login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > is portrait pro a good photo editing program? Search   Reply
Model
Dina Khrapko
Posts: 23
NEWTON HIGHLANDS, Massachusetts, US


what do you think
Oct 22 12 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Peano
Posts: 4,106
Lynchburg, Virginia, US


Oct 22 12 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Armond Scipione Photo
Posts: 228
Miami, Florida, US


You definitely want to stay away from any automated photo editing programs. Each picture has different needs.
Oct 22 12 05:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sci
Posts: 107
Arklow, Wicklow, Ireland


Armond Scipione Photo wrote:
You definitely want to stay away from any automated photo editing programs. Each picture has different needs.

+1

Applying the same "formula" will not work on every image.

Based on the banner ads for this program, I really dislike the end results, they look extremely fake.

Oct 23 12 08:24 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Peano
Posts: 4,106
Lynchburg, Virginia, US


Armond Scipione Photo wrote:
You definitely want to stay away from any automated photo editing programs.

If by "automated" you mean applications like Imagenomic Portraiture, then I disagree. They can be quite useful -- if you take the time to learn how to use them (which, it appears to me, many people don't do).

Oct 23 12 08:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4,740
Houston, Texas, US


No...but if it's all you know,  then it'll do.
Oct 23 12 08:55 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Napier Photographie
Posts: 87
Dallas, Texas, US


Peano wrote:
If by "automated" you mean applications like Imagenomic Portraiture, then I disagree. They can be quite useful -- if you take the time to learn how to use them (which, it appears to me, many people don't do).

+1

It's a tool and like any tool the quality of the final work is determined by the expertise of the hand wielding it.

Oct 23 12 08:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19,001
Key West, Florida, US


If you know how to use it wisely then it is ok. Myself, I had it and kn ow how to use it wisely...but removed it because I just wasn't a fan of it.
Oct 23 12 09:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Swank Photography
Posts: 19,001
Key West, Florida, US


sci wrote:
Applying the same "formula" will not work on every image.

^this^ I know some photographers and retouchers who do this and it drives me nuts.

Oct 23 12 09:20 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Kristiana-Retouch
Posts: 289
London, England, United Kingdom


I don't think retouching photos by yourself in general is good idea.. With automated programs you won't get good results, you will just build up low level portfolio for yourself. (Because probably you don't have enough time and patience to study hard retouching and you will end up with fake looking skin).
Oct 23 12 01:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Image Magik
Posts: 1,067
New Orleans, Louisiana, US


Dina Khrapko wrote:
what do you think

I see a lot of people making quotes who haven't really put this program
through it's paces. If you have and don't like something about it then mention what you didn't like and why it doesn't do what you like. I personally use the program and it's fast and works great for some things. It's all how you use it. All the settings on it are fully adjustable to tailor to each specific photo. There was a recent post on this same topic a few days ago OP.

Oct 23 12 01:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
VisiFoto
Posts: 501
Knoxville, Tennessee, US


Image Magik wrote:

I see a lot of people making quotes who haven't really put this program
through it's paces. If you have and don't like something about it then mention what you didn't like and why it doesn't do what you like. I personally use the program and it's fast and works great for some things. It's all how you use it. All the settings on it are fully adjustable to tailor to each specific photo. There was a recent post on this same topic a few days ago OP.

Fuck yeah, it's awesome.

Eay as pie for a rookie, fully adjustable for the expert.

It only does faces, you still have to fix the rest of the body.

You must heal all major skin defects before using Portrait Pro.

You can't use it as an adjustment layer over the original, since it morphs the bone structure.

It psychs out the models a little bit, but they still love the images.

Example after Portrait Pro:

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120911/21/50500b06141d7.jpg

Oct 30 12 03:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,549
Seattle, Washington, US


Dina Khrapko wrote:
what do you think

it's a joke program.

i suggest practicing, and practicing.  practice lighting that makes skin look good. practice depth of field. practice editing using the spot removal tool in lightroom for example. practice.

Oct 30 12 03:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Paul Snyder
Posts: 87
Columbus, Ohio, US


no.
Oct 30 12 03:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ed Woodson Photography
Posts: 2,644
Savannah, Georgia, US


Portrait Professional is an inexpensive program and useful for photographers who intend to do nothing but portraits.

Some people think that it's a "one size fits all" type of program.  However, it is not.  It's very adjustable and you can get varying results depending on how much time you spend with it.

I see comments about how overprocessed their Ad Banners look.  And they do.

But, I've seen far worse done to images in LR and PS by people who claim to know what they're doing.

Having said all of that, i'd recommend you pick up a copy of LR4 and a copy of CS6 and do your processing there.

My $ .02
Oct 30 12 03:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LMG Images
Posts: 673
Nashville, Tennessee, US


I don't like it.  I do like the liquify it does and you can adjust them.  For some reason when I turn the skin function off it still blurs/removes noise.
Oct 30 12 03:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dave McDermott
Posts: 311
Coill Dubh, Kildare, Ireland


Christiana_psd wrote:
I don't think retouching photos by yourself in general is good idea.. With automated programs you won't get good results, you will just build up low level portfolio for yourself. (Because probably you don't have enough time and patience to study hard retouching and you will end up with fake looking skin).

It doesn't have to look fake. It depends on how you use it. You can adjust sliders making the minimal of changes. It works well for the eyes too. It's easy to use but you can still get great results with it if used properly.

Oct 30 12 03:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rich Arnold Photography
Posts: 940
Los Angeles, California, US


I would use Imagenomic's Portraiture. Does an amazing job in a flash. If you want to learn how how to do High Pass and Frequency Separation, have at it. In the meantime, Portraiture will give you professional results immediately. I know the retoucher's here hate it for obvious reasons but I love it. It was used on almost every shot in my port.
Nov 05 12 09:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gulag
Posts: 1,233
Duluth, Georgia, US


Dina Khrapko wrote:
what do you think

If you can charge people $50 or more per image, why not?

Nov 05 12 09:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 4,850
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom


It is not a photo editing programme. For basic selection editing 'Windows Explorer' will do nicely, Bridge adds a lot more functionality.

As a tool that might be useful in post-processing / retouching then it depends on if it meets your market needs and your realism integrity. Personally I do not like to re-shape someone's face. Pulling in a little bit of stomach or arm, fine but changing the facial structure I do not like. One time someone insisted that I thinned down their cheeksand reduced their nose. They were happy with the photo but I doubt that the parent whom it was a present for comfortably recognised their daughter.

If I need to do some skin smoothing then I will possibly use Imagenomic's Portraiture plug-in or, if doing a very quick process in Nikon's CNX2 then a very low setting and low opacity use of Nik's Dymanic Skin filter in ColourFX. Following an event I can have a few hundred images to treat, for that sort of thing not using a plug-in does not make sense unless the payment level is there to justify it.
Nov 07 12 05:24 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
PixelNation Retouching
Posts: 73
Nashville, Tennessee, US


I purchased it when version 6 or 7 came out and I rarely use it.  It has some interesting features but it's too unpersonal. I like to engage an image
Nov 08 12 07:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


It's really a Catch-22 isn't it? It's targeted to amateurs with little to no Photoshop experience.

If you're using it as an inexperienced user the tendency will be to let the program take over and the results are most often horrific and unrealistic. If you're more advanced in image editing why in the world would you want to rely on or need that program?

Personally, I downloaded the trial a few years back and was mortified. If I had a llama who needed that extent of facial restructuring I would find another llama.

Turning Oprah into Tyra doesn't interest me at all.

The bigger problem I see is that any reliance on a program like that just prevents someone from actually learning proper techniques. It's a crutch, and a bad one at that.
Nov 08 12 08:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


I think "Photo butchering program" would be a better description for it.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com
Nov 08 12 08:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


photoimager wrote:
It is not a photo editing programme. For basic selection editing 'Windows Explorer' will do nicely, Bridge adds a lot more functionality.

Those programs are file system browsers or, in the case of Bridge, a digital asset management tool (sounds way more impressive I guess).

I don't see how those are a comparison to an image editing tool like PP.

Nov 08 12 08:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KonstantKarma
Posts: 2,513
Hickory, North Carolina, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
It's really a Catch-22 isn't it? It's targeted to amateurs with little to no Photoshop experience.

If you're using it as an inexperienced user the tendency will be to let the program take over and the results are most often horrific and unrealistic. If you're more advanced in image editing why in the world would you want to rely on or need that program?

Personally, I downloaded the trial a few years back and was mortified. If I had a model who needed that extent of facial restructuring I would find another model.

Turning Oprah into Tyra doesn't interest me at all.

The bigger problem I see is that any reliance on a program like that just prevents someone from actually learning proper techniques. It's a crutch, and a bad one at that.

Did the same, feel the same. I'm no pro retoucher, but I take all the time I can to learn the best techniques I can, without turning people into blobs of wax.

Nov 08 12 08:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KirstyWiseman
Posts: 48
Wigan, England, United Kingdom


No, dont - it makes faces look like wax work dummies.
Retouchers retouch better.
Photographers, if unable to afford retouching, should use good light or run a filter over the image which masks skin tones.  Use action with creamy tones as this reduces redness.

smile
Nov 09 12 09:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24,315
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US


just say no..
the images might look slick on a computer, but they are rendered useless for publishing.

http://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png
Nov 09 12 09:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ruben Vasquez
Posts: 3,104
Puyallup, Washington, US


It's a tool that has its place. In a nutshell, it's a tool to give speed over quality so applications with high volume work such as weddings or events, anything where you have hundreds of images that need to be worked on, this is a good program to use. But for best results, I highly recommend using it in moderation and don't completely rely (if at all), on the programs automation.

For images that require high quality such as beauty or fashion, I don't recommend it at all. It's just not going to give the results that skillful application of dodge and burn will.
Nov 09 12 10:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Anthony-Ray
Posts: 387
Raleigh, North Carolina, US


I prefer photoshop actions for automation.

As mentioned though, every photo is different, so imo it's not very useful unless the lighting/framing never changes.
Nov 09 12 10:23 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CZ Digital
Posts: 78
Prague, Prague, Czech Republic


If you don't care for the complexity of Photoshop but still want a workable program that will grow with you, I'd suggest Lightroom.  It offers a lot of nice functionality straight from the box, accepts tons of Photoshop plugins when you're ready grow into that functionality.

I've tried Portrait Pro and am In consensus with pretty much everyone here...the results are too fake looking and there's not enough control over what it does to your images.  Granted I didn't spend enough time with it to learn it's ins and outs, but I quickly saw it wasn't what I was looking for personally and got Lightroom instead.  Haven't looked back since....
Nov 09 12 10:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,406
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Plugin as in automated are like the PS pull down effects filters.

Inherent problem with all these skin softening and action programs are that they even out the skin tones and soften the bone structure....... but the human bone structure be it closer or further to the skin changes tone and texture.

So what do people do to try and re instal some type of bone structure shape D&B - carve which is faking it and never quiet works as well as we'd want it to and you spend your time wanging sliders.
Nov 10 12 02:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Modstudios
Posts: 1,157
Beavercreek, Ohio, US


Dina Khrapko wrote:
what do you think

When I first started out I used this program. I can honestly say that it is not worth the money. Skin tone looks terrible, results inconsistent. You are better off with other alternatives.

Nov 10 12 02:21 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers