Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > Portrait Professional...any good? Examples?

Photographer

The Art of Churchwell

Posts: 3171

QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US

DanK Photography wrote:

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?

Mostly Staten Island

Sep 30 11 01:35 pm Link

Photographer

Dan K Photography

Posts: 5466

STATEN ISLAND, New York, US

Post hidden on Sep 30, 2011 08:41 pm
Reason: off-topic
Comments:
You don't have to be helpful.

You DO have to be civil if you're going to post.

Sep 30 11 01:55 pm Link

Photographer

The Art of Churchwell

Posts: 3171

QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US

Post hidden on Sep 30, 2011 08:41 pm
Reason: not helpful
Comments:
quotes hidden post

Sep 30 11 02:31 pm Link

Photographer

CameraSight

Posts: 1092

Roselle Park, New Jersey, US

David Moss Photography wrote:
Try PP !! You can download a trial version of it to play with !!

I downloaded the trial  though you can't save  anything .It seems ok  for use as a quick way to do some basic portrait/headshot  touch up if you are in a hurry . It serves it's purpose .

Sep 30 11 02:38 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 16931

El Segundo, California, US

Moderator Warning!
Please remain on-topic to the discussion, and do not get involved in chest-beating, brow-beating, or any other form of beating.

Thank you.

Sep 30 11 08:42 pm Link

Photographer

The Art of Churchwell

Posts: 3171

QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US

Post hidden on Sep 30, 2011 11:42 pm
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
If you have a problem, take it to CAM. Do not hijack/disrupt the thread further.

Sep 30 11 11:22 pm Link

Photographer

The Art of Churchwell

Posts: 3171

QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US

have a blessed day everyone

Sep 30 11 11:50 pm Link

Photographer

Sergei Rodionov

Posts: 867

Dallas, Texas, US

The Art of Churchwell wrote:

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?

smile i am not nitpicking.. And i dont want to start whole thing where it goes into critique thing.

I just dont think that it had to do with PP applied, no matter how we slice it.

Anyway - important thing - it works for you, you like it.  I tried it, for me it cant cope with what i need in processing and it cant handle complex angles very well (which is understandable - i mean it is , after all, trying to do rewrapping of 2D image onto 3D approximated oversimplified model) .

For simple "face-on"'s its ok, quality of skin retouching and other stuff - is moot point the way i see it, b/c some people dont mind "glamour glow" / wee bit of non-organic matter and others hate it, and some publications are fine with it and others dont.

Lets move on.

As usual - all boils down to personal preferences and styles.

Would i recommend this product for retoucher? Never. Would it help some photographers who cant afford retoucher or need something done fast? May be. But so would proper posing and lighting and good MUA..

Oct 01 11 07:32 am Link

Retoucher

Lulie Lens

Posts: 157

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Sergei Rodionov wrote:
smile i am not nitpicking.. And i dont want to start whole thing where it goes into critique thing.

I just dont think that it had to do with PP applied, no matter how we slice it.

Anyway - important thing - it works for you, you like it.  I tried it, for me it cant cope with what i need in processing and it cant handle complex angles very well (which is understandable - i mean it is , after all, trying to do rewrapping of 2D image onto 3D approximated oversimplified model) .

For simple "face-on"'s its ok, quality of skin retouching and other stuff - is moot point the way i see it, b/c some people dont mind "glamour glow" / wee bit of non-organic matter and others hate it, and some publications are fine with it and others dont.

Lets move on.

As usual - all boils down to personal preferences and styles.

Would i recommend this product for retoucher? Never. Would it help some photographers who cant afford retoucher or need something done fast? May be. But so would proper posing and lighting and good MUA..

+1
A well written and politically correct post, if I may say so myself smile

Oct 01 11 08:19 am Link

Retoucher

Krunoslav Stifter

Posts: 3883

Santa Cruz, California, US

Sergei Rodionov wrote:
Lets move on.
As usual - all boils down to personal preferences and styles.

+1

Oct 01 11 08:35 am Link

Photographer

Sergei Rodionov

Posts: 867

Dallas, Texas, US

Lulie Lens wrote:
+1
A well written and politically correct post, if I may say so myself smile

oh crap.. i hate to be politically correct. Shall go and wash shame off by shooting some 4x5 film smile

Oct 01 11 08:40 am Link

Photographer

The Art of Churchwell

Posts: 3171

QUEENS VILLAGE, New York, US

Krunoslav-Stifter wrote:

+1

+1 for everyone. its on me


smile

Oct 01 11 10:14 am Link

Photographer

Burly Bair

Posts: 3

Santa Cruz, California, US

Pretty amazing, the responses.  I have been doing model photography since the 60s but I like to make money, so I gave up photography as a living.  I run the Adobe town meetings and product releases so I'm overly aware of the beauty of PS.  But it's logic is not intuitive to me.  I need a simpler, quicker fix.  My workday is 18 to 20 hours already and I'd rather spend precious free time shooting (and maybe some laundry) than fixing.

I was hoping to find a person or two who can help me through some problems.

  -=Dale=-

Nov 06 11 01:12 pm Link

Photographer

Burly Bair

Posts: 3

Santa Cruz, California, US

Sergei Rodionov wrote:

smile i am not nitpicking.. And i dont want to start whole thing where it goes into critique thing.

I just dont think that it had to do with PP applied, no matter how we slice it.

Anyway - important thing - it works for you, you like it.  I tried it, for me it cant cope with what i need in processing and it cant handle complex angles very well (which is understandable - i mean it is , after all, trying to do rewrapping of 2D image onto 3D approximated oversimplified model) .

For simple "face-on"'s its ok, quality of skin retouching and other stuff - is moot point the way i see it, b/c some people dont mind "glamour glow" / wee bit of non-organic matter and others hate it, and some publications are fine with it and others dont.

Lets move on.

As usual - all boils down to personal preferences and styles.

Would i recommend this product for retoucher? Never. Would it help some photographers who cant afford retoucher or need something done fast? May be. But so would proper posing and lighting and good MUA..

And that's one of the problems I'm having with it: complex angles.  Straight on face shots are ok.  But Profiles, face to the ceiling, face partially obscured by a pillow, etc seem to trip it up.  Thants what I wanted to know, it's the proggy, not PEBOAK.

Nov 06 11 01:16 pm Link

Photographer

Leighthenubian

Posts: 2968

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

All kinds of discussions about this and Portraiture. As with anything else the better you learn the tools the better the finished image will be. They work much better if you learn the fundamentals of retouching beforehand.

As for images of half naked women...well you can sell lot's of them without PP or Portraiture...people are just buying them for the skin anyway.

Nov 06 11 01:46 pm Link

Photographer

Derrick Schwieters

Posts: 68

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, US

Hi all, maybe I missed something? Can someone please post examples from PP -I would like to see if this program is any good by examples.
Thanks

Nov 24 12 04:35 pm Link

Photographer

Paul AI

Posts: 1046

Shawnee, Oklahoma, US

Derrick Schwieters wrote:
Hi all, maybe I missed something? Can someone please post examples from PP -I would like to see if this program is any good by examples.
Thanks

There are some before and afters on the PP site  http://www.portraitprofessional.com/gallery/

Nov 24 12 04:54 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 2652

Glens Falls, New York, US

I bought the program about two years ago, and I love it.  The presets (and the photos on the site) are all terrible in my opinion.  They're over-smoothed, and VERY over-sharpened.  But the program is excellent.  I often use it to slightly thin noses, elongate necks, and smooth wrinkles/pores.  I almost never go about 30-40% on any slider.  If you only make small changes, clients will notice that they look better, but will not notice that the image has been altered.  It took me a few months to really get the hang of it; I've had about 40 sittings since then (plus a few weddings), and I've only been called out on it once.  Knock on wood.

I have used it on a few images in my MM portfolio.  I will not tell you which ones, because I don't think people need to know what's in the magician's hat.  I will tell you that one of them is extremely obvious (I just got the program, and I was awful heavy-handed with it), and the others are not the ones you think.  Some of those are just very pretty girls with a boatload of makeup.

I will say this:  it does not work as well as having a top-quality retoucher do it all in PS.  That's all well and good if you're Craig McDean and you have a thousand students willing to pay YOU to do your work, but those of us operating on a lower level, with less demanding clients still need to get paid.  It's not as good as Photoshop, but it's nearly there, and it takes less time than even the fastest retoucher to get stuff done.

Time is money.  Considering the relatively low price of the program, if you have a busy shooting schedule you can't afford NOT to buy it.  If you break the cost down into billable hours, it'll pay for itself after 5-10 uses, depending on your retouching speed.  You can still do really important work in PS, but if you use photography to put food on the table, you absolutely shouldn't be using PS as your default retouching tool.

Nov 24 12 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

GNapp Studios

Posts: 6210

Somerville, New Jersey, US

Version 11 is terrific.  Saves a ton of time and is so much better than portraiture.

Nov 24 12 05:26 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12836

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Holly necromancy.... But no it's still a crappy way to retouch images

Nov 24 12 05:35 pm Link

Photographer

KA Style

Posts: 1583

Syracuse, New York, US

Im personally not a fan of one click skin fix type presets so Im not fond of PP. I do 95% of my work in Lightroom. I really only use Photoshop for skin, frankly I use PS very little.

I think the examples on the website are awful! It makes me not want to use it at all. lol

Bottom line use what works for you and your business thats all that matters.

Nov 28 12 09:14 am Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

The Art of Churchwell 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

You saw industry reviews. You did not post any examples of any actual instances where the product was actually used in a published ad or campaign.

And just for the record, industry reviews are not the most objective thing unless they're done by reviewers who accept no advertising.

Nov 28 12 09:23 am Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

AJScalzitti wrote:
Holly necromancy.... But no it's still a crappy way to retouch images

damn it. I get sucked in every time. I really really need to look at the dates.

Nov 28 12 09:24 am Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7253

New York, New York, US

Version 11 is really good! I like it, I use it sparingly because there are somethings I don't know how to do with cs6 and well till I learn, I will use it! Don't think it matters much about what "pros" think, so long as your client love's your work, does it really matter what you used???

Nov 28 12 09:45 am Link

Photographer

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 4603

Jacksonville, Florida, US

LOL....bad mouthing the paid advertisers on MM will get you nowhere, I tried the trail version, it was an ok tool smile

Nov 28 12 09:58 am Link

Photographer

JulianRancePhotography

Posts: 280

Charlotte, North Carolina, US

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 have been using PP for a few years now and love it!  I started with version 9 and am now up to 11.  11 is leaps and bounds ahead of the older versions.  It has trimmed hours off glamor edits and by offering the ability to make presets, I can create custom adjustments for each model I work with. 

I run it as a plugin in Aperture and am satisfied with the outcome.  Almost every picture in my current MM port has been edited with PP. 

Just like with doing manual edits, you can either abuse digital edits or find just the right balance to produce a flattering outcome.  The choice is yours.

I know some have been concerned about the facial restructuring features.  You can simply disable them, which is what I almost always do.  Every blue moon I may slim a Fraggle nose if I got careless and shot at a bad angle. 

I say give the trial a go and see if you like it.

Nov 28 12 10:15 am Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7253

New York, New York, US

Pm me if you want a coupon for it. Have a great day!

Nov 28 12 10:43 am Link

Retoucher

Megan E Griscom

Posts: 453

Bordentown, New Jersey, US

Its funny how PP can people so worked up. Im just a newbie so my opinion hardly matters but I used PP a lot before i could finally afford Photoshop. Now I never use it anymore. Everything can be done in photoshop and looks so much better.

There are times I use PP now...bcause Portraiture is 200 bux...but i turn the face sculpt off...spot removal off...and pretty much turn everything down to a setting of no more than ten...with many of the sliders turned off. Any face sculpting I do in liquify.

But you can make your own presets which can be useful, as others have said.

Nov 29 12 02:41 pm Link

Photographer

Paul Best

Posts: 1294

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

PP is not a joke !! since when are there rules ? PP does advertize the extreame effects it can do , but photographers that use PP know its benifits . Post work with PP 11 i just do a few things 5% and lightroom 3 95%  just start off in origional photo mode and i advoid playing around with the hair ..

Nov 29 12 02:52 pm Link

Digital Artist

Andreea Cernestean

Posts: 495

Baia Mare, Maramureş, Romania

It's a useful tool for speed retouching. Useful for batch editing mostly. I know wedding photographers using it and it does a good job in that regard. So like many before me said it, it matters on what you intend to use it for. For beauty retouching it may not work, as it doesn't give realistic results, it loses too much texture.

Nov 30 12 01:42 pm Link

Photographer

Leighthenubian

Posts: 2968

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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...

probably just better to learn split freq. editing from the start.

Nov 30 12 01:44 pm Link

Photographer

WIP

Posts: 15547

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

I recollect in the good old days of film used use softar filters of various strengths which could be combined with 81A, B, C ect.
Today it's the same but with more control in a click of a button.

Nothings changed just the technology.

Dec 02 12 02:36 pm Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17362

Billings, Montana, US

http://blink308.com/tmp/PP_sample.jpg


It really depends on HOW you use it.

Dec 03 12 02:26 pm Link

Retoucher

Mike Needham Retouching

Posts: 369

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

It really depends on HOW you use it.

It would be more valuable to others if you could provide the layered PSD and the settings that you used. I don't necessarily expect you to...

Dec 03 12 02:57 pm Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17362

Billings, Montana, US

Mike Needham Retouching wrote:
It would be more valuable to others if you could provide the layered PSD and the settings that you used. I don't necessarily expect you to...

Sorry, I don't keep the PSD's for this type of work.


In terms of settings, you might be able to save this file to see them:

http://blink308.com/tmp/freckles.ppr    (right-click, save as)

It needs to be placed in -
C/users/../app_data/roaming/anthropics/ProfessionalPortrait/UserSavedSiders


What you'll notice is that it's a very mild setting designed to retain detail like freckles, while doing a very minimum auto-retouch. The rest is done manually with the touch-up brush. Sometime I tweak the skin color more or less, or the facial symmetry, that's about it.  Then back to P/S for some final contrast, hue, and d/b.

Dec 03 12 04:22 pm Link