Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre People Talk 
Thread started 19 Feb 2011 (Saturday) 11:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

"Portrait professional" unreal?

 
gfp
Member
245 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Southwest Virginia / East Tennessee
     
Mar 07, 2011 21:56 |  #16

acecycles wrote in post #11873487 (external link)
The "purist azzhat" in me asks :When does a tack sharp representation of reality go from being a "touched up portrait" to an "unrecognizable caricature" of the subject?

When the client stops paying you :D jk.

Ive been curious about this program for a while, I may have to download the demo and give it a try. Im curious how much the full version is, time to go to bh.


http://www.GeraldFagan​Photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jannie
Goldmember
4,936 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Mar 07, 2011 22:55 |  #17

When I shot film, portrait photographers used heavy diffusion filters on the camera and a special portrait enlarger that used a flourescent bulb to diffuse the light. We burned and dodged the photos, water bathed the negatives and the prints and used the zone system or Minor White System of exposure for effect as well as full range of detail. We used different films for different effects. We pushed the film to boost the grainy effect, we used different contrast gradings of papers or multi contrast gradings of papers to be used with contrast filters in the enlarger. We used color filters to change the affect of colors on the black and white negatives and we used polarizers to make blue skies turn almost black at times.

When you say that a program does too much to alter the image, what you need to saying is that you the photographer is using too much of the effects to change the image. It's a tool, you can use it in dozens of ways to go from zero to way overboard, it's up to you and the default is like shooting RAW only different, both give you a starting place. Shooting JPEG is much more in violation of modifying an image than Portrati Professional because JPEG's take away something right there in the camera.

It'd all about choices, the ones you the user make.

And we were the purists!


Ms.Jannie
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
1DMKIII, 85LII, 24-70L, 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kelleystar27
Member
195 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: OR
     
Mar 10, 2011 10:53 |  #18

Jannie wrote in post #11977524 (external link)
When I shot film, portrait photographers used heavy diffusion filters on the camera and a special portrait enlarger that used a flourescent bulb to diffuse the light. We burned and dodged the photos, water bathed the negatives and the prints and used the zone system or Minor White System of exposure for effect as well as full range of detail. We used different films for different effects. We pushed the film to boost the grainy effect, we used different contrast gradings of papers or multi contrast gradings of papers to be used with contrast filters in the enlarger. We used color filters to change the affect of colors on the black and white negatives and we used polarizers to make blue skies turn almost black at times.

When you say that a program does too much to alter the image, what you need to saying is that you the photographer is using too much of the effects to change the image. It's a tool, you can use it in dozens of ways to go from zero to way overboard, it's up to you and the default is like shooting RAW only different, both give you a starting place. Shooting JPEG is much more in violation of modifying an image than Portrati Professional because JPEG's take away something right there in the camera.

It'd all about choices, the ones you the user make.

And we were the purists!

^ well said. You can take it as far as you want it to go, or use it for VERY minor skin smoothing, etc. It's my photo on the new ad for V10 (first pic when you go to website). They took it way beyond what I had done to it to demo the glamours settings. They also show what the Natural settings look like,etc.. You can use the presets and dial even further down or up so it's all in your hands. Fun software! The pic they used of mine is one I took of my twin sister.


Kelley
www.facebook.com/charm​edcapturesphotography.​com (external link)
40D, 5D,5D II, 28-75 2.8, 85 1.8, 200 2.8L, 300 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kelleystar27
Member
195 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: OR
     
Mar 10, 2011 10:57 as a reply to  @ kelleystar27's post |  #19

P.S. I personally don't agree with changing one's features either...you don't want it to take away subject's character. I think it should just look like the subject was properly made up (imperfections covered,etc..)


Kelley
www.facebook.com/charm​edcapturesphotography.​com (external link)
40D, 5D,5D II, 28-75 2.8, 85 1.8, 200 2.8L, 300 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfp
Member
245 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Southwest Virginia / East Tennessee
     
Mar 10, 2011 12:03 |  #20

The program is on sale for $30 from $80. very tempting. I dont know hwo much Ill use it though, and it seems like I can do it all in photoshop myself but this will be faster. I dont like all the examples they gave, some look very amaturish.


http://www.GeraldFagan​Photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kelleystar27
Member
195 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: OR
     
Mar 10, 2011 15:42 |  #21

gfp wrote in post #11995101 (external link)
The program is on sale for $30 from $80. very tempting. I dont know hwo much Ill use it though, and it seems like I can do it all in photoshop myself but this will be faster. I dont like all the examples they gave, some look very amaturish.

Exactly the point of the software...you can definitley do it in Photoshop but it's nice to be able to have something faster if needed. I don't like all the after photos when they are done to the extreme (some clients do though). However, I don't think the before photos look amateurish. Of course, I may be biased, lol. Don't know if you were speaking of mine or not.


Kelley
www.facebook.com/charm​edcapturesphotography.​com (external link)
40D, 5D,5D II, 28-75 2.8, 85 1.8, 200 2.8L, 300 2.8L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfp
Member
245 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Southwest Virginia / East Tennessee
     
Mar 10, 2011 17:37 |  #22

I meant some of the after pictures they show on their site looks like they were processed by a grade 9 student learning photoshop 3.0. :) the face is all blurred except for the eyes mouth and hair. the lines where they intersect is to harsh and not natural looking.


http://www.GeraldFagan​Photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mi000ke
Member
125 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Apr 2010
     
Mar 11, 2011 15:57 |  #23

I find it great to quickly do some skin touch up. I usually dial the structural changes to face shape down to 0 if I want to preserve the original look of the person, but sometimes it's nice to do some subtle changes like lifting the chin up a bit or leveling eyes if it was more caused by the photo than the way the person actually looks. Anyway, as was said here a few times, you can use as much or as little of the effects as you like. And I have to say I have never gotten complaints from my subjects when I've pushed it a little farther than usual.


5D3/7D/350D/S110/24-105/15-85/70-200 2.8L Mk II/100-400L/Sigma 18-200/

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfp
Member
245 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Southwest Virginia / East Tennessee
     
Mar 11, 2011 16:09 |  #24

I am trying to weigh to buy or nto to buy. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would everyone rate it? :)

1 as in it isnt worth the money

or 10 as in its a must have, because it saves time and the customer loves the results?


http://www.GeraldFagan​Photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,101 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 618
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 11, 2011 17:34 |  #25

gfp wrote in post #12003193 (external link)
I am trying to weigh to buy or nto to buy. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would everyone rate it? :)

1 as in it isnt worth the money

or 10 as in its a must have, because it saves time and the customer loves the results?

As has been mentioned, you can do as much or as little as you want. Other plug-ins that do a comparable job in different ways cost a lot more (but also take a look at Topaz Labs products).

This and other modern plug-ins are significantly superior to previous products, which ususually relied on some Gaussian blur routine. These products are actually able to detect and replicate skin texture to a significant degree.

I use both Imagonomics Portraiture ($200) and Portrait Professional for different tasks. One major benefit of Portrait Professional is that you can run it as an action or batch (droplet) on an entire folder of photos at once--it has the ability of unattended self-masking for skin tones.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,101 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 618
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 11, 2011 17:45 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #26

And I have to say I have never gotten complaints from my subjects when I've pushed it a little farther than usual.

Neither have I. I have discovered that people don't pay hundreds of dollars for "purist" portraits of themselves.

A couple of points about that:

First, a "pure" photograph does not image a person as he sees himself--or as anyone else sees him, for that matter. Unlike experiencing a person "in the flesh," the photograph "fixes" the features and removes most of the personality exposed by movement, voice, et cetera. Therefore you examine physical elements that you would not have examined "in the flesh."

One example was my old Latin teacher, Mrs Shutz. She was gray haired, heavily wrinkled--but she had crystal blue eyes, a great sense of humor, and the keenest wit you could imagine. Interacting with her, all you would see and remember would be her dazzling eyes and smile.

But in a typical "purist" photograph, all you would notice would be her wrinkles. Is that "reality?" Would that be a "portrait?"

Another point is that by the nature of flattening a three-dimensional subject to a 2-dimensional surface, you automatically distort it--giving it a broader appearance. That's why people say, "The camera adds 10 pounds." Mapmakers are well familiar with the problem.

A knowledgeable photographer lights and poses his subject to compensate for these "faults" of the camera, producing a portrait that in a still photograph yet captures at least part of what a person would actually experience if interacting with the subject, and not injecting the photographic "falsehoods" of a "straight" image.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
steve6101
Member
Avatar
35 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2010
Location: South Yorkshire
     
Mar 12, 2011 02:10 |  #27

I use Portrait Professional and I agree the results when installed are over the top but you have to tweek it to get the result you want




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mbloof
Member
Avatar
101 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Washington County, Oregon, USA
     
Mar 12, 2011 22:20 |  #28

acecycles wrote in post #11873487 (external link)
I am constantly blown away by the level of work here and the jaw dropping models!

well I've recently stumbled across "Portrait professional" and just from the demos see it automatically produces the buttery smooth; clean skin tones I see are all the rage (here?)
http://www.portraitpro​fessional.com/gallery/​?p=3 (external link)
looking at the demo galleries:

The "purist azzhat" in me asks :When does a tack sharp representation of reality go from being a "touched up portrait" to an "unrecognizable caricature" of the subject?

IMHO: Yuck. Good example of "over cooked" images.


Marko
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mbloof/sets/ (external link)
www.Marko-Photo.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djentley
Senior Member
386 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Mar 12, 2011 22:33 as a reply to  @ mbloof's post |  #29

http://www.portraitpro​fessional.com/gallery/​?p=11 (external link)

...is clearly a terminator, the skin has ceased being skin and become a polished rubber...

http://www.portraitpro​fessional.com/gallery/​?p=0 (external link)

...all defining personality has been banished from her face...

http://www.portraitpro​fessional.com/gallery/​?p=5 (external link)

...and this one has crossed the uncanny valley, the eyes look inhuman.


My 500px. (external link) I like action (external link) and volcanoes. (external link) Dragons (external link) and temples (external link) are fine, too!
I don't think the Earth revolves around me. It revolves around the Sun, which shines out of my ass.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
darobby
Member
47 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 14, 2011 15:56 |  #30

Wow, just downloaded the demo. I loaded a portrait and got frustrated I could not save it. I'll have to buy it now. Very easy. You can do as much or little as you want. I would say to the OP, just download the free demo and try it out yourself.


5DMkIII, 5D MkII, 7D Gripped, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 24-105L, Canon 85 1.8, Canon 100 Macro L, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II L, Canon 100-400 L, 2XTCIII 430EXii, 580EXii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24,720 views & 0 likes for this thread
"Portrait professional" unreal?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre People Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is qawsedrftg
873 guests, 309 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.