|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Portrait Professional...any good? Examples?
DanK Photography wrote: Mostly Staten Island Sep 30 11 01:35 pm Link
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
Post hidden on Sep 30, 2011 08:41 pm
Reason: not helpful Comments: quotes hidden post Sep 30 11 02:31 pm Link David Moss Photography wrote: 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  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
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 have a blessed day everyone Sep 30 11 11:50 pm Link The Art of Churchwell wrote:
Oct 01 11 07:32 am Link Sergei Rodionov wrote: +1 Oct 01 11 08:19 am Link Sergei Rodionov wrote: +1 Oct 01 11 08:35 am Link Lulie Lens wrote: oh crap.. i hate to be politically correct. Shall go and wash shame off by shooting some 4x5 film Oct 01 11 08:40 am Link Krunoslav-Stifter wrote: +1 for everyone. its on me Oct 01 11 10:14 am Link 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 Sergei Rodionov wrote: 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 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 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 Derrick Schwieters wrote: There are some before and afters on the PP site http://www.portraitprofessional.com/gallery/ Nov 24 12 04:54 pm Link 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 Version 11 is terrific. Saves a ton of time and is so much better than portraiture. Nov 24 12 05:26 pm Link Holly necromancy.... But no it's still a crappy way to retouch images Nov 24 12 05:35 pm Link 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 The Art of Churchwell wrote: 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. Nov 28 12 09:23 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: damn it. I get sucked in every time. I really really need to look at the dates. Nov 28 12 09:24 am Link 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 LOL....bad mouthing the paid advertisers on MM will get you nowhere, I tried the trail version, it was an ok tool  Nov 28 12 09:58 am Link New Dawn Photography wrote: 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. Nov 28 12 10:15 am Link Pm me if you want a coupon for it. Have a great day! Nov 28 12 10:43 am Link 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 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 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 New Dawn Photography wrote: probably just better to learn split freq. editing from the start. Nov 30 12 01:44 pm Link 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  It really depends on HOW you use it. Dec 03 12 02:26 pm Link 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 Mike Needham Retouching wrote: Sorry, I don't keep the PSD's for this type of work. Dec 03 12 04:22 pm Link |
