Portrait Professional - C&C and Thoughts

paulkellypix

Hi,

I saw an advert for Portrait Professional (http://www.portraitprofessional.com/) in Practical Photography this month and decided to splash out the €45 needed for download.

Here's my first attempt at using it. The jury's still out in my mind about it. I'll try and get a before photo also for comparison.

Anyone else use it??

DK32

I have played about with it before. You really have to go easy on the settings and avoid using it's defaults otherwise it looks far too processed. It is good for softening skin tones and whitening teeth & eyes.

DaireQuinlan

paulkellypix wrote: »

Here's my first attempt at using it. The jury's still out in my mind about it. I'll try and get a before photo also for comparison.

That looks really dreadful, plasticky and horribly over-processed. I'd zip that slider back from 11 to about 3 or 4 or so ...

paulkellypix

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That looks really dreadful, plasticky and horribly over-processed. I'd zip that slider back from 11 to about 3 or 4 or so ...

Yeah - that's what I thought - but when you've been looking at the same image for a while, you start to question yourself!

I'll toy about with it later - it seems to be OK but the "plasticky" feeling is to be avoided at all costs.

Cheers

PaulieC

the general rule seems to be that plasticky is OK if done in PS, but not in PP :rolleyes:

I use it the odd time to dolly up the picture of the ladies. They love it...makes them all giggly to see themselves looking a bit younger

Thecageyone

You should have posted up a before and after like the advert for the program does. I was thinking of looking into this program after seeing it in the same mag myself.

magicbastarder

the default image in the gallery on the site - the one of the couple - leaves him looking like a mutant after processing. you'd think they'd have a better example to lead with.

PaulieC

in fairness, the example you have posted doesn't look that bad. unless you're looking really closely, it could as well be a really good make-up job

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

the default image in the gallery on the site - the one of the couple - leaves him looking like a mutant after processing. you'd think they'd have a better example to lead with.

I like the "make your asians look less asian" face reshaping feature. And the quotes on the site ...

"I even had one of my female clients tell me that I was the best photographer she'd ever been photographed by. She said "This is the first time I've ever seen a photograph that looks like me" (It looked better)."

(emphasis mine) Easy to see where their sales pitch is heading

ColmDawson

Yikes, it's one thing to remove a few blemishes, but it changes the shape of people's heads? No thanks.

DaireQuinlan

ColmDawson wrote: »

Yikes, it's one thing to remove a few blemishes, but it changes the shape of people's heads? No thanks.

no no no, you don't understand. It makes people look BETTER. If that involves fudging the old noodle a little then so be it :rolleyes:

PaulieC

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

no no no, you don't understand. It makes people look BETTER. If that involves fudging the old noodle a little then so be it :rolleyes:

it doesn't make people look better. it makes them look more like they wish they looked like, or in the case of the lady quited on the website, it makes them look like they think they look like

bernard0368

That does no favours to the model. You could try Cspringers photoshop action (http://www.atncentral.com/image_enhance.htm). I hear you can get good results from it.

Borderfox

I use it a bit and find it fine in small doses, as said above the ladies love the effect it gives and if you look in any magazines and the likes of the Dove "evolution" video you will see what the real world is used to.

Sometimes you have to stop thinking like a photographer and think more like a client and what they would like to see.

DaireQuinlan

cambo_gueno wrote: »

it doesn't make people look better. it makes them look more like they wish they looked like, or in the case of the lady quited on the website, it makes them look like they think they look like

I know, I was being facetious. I think the entire idea is repellent.

magicbastarder

i've seen photos of myself (taken at a wedding) with whitened teeth and whites of eyes, wrinkles in skin removed, etc.
it's actually kinda unnerving - a happy valley effect, i suspect. i look like lestat in them.

magicbastarder

if i wasn't so bemused, i reckon i'd be entitled to be a bit insulted at someone taking it upon themselves to 'improve' me.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen photos of myself (taken at a wedding) with whitened teeth and whites of eyes, wrinkles in skin removed, etc.
it's actually kinda unnerving - a happy valley effect, i suspect. i look like lestat in them.

Does that mean that ordinarily you look like Tom Cruise with no makeup on ?
.
.
*shivers*

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Does that mean that ordinarily you look like Tom Cruise with no makeup on ?

joeKel73

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'd zip that slider back from 11 to about 3 or 4 or so ...

The sliders go to 11.... wow that really is powerful software...

paulkellypix

OK - so I went back to the drawing board so to speak, here's a BEFORE shot



and an AFTER shot



The after has less "plasticy" feel to it, but I've overdone the fake tan.

I'm beginning to like this programme - and at only 45 euro, it's decent value too.

DK32

You know when you've been Tangoed

PaulieC

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I know, I was being facetious. I think the entire idea is repellent.

as was I :-)

dan759

How come in the after shot there is a big smudge on her shoulder?

I have to admit, having never heard of this program before, I quite like the look of it.


Would love to see some more real life examples though (ie; not off the website that's trying to sell it to you!).

How does it work when you actually open it? Is it just a slider as mentioned above, or a series of complicated buttons and menus that mean there is a large learning curve?

melekalikimaka

i find the program pretty ming, gives nasty ol effect. grand for spotty teenagers, but for a model... just looks like she HAD to be edited, he skin looks better pre pp imo

AnimalRights

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That looks really dreadful, plasticky and horribly over-processed. I'd zip that slider back from 11 to about 3 or 4 or so ...

100% as he said.
It's like one of those medievel paintings of Kings and Queens from centuries back.

AnimalRights

paulkellypix wrote: »

The after has less "plasticy" feel to it, but I've overdone the fake tan.

Still look's totally lousy to me.

smelltheglove

There is a skin smoothing action in paint shop pro that's brill. I now use Photoshop though nut there are plenty of actions you can download. My favourite is coffee shop portrait.

I like a bit of pp, I 'thinfy' myself in every shot but wouldn't dare so it to a client unless I was asked to although I do smooth all skin slightly, even babies!

Borderfox

I have PP and got another one called Imagenomic Portraiture which I like as it doesnt need a lot of looking after and can be stuck into an action

thefizz

The original pic looks fine and normal to me but the altered one looks like a plastic toy doll which was dipped in chocolate. No offense intended.

Why do some people want to look like something their not? If I want my photo taken then I want it to look like me. If I get an "improved" version made, then when I look at it I'm still going to think that wasn't really how I looked.

Then again, I'm a bloke.

Ghost Train

skin tone in second shot looks worse to me, can see its use for cleaning up blemishes, but too much seems to look plastic

smelltheglove

I dont really agree that postprocessing is always an imporved version. A lot of the time the camera makes blemishes or lines look a lot worse than they are, so I find the right amount of skin smoothing brings things more like reality although it easy to go past the right amount and improve, as I said before though I do like a bit of improvement.....