Good morning Net Port.

This morning i uploaded 2 images, a before and after head shot that I edited with Portrait Profesional. Whilst the images were cropped from larger pictures (hence quality reduction) i am intrested to here what people think of this online software that you can buy, and also the results of the edit in my images.

I have heard that Portriat Pro can overdo the image and ruin the feeling within it, so im not expecting raving revues of the edit.

The border was added in Elements 5 and i am aware that it has darken the colours slightly, the border was added via the "File" "Place" option, but to get the image to come through i had to change the visabilty, making a compromise between seeing the border and seeing the image in the layer below. If anyone has any better suggestions on how to acheive this function again, i am all ears.

I do not claim to be an edit wizard, however the person (note not model) in the image is really happy with the result, and therefore i would use this software to touch up the odd shot here and there.

Many thanks for your time at looking at my latest 2 images.

Keiran

Hi Keiron, all I can see is one on your portfolio - it looks untouched... where is the other buddy?

On a personal note I do find Portrait Professional (I've got version 6) has its uses for a quick fix but you have to be careful not to overdo it -  the results start to look very very unnatural and quite scary.   I'm biased because I'm a Photoshop guy through and through and I've invested alot of time and energy in learning it so don't listen to me...

Look forward to seeing the other

I've used it and its pretty good.

My word of caution is that you must use it VERY sparingly. I've seen so many cases when users have made the subects skin look like wax and totally unnatural. The ads used to promote this product is a prime example of this.

I would use it more if it worked as a Photoshop plug-in rather than a stand-alone product.
 
www.calvert.biz

Hello,

In regards to this thread often members upload the same image twice and as part of the routine work we do here we remove the duplicates. The OP uploaded the before and after as 2 images which then looked identical at first glance, mistaken as a duplicate we removed one of them.

We have contacted the OP and will assist if needed in helping him put the before and after shot onto one image to upload instead of 2. It should make seeing the touch up work he did easier as well.

We have apologised to the OP and apologise to anyone now confused by this thread. This thread will be bumped again (if not done so by the OP) as soon as the image is back up on his profile.


Net-Portfolio

Net-Portfolio , Photographer  posted on 31/03/2009 13:01:21   Posted 605 times

Located:London,Middlesex, UK
Member Since: 19/09/2008

As mentioned above, i am in the process of sorting the images out now,

Seth, i will take you up on that offer, and you should have the images within the hour if not sooner.

many thanks for all comments.

Keiran

Images uploaded on behalf of the OP for your critique:

Net-Portfolio , Photographer  posted on 31/03/2009 13:31:30   Posted 605 times

Located:London,Middlesex, UK
Member Since: 19/09/2008

Many Seth

Hey,

The top one I think I prefer the untouched version. This is probably as you say because your border caused this darkening effect that you didn't want. I assume it's meant to be some kind of 'through a window' effect. Personally don't use borders, unless it is a plain black or white thin'ish border to give some impact. Nick Giles, Tony Nutley both use borders in a way that is not an eye sore if you want some examples of good border use. Just a plain black border is best if at all. Mark Chappell has done an interesting idea of a polaroid style border for some images which I quite like.

Anyway for you I'd say forget the borders.

The skin smoothing looks good though but again because of the lighting its hard to judge.

The second image again, border....I'd remove it. No need for these effects, unless you are trying to show people effects that are possible don't use them. They give nothing to your image. The skin smoothing isn't bad though but I notice her jaw in the one on the left is longer but in the right its squarer, was that intentional or am I seeing things.

When retouching especially when learning the original shot needs to be as good as possible. The lighting judging by the shadow behind her head looks like it was wrong on the original shot anyway and there is a lot 'granules' on the skin that you had to deal with which often leads to over smoothing and a non-natural look. Another problem with the shot is her left eye (our right looking at the image), a strand of hair is covering the white of the eye making the eye look like it is rolling into her head rather than looking diagonal. Something to look for in an image after you take it, always beware of hair on eyes for that reason.

Another good retouch is to remove stray strands, you can make frizzy hair look lovely and conditioned this way and best of all it takes very little time to do. I am a Photoshop user though so not sure on Portrait Pro. I'd do this around the top right of her head to tidy those strands and often I liquify the hair to reshape it if I am not happy. I'd consider cloning in the hair at the front to make it fuller and more 'fashion'.

I am a harsh critic so please excuse the forensic analysis. On the whole thought I think a good early attempt and being open to criticism as you are you will improve, it's just a matter of time.

Good luck!

M x

 

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 31/03/2009 14:23:40   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Thanks Margret,

(still cant open mail at work)

Thanks for the comments, all taken on board and will test and adjust on the next time round., although i think i need to invest in a good book to help me through elements 5, which i normaly use.

The jaw ..... no it wasnt intentional, and no your not seeing things, Portrait Pro has changed this in the editing. Its a good programme for the quick fix, but i am now looking to see if there is a way to cut this re-shaping out of the process.

As for the borders, yes agreed, part of it was to see the effects they would have (got to explore everything on a free CD). and i will sit and play over the next few days, removing the borders and "get the colour back" into the image.

Watch this space 

I use Portrait Pro ( The Max version).  You are right in saying it can overcook the image if you are not careful.  But to me, it is certainly quicker and easier than using Photoshop in my opinion.


Kevin

I use it to remove imperfections. I find- if when its done its stuff you go to the drop down box and use female complexion it generally does it sparingly and restores any distortions to undistorted if you hit enter it toggles between processed and unprocessed. the main portrait on my site was done with it. I find the more accurate you are with the point spotting the better the result. spend more time on the tweak before you hit the last space bar and it will do just fine. If i dont like the result i just use photoshaop and get rid of spots and blemishes using clone and spot removal. practice on different pics helps.


Regards Paul

www.glossypinklipstick.co.uk

***

GlossyPinkLipstick , Photographer  posted on 31/03/2009 19:53:12   Posted 276 times

Located:Harlow,Essex, UK
Member Since: 12/10/2008

I was under the impression that this was a plug-in for CS3, Tony Nutley showed it to me the other day, you apply the filter and then wind it back until it looks natural. Usually its a horrible waxy thing but models love it for some reason.

Used correctly it seems pretty useful.

It hasnt got rid of the rather large zit on the nmodels chin in this instance - perhaps cloning may do the job. Its not easy to see how successful PP has been on these particular examples, they are a bit dark

Still, keep plugging away, not a bad effort

Quoting post from GaryWallace

---

I was under the impression that this was a plug-in for CS3, Tony Nutley showed it to me the other day, you apply the filter and then wind it back until it looks natural. Usually its a horrible waxy thing but models love it for some reason.

Used correctly it seems pretty useful.

It hasnt got rid of the rather large zit on the nmodels chin in this instance - perhaps cloning may do the job. Its not easy to see how successful PP has been on these particular examples, they are a bit dark

Still, keep plugging away, not a bad effort

---

Gary got it all wrong as usual, What I showed him was Imagenomic Portraiture 2 a vastly superior animal (it is a plug in), but which still has to be used very sparingly.

I possess both, Portrait professional is absolutely brilliant for doodling with whilst on the telephone, you can make amazing caricatures of people you loathe in minutes, as  working tool it rates with using cement mixers for peeling potatoes in it's usefullness.

Personally I genuinely find it horrible.

Tony

lol

Go Tony!!!  

Portrait Professional is by far the worse plug in ever made by man,
It's vile. Simple as. If you want to make someone look like a Soho sex doll, this is the the filter for you.

I still think pro retouching should be done by hand/tablet, using a filter is lazy and generic. Having said that, I did quite like Kodak's Digital Air Brush Pro 2 when I dabbled in that 2D generic look.

It gets a thumbs down from me.

And BTW the polaroid borders are created by actually shooting Polaroids on a Mamiya RZ67 (not by photoshop) ask Gary and Tony!

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Portrait Professional is by far the worse plug in ever made by man,
It's vile. Simple as. If you want to make someone look like a Soho sex doll, this is the the filter for you.

I still think pro retouching should be done by hand/tablet, using a filter is lazy and generic. Having said that, I did quite like Kodak's Digital Air Brush Pro 2 when I dabbled in that 2D generic look.

It gets a thumbs down from me.

And BTW the polaroid borders are created by actually shooting Polaroids on a Mamiya RZ67 (not by photoshop) ask Gary and Tony!

---

Those are of real polaroids....you are Mr. Retro! I must go check those images again then, assumed it must be photoshop. Can you still get Polaroids too then!? I was under the impression all this kind of thing was discontinued.

M x

DragonLady , Digital Retoucher  posted on 01/04/2009 21:36:50   Posted 934 times

Located:London,London, UK
Member Since: 07/11/2008

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Portrait Professional is by far the worse plug in ever made by man,
It's vile. Simple as. If you want to make someone look like a Soho sex doll, this is the the filter for you.

I still think pro retouching should be done by hand/tablet, using a filter is lazy and generic. Having said that, I did quite like Kodak's Digital Air Brush Pro 2 when I dabbled in that 2D generic look.

It gets a thumbs down from me.

And BTW the polaroid borders are created by actually shooting Polaroids on a Mamiya RZ67 (not by photoshop) ask Gary and Tony!

---

Those are of real polaroids....you are Mr. Retro! I must go check those images again then, assumed it must be photoshop. Can you still get Polaroids too then!? I was under the impression all this kind of thing was discontinued.

M x

---

Fuji 100 instant film is widely still available despite the demise of Polaroids,  I use them to make sure the exposure is correct for when I switch to the film backs on the RZ67. Sometimes I like the look of the 'roid itself and scan it.

Everyone seems to assume its a PS trick. But there are a few togs who can vouch for me! Namely Tony and Gary.

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Portrait Professional is by far the worse plug in ever made by man,
It's vile. Simple as. If you want to make someone look like a Soho sex doll, this is the the filter for you.

I still think pro retouching should be done by hand/tablet, using a filter is lazy and generic. Having said that, I did quite like Kodak's Digital Air Brush Pro 2 when I dabbled in that 2D generic look.

It gets a thumbs down from me.

And BTW the polaroid borders are created by actually shooting Polaroids on a Mamiya RZ67 (not by photoshop) ask Gary and Tony!

---

Those are of real polaroids....you are Mr. Retro! I must go check those images again then, assumed it must be photoshop. Can you still get Polaroids too then!? I was under the impression all this kind of thing was discontinued.

M x

---

Fuji 100 instant film is widely still available despite the demise of Polaroids,  I use them to make sure the exposure is correct for when I switch to the film backs on the RZ67. Sometimes I like the look of the 'roid itself and scan it.

Everyone seems to assume its a PS trick. But there are a few togs who can vouch for me! Namely Tony and Gary.

---

I have to agree with Mark, it's genuine, they are 'Fuji Polaroids'

The idea is that you take what used to be a very expensive camera, with a very expensive Polaroid back, you then go outdoors and take a 'snap' of roughly the same quality as a late 1940's box camera.

You next take  a roll of black and white film which you expose in the camera and process the same. You finally scan both neg & 'Polaroid' (i.e digitise them), this gives you two rather poor quality images almost as good as a medium range point and shoot camera produces.

This is progress.  

Tony

Thanks for that guys. I think sometimes you experienced pros forget that we cant all afford Photoshop CS "28" and hundreds of pounds worth of plug ins and we do the best with what we can afford. One day we might be lucky enough to own state of the art software, till then we carry on as we are.......Cheers


Regards Paul

www.glossypinklipstick.co.uk

***

GlossyPinkLipstick , Photographer  posted on 01/04/2009 22:46:37   Posted 276 times

Located:Harlow,Essex, UK
Member Since: 12/10/2008

Quoting post from TonyNutley

---

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Quoting post from Margaret

---

Quoting post from Mark Chappell

---

Portrait Professional is by far the worse plug in ever made by man,
It's vile. Simple as. If you want to make someone look like a Soho sex doll, this is the the filter for you.

I still think pro retouching should be done by hand/tablet, using a filter is lazy and generic. Having said that, I did quite like Kodak's Digital Air Brush Pro 2 when I dabbled in that 2D generic look.

It gets a thumbs down from me.

And BTW the polaroid borders are created by actually shooting Polaroids on a Mamiya RZ67 (not by photoshop) ask Gary and Tony!

---

Those are of real polaroids....you are Mr. Retro! I must go check those images again then, assumed it must be photoshop. Can you still get Polaroids too then!? I was under the impression all this kind of thing was discontinued.

M x

---

Fuji 100 instant film is widely still available despite the demise of Polaroids,  I use them to make sure the exposure is correct for when I switch to the film backs on the RZ67. Sometimes I like the look of the 'roid itself and scan it.

Everyone seems to assume its a PS trick. But there are a few togs who can vouch for me! Namely Tony and Gary.

---

I have to agree with Mark, it's genuine, they are 'Fuji Polaroids'

The idea is that you take what used to be a very expensive camera, with a very expensive Polaroid back, you then go outdoors and take a 'snap' of roughly the same quality as a late 1940's box camera.

You next take  a roll of black and white film which you expose in the camera and process the same. You finally scan both neg & 'Polaroid' (i.e digitise them), this gives you two rather poor quality images almost as good as a medium range point and shoot camera produces.

This is progress.  

Tony

---

You know you're just jealous!

Thanks for the 'back up'