The Art of Churchwell wrote:

re-read the original op question. I answered her question. 50 mags say it is great. no more needs to be said

But you never really answered her question. Your examples are not what she's referring to.

To me, both of you are right because your worlds and circumstances do not collide.

Beautiful Sundays wrote:
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.

Hahahahahaha, what an excellent description, I lol'd so much. It's a shit product, just look at the drastic changes it makes.

btdsgn wrote:
PP has become my tool of choice and is the only tool I use anymore.

I LOVE you. You know I do

x

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
But if you can show me a published (serious media) beauty photographer/retoucher that uses PP - I'll agree with what you say

With all due respect of your skill/knowledge/work, Natalia. You are wrong here. You see, as soon as you mentioned "serious media", then ego comes into the equation. What is 'serious media'? FYI, the serious media probably consist of small percentage of the market out there.

Another thing is; retouching, photography, and digital arts, are not just limited to the beauty/fashion industry.

Chuckarelei wrote:

With all due respect of your skill/knowledge/work, Natalia. You are wrong here. You see, as soon as you mentioned "serious media", then ego comes into the equation. What is 'serious media'? FYI, the serious media probably consist of small percentage of the market out there.

Another thing is; retouching, photography, and digital arts, are not just limited to the beauty/fashion industry.

right and I use my PP every day and I do not read High End magazines cause Im not into big butts.

Chuckarelei wrote:
With all due respect of your skill/knowledge/work, Natalia. You are wrong here. You see, as soon as you mentioned "serious media", then ego comes into the equation. What is 'serious media'? FYI, the serious media probably consist of small percentage of the market out there.

Another thing is; retouching, photography, and digital arts, are not just limited to the beauty/fashion industry.

I thought I was clear about that

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The real question is... do you do this for a living? What's your goal? Do you want to make a living of portrait photography or do you do it for fun?

Do you want to move into fashion and beauty? If this is your goal, PP won't do it.

Rummy wrote:
To me, both of you are right because your worlds and circumstances do not collide.

exactly 

Chuckarelei wrote:
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.

What is "used and applied properly" in case of PP.  Can you give example?

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
The real question is... do you do this for a living? What's your goal? Do you want to make a living of portrait photography or do you do it for fun?
Do you want to move into fashion and beauty? If this is your goal, PP won't do it.

Op did not ask for specific tip in fashion/beauty photography with PP. You injected that in the discussion. That's why I said, photography, retouching, and digital arts are not just limited to fashion/beauty. I thought i made that clear too?

Sergei Rodionov wrote:
What is "used and applied properly" in case of PP.  Can you give example?

PP saved me hours if not days of work. Now the fun part is for you to figure out what/how I used PP on. 

(*look beyond the obvious: skin tone.)

Chuckarelei wrote:

Op did not ask for specific tip in fashion/beauty photography with PP. You injected that in the discussion. That's why I said, photography, retouching, and digital arts are not just limited to fashion/beauty. I thought i made that clear too?

+1

Peano wrote:
Bravo!!!!!

This is (and I hope will continue to be) a hugely entertaining thread. Theater of the absurd on stilts. High-end virtuosos vs. toothless banjo-pickers. Montagues vs. Capulets. Going at it fang and claw, as if either side's position were of any greater consequence than a gnat's fart.

This entire pissing match is Plato's Form of the "surface issue." The only thing more ridiculous is the in-fighting among tenured academics on college campuses. Rarely is so much energy placed in service to so little.

deja vu? I seem to remember several threads about PP that went to the same direction before. :-P

Personally, I think OP's question is vague. Without knowing his specific applications, any opinion is a good opinion. That's why I think Natalia's response (of her opinion) is comprehensive and on point.

The real question is... do you do this for a living? What's your goal? Do you want to make a living of portrait photography or do you do it for fun?

Do you want to move into fashion and beauty? If this is your goal, PP won't do it.

x

PD: When you read through answers, it'd be convenient to check out people's portfolios, find the kind of work you'd like to be doing and listen to what THEY say.
Not just for retouching, but photography or any visual art

And why can't she bring up beauty photography in the discussion? Isn't Beauty one of the many genres of photography? It's a valid opinion. Of course, as opinion goes, anybody can have one, or none.

Rummy wrote:
And why can't she bring up beauty photography in the discussion? Isn't Beauty one of the many genres of photography? It's a valid opinion. Of course, as opinion goes, anybody can have one, or none.

She can bring it up as discussion. But to suggest that fashion/beauty and fashion/beauty photography work not employing PP is the only  "serious media" is simply not true.

Chuckarelei wrote:

She can bring it up as discussion. But to suggest that fashion/beauty and fashion/beauty photography work not employing PP is the only  "serious media" is simply not true.

Understand. Putting the definition of "serious media" aside, examples of such work was requested by her and also in original OP title. I don't think any examples for such work (beauty / fashion in publication) have been referenced yet to make any opposite point.

Chuckarelei wrote:

She can bring it up as discussion. But to suggest that fashion/beauty and fashion/beauty photography work not employing PP is the only  "serious media" is simply not true.

"ditto"

New Dawn Photography wrote:
I imagine it's pretty limited on when it's worth using but thought I'd throw the question out there...

I tried it, and didn't get instant spectacular (or even usable) results. Could have been that version of the tool, could have been my lack of know how.

I ended up going the PS route - it suits the type of work I do. Plus, anything I can't do, I can ask for help from *lots* of different sources out there.

London Fog wrote:

Hahahahahaha, what an excellent description, I lol'd so much. It's a shit product, just look at the drastic changes it makes.

If one takes the time to read, understand, and use any product properly one can make a diamond out of poop..

PP works plain and simple and I am damm glad to have it available. The photographer has full control over the extent of the modifications to the image. No remembering what damm brush does this, or what filter does that, or where did that custom action go in Photoshop. Just click about 12 times, use the sliders to make adjustments to your liking and you are done.

There used to be a free trail. I suggest all you naysayers give it a go before declaring it a shit product.

London Fog wrote:
Hahahahahaha, what an excellent description, I lol'd so much. It's a shit product, just look at the drastic changes it makes.

We all know the video about the changes PS makes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

On a serious note, I think it has more to do with a person than the program. Some people need/want/like control and "being in charge" of every detail. Some are perfectly happy to let things go and are OK with "better is enemy of good"

Martin K Photography wrote:

We all know the video about the changes PS makes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

On a serious note, I think it has more to do with a person than the program. Some people need/want/like control and "being in charge" of every detail. Some are perfectly happy to let things go and are OK with "better is enemy of good"

OCD

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
of course now someone opens a thread requesting info on high end retouching DVDs. it like clock work around here. someone asks about PP and a few will come in and bash it offering advice no one asked about claiming no one except a selected few is good enough for beauty and fashion retouching and beating down people who dont do it the long slow way and then when a few feel put in a corner cause many are saying they are wrong a thread will pop up asking about high end retouching as a escape tunnel. happens every time.

Aren't you being dramatic and exaggerating the situation?

Nobody is beating down on anybody that I can see. OP asked for an opinion. Yours and anybody else' are just as valid depending on the work and circumstance needed.

Chuckarelei wrote:



PP saved me hours if not days of work. Now the fun part is for you to figure out what/how I used PP on. 

(*look beyond the obvious: skin tone.)

I see.  Geometry of face and perspective changes in full frontal posing (left shoulder/neck are a bit wrong.. but then i didnt see the guy in real life). Yes, PP works for it to some extend. I.e i do own it (i think i was in one of early beta testing groups for it too, before that.. ) , and there was period , about year and half ago, when i spent some time working in it, trying it for various shooting results.

Nuf' bad about it. Not high-end, works fine for many many people who likes that sort of things to be done.

I am not touching topic of how it works with skin with 10' pole
This is whole other thing. For me main gripe was that it doesnt do good job on hair, and have terrible issues with complex angles (i.e proper portraits with tilter heads, turned heads & etc).

But like any other program - it has its fun base, and best way to figure out if it works or not - to download and try.

If it doesnt work - can always pay someone to do retouching, or spend equal money on DVDs from some retouching guru, right?

Chuckarelei wrote:
She can bring it up as discussion. But to suggest that fashion/beauty and fashion/beauty photography work not employing PP is the only  "serious media" is simply not true.

I didn't!
I was arguing about the ego being involved

Read again what I said:

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
It's not about ego in my opinion.

But if you can show me a published (serious media) beauty photographer/retoucher that uses PP - I'll agree with what you say

x

There's a lot of serious media (NON BEAUTY) probably worked on with plug ins.

Where did I, in my previous post, deny that?


x

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
I have sold about 6 thousand of these posters. I thank PP all the time

Awesome!

btdsgn wrote:

Awesome!

Thanky. I Love my PP and it seems thousands who bought this poster does also and that is all the proof I need. Look close, she has perfect pores and no zits.

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Thanky. I Love my PP and it seems thousands who bought this poster does also and that is all the proof I need. Look close, she has perfect pores and no zits.

I do think that "thousands who bought this poster" do not care about PP nor they do look on this shot for retouching quality.

So i wouldnt exactly trust this as any indication of quality of PP.

Martin K Photography wrote:


I am happy with this 30s or 40s look in 90 seconds.

So, is this an argument for or against PP?
I view it as a vote against - but that's just me.

John

John Allan wrote:
So, is this an argument for or against PP?
I view it as a vote against - but that's just me.

John

For me - a "for".  I wrote above " Some are perfectly happy to let things go and are OK with "better is enemy of good"".   I do not have sufficient skills to achieve the look in PS,  time (or money to hire a retoucher), and the result above is really good enough for me. And I am fully aware that I pushed some sliders to the right, to get exaggerated look

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/da … e.wide.jpg

http://gracemagazine.files.wordpress.co … -1940s.jpg

http://wackymania.com/image/2011/3/beau … com-02.jpg

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

Thanky. I Love my PP and it seems thousands who bought this poster does also and that is all the proof I need. Look close, she has perfect pores and no zits.

come now. I really like that image and can see it selling as a poster but she has rubber skin. It works on that image but it doesn't look natural/real at all.

Sergei Rodionov wrote:

I do think that "thousands who bought this poster" do not care about PP nor they do look on this shot for retouching quality.

So i wouldnt exactly trust this as any indication of quality of PP.

ok if you want to nit pic I will say it so you will understand it better: Had I not used PP I would not have sold thousands of this poster. Feel better?

DanK Photography wrote:

come now. I really like that image and can see it selling as a poster but she has rubber skin. It works on that image but it doesn't look natural/real at all.

Looks real enough to sell thousand of it. Take a close look

The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Looks real enough to sell thousand of it. Take a close look

Took a closer look. The legs look okay but her chest and up look like rubber. I think it is more like it sold thousands in spite of it not looking real.

Where do you sell these btw?