


Of course you need to blend both versions in PS. It is that simple, regarding the clarity slider. Is the the clarity slider in CS3? If not it is deffo in CS4 onwards.

The clarity slider is for ultra fine contrast, exactly what the pores of the skin need.
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
You could also use the surface blur with a layer mask if you wanted to.
Click to expand...

That can work well sometimes but I find that blur filters, despite masking them in, can be very 'elephant gun to kill a fly'.

The most effective (albeit more involving) retouching method I've come across so far is similar to the techniques demonstrated in the following link. Mama Shan has a huge amount of excellent video tutorials on youtube: My apologies, I'd post the video in the thread but I'm having no luck getting the video to embed. Seems every attempt fails :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03eqlgkbsXM
 
Last edited:
[YOUTUBE]03eqlgkbsXM[/YOUTUBE]

Here you are Tomas

I also posted a tutorial on here last year about skin smoothing CLICKY LINKY
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top