Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Portrait Professional...any good? Examples?
I imagine it's pretty limited on when it's worth using but thought I'd throw the question out there... Sep 29 11 07:13 am Link I dunno... looks pretty sketchy. - I haven't used it for my photography, and in my circle... its regarded as a joke. hope someone gives you more/better info than me. (I use PS CS3, Lightroom 2.2, Picnik, and some awesome stand-alones) Sep 29 11 07:44 am Link JD aka 3D wrote: Thanks JD. We'll see if anyone's got more info but I'm sure that "If you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself." Sep 29 11 07:51 am Link You know those toy guitars that play a tune when you hit a button? If you want to get one of those and play it in front of your friends (while calling yourself a 'guitar player') then be my guest Yup, that's Portrait Pro. However, to be fair PP can be okay if one takes the time to learn how to use it discreetly. Thing is, one can get Lightroom and Elements (+/- a good plugin like Portraiture) for a bit more money, and be on the path to proper editing techniques. The latter will take a bit more time than learning 'proper' PP, but will be a better investment of time and energy in the long run. Sep 29 11 07:59 am Link it doesn't get much respect but i have used it on model and customer headshots. it can make subtle alterations to the face more easily perhaps than using liquify and it can definitely pop the eyes. it can also zap zits (whereas portraiture just blurs them). i think it's a useful tool to have at one's disposal even if may not be an every day thing. Sep 29 11 08:07 am Link New Dawn Photography wrote: PP is fine. PP is great. PP would not be in business for such a long time if they sucked. The Photoshop guys recommend. I recommend. Learn it and use it to get down in minutes what would take hours to do in photoshop. If people have the time to sit around all day or week popping zits on one photograph then PP is not for them. If your a working Pro and you need to get that clients work done by a quick deadline then PP is going to work for you. If you OCD and call yourself "High end" anything then your going to not recommend it even though I know of a lot of "High End'ers" who do. Sep 29 11 08:07 am Link Beautiful Sundays wrote: Ya, I'm using Elements 8 now but looking for something else to play with. Think I'll just look into Portraiture. What's the point of using Lightroom? Better organization than Elements? Workflow? Sep 29 11 08:16 am Link portrait professional tackles a lot more than portraiture does. especially for a newbie to retouching, portrait professional can really get them off to a fast start with their headshots (when used with some restraint). i agree that one would do well to learn the more manual techniques but that comes in time. Beautiful Sundays wrote: Sep 29 11 08:19 am Link nothing wrong with elements but it's not the same as using lightroom/photoshop or bridge/photoshop. among other things i think the raw converter in elements is lacking some features. and for my work it's all about masking and i don't think elements has that? or the patch tool? New Dawn Photography wrote: Sep 29 11 08:22 am Link New Dawn Photography wrote: LR is a full raw converter with a great file handling system. Great for editing and you can find great presets for tones to work on batch. Sep 29 11 08:25 am Link hartcons wrote: Well, I'm not new to retouching and don't mind the time it takes to do it right. I'm more... Sep 29 11 08:27 am Link when i have a senior whose face is encrusted in zits and pockmarks i definitely try PP if it's a headshot. it can save a lot of time. and time is money. i'll have moms say things like "oh, her skin is so smooth. i really like that one" but like natalia said, a lot depends on your market. for my proofing galleries i'll run portraiture in batch mode but i haven't found a way to make it pop zits or clean up under the eyes and such. New Dawn Photography wrote: Sep 29 11 08:32 am Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Thanks Natalia. I'm a semi-pro. Get paid now and again but prefer to do my artwork which doesn't really pay. Very much enjoying Bridal Portraits and have a growing interest Beauty. Sep 29 11 08:41 am Link New Dawn Photography wrote: Their ad example posted on MM that morphs from before/after.....Scares the HELL out of me!! Sep 29 11 08:44 am Link Try PP !! You can download a trial version of it to play with !! Sep 29 11 08:52 am Link New Dawn Photography wrote: Natalia answered the question, but I'll stress what she said re presets. There are a zillion free presets for LR that are easy to install and use. The presets usually adjust global issues, but can be a huge time-saver since you can batch process with presets while doing the RAW-level editing. Sep 29 11 11:42 am Link Beautiful Sundays wrote: I think David Moss answered better: There is a free trial download. Knock yourself out for free and make your own decision. Best advice yet Sep 29 11 11:54 am Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: Agree. Sep 29 11 11:58 am Link PP is a tool. By no mean it is a substitute for knowledge and skills.But if is used and applied properly, it is a valuable tool. It could accomplish certain things in much less time and effort. But if you ego tells you you need to show off your 'high end' skills and take the longer route and work, that is your choice. Sep 29 11 12:04 pm Link Chuckarelei wrote: I disagree with this premise. Sep 29 11 12:14 pm Link In the 70's my fathers family business was Auto reconditioning (high end detailing a car.) We used buffers, to separate the molecules in the paint finish to bring the car to a shine that you would not believe. We detailed the car from the rocker panels and chrome bumbers with gasoline to take of the tar and chrome polish to bring it to a shine. We detailed the interiour with the most powerful cleaner and wetvac and found lots of change for candy while doing it. When finished the car looked better than when new. It had been Mirror glazed by Churchwell and it was guaranteed shine for 6 months. Today people buy a bottle of Simonize and a hand vacuum and do the same thing. Of course I and my father say "Pfft, aint the same" but the client say it is Sep 29 11 12:17 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: Agree...and there are people who swear their homemade bathtub wine is as good as the expensive bottled stuff sold in liquor marts. Sep 29 11 12:21 pm Link Chuckarelei wrote: It's not about ego in my opinion. Sep 29 11 12:58 pm Link Beautiful Sundays wrote: Exactly and it always seems to be what the forum people seem to forget. Life outsise of MM forums where people are real and they ain't buying no images where their face looks unrealistic and like sandpaper no matter how many hours you spend filling in and digging out holes. They have to live up to the image the photographer creates. No model wants to hear some chick say "It's going to take be 4 days to make your face look pretty." Nope and they want it now and thats what makes them happy. Someone asked to be shown a high end photographer who uses PP. Pfft, just look around. Go to PP's site. Forum people put the limitations on the "Show me a high end retoucher who stands 4 feet tall and on page 46 of this high end magazine on Thursday May 26th and I will agree with you." Shame they just can't say "If the client in the real world beyond this forum is happy then use what you can to make her happy fast. Make love not war, but hurry up Sep 29 11 01:32 pm Link Natalia_Taffarel wrote: Hope this helps ya from the New York Times down to the Photoshop guys at NAPP. http://www.portraitprofessional.com/press/ Sep 29 11 01:46 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: I looked at the list. I don't see any that she is talking about. Sep 29 11 02:00 pm Link I think asking if PP is any good is like asking whether or not range finder cameras are any good. Most would agree that SLRs accomplish more than a rangefinder, but rangefinders have allowed many who would never buy or learn how to use an SLR to quickly and easily take reasonable photos. PP is like a rangefinder. It certainly won't do what a knowledgeable person can do with photoshop, but it allows many to do some basic facial editing quickly, cheaply and without any special knowlege that may for some people meet their needs. As a previous poster said, time is money, and if the intended purpose does not require more specialized editing, then PP may save time. I find it useful for some stock images for that reason. I used it on #s 3,7,9 and 10 in my portfolio if you are interested. Sep 29 11 02:02 pm Link PP has become my tool of choice and is the only tool I use anymore. Sep 29 11 02:09 pm Link Some people like to do lazy retouching. Sep 29 11 02:15 pm Link Rummy wrote: No she limited it to herself. I saw about 50 reputable businesses saying they recommend it. Of course they don't hang on MM forums Sep 29 11 02:17 pm Link ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: usually before getting the the studio Sep 29 11 02:18 pm Link As everone has said it's a tool. The defaults can be over the top but you have the slider options ... I have CS3 and CS5 (uninstalled), Elements 9, LR3 and PP and I don't claim to be a "Pro" but I do get $ for my PP images via clients and stock. Different programs with some overlapping and some different functionality. Too bad people look down on anything... each person should use what works for them and the type of images and end-use of the images they produce. Do a trial, make a decision. Sep 29 11 02:24 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: They are not what/ who she's referring to. Sep 29 11 02:24 pm Link Rummy wrote: We all know who she is refering to. I was showing her 50 reputable companies that use and recommend. I am not sure if "modern women in their 70's" magazine prefers PP or not. Im not limiting to one magazine. I showed 50. I need not say anymore. 50 magazines says they use it and it's good. a couple of peole who hang on MM say it ain't. I will go with the money. I go no more to say about this. 50 magazines say it for me Sep 29 11 02:27 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: Again, what you just said is besides the point. Sep 29 11 02:29 pm Link btdsgn wrote: The stuff in your port has all been done with PP? Sep 29 11 02:31 pm Link Rummy wrote: re-read the original op question. I answered her question. 50 mags say it is great. no more needs to be said Sep 29 11 02:32 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: Are you serious? most are just reviews for newbies and they say it is decent software for them. What she said wasn't at all ridiculously limited as you pretend it was. Sep 29 11 02:33 pm Link DanK Photography wrote: I rest my case Sep 29 11 02:37 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote: your case being that you can't read? None of those reviews say they use it for there publications either. Sep 29 11 02:38 pm Link |