Quote:
Originally Posted by jiminyClickit
FredSpencer, Welcome
Useful, as much as any edit program, for the minor softening of the worst that Nature may have bestowed. But when this program reshapes jaw/cheek lines and changes the distance between eyes, it's no longer a portrait: it's an advertising gimmick in search of "perfection.". The choice is ethical, between honest portrayal of a distinct person, or a manipulated image. There's a place for each, as long as it's understood which is being presented. Your understanding of lighting, composition, angle of head and shoulders, rapport during shoot, soft or hard focus will be more likely to produce results that garner praise than any artificial repairs.
|
Thanks for replying with your views. I have not been able to get onto the forum at times and been busy with other things as well, so I apologize for taking this long to get back to everyone.
I don't understand what you mean by 'an advertising gimmick in search of "perfection".' - perhaps you would be kind enough to explain for me.
Whilst I agree with you that a better photograph in the first place would be the ideal goal, I do feel that restricting ones 'artistic' output to just that is only part of modern day photography.
The photographer's skills that you describe to get 'an honest portrayal of a distinct person' are themselves nothing more than manipulations, albeit before rather than after the photograph is taken. The classics of low angle to minimize hair loss and higher angle to hide a double chin spring readily to mind. Positioning a light or reflector to reduce shadow can be used to reduce a heavy looking jaw line or widen the view of a face. Focusing and filters also affect things like wrinkles, pores and blemishes.
All of these things are worthwhile if they can be achieved, if only to minimize any degradation caused by over use of post processing software for those of us who like, or need, to do that sort of thing.
There are many times, probably a big majority actually, when most photographers (as in 'any person who takes a photograph') don't, or can't, even give photographer's skills a thought. Being able to output an end product that is better than it otherwise would have been is, in my view, more important than how it was actually achieved. I think being able to recognize the subject can be classed as a 'portrayal of a distinct person'. What is 'honest' is a different matter altogether and much more open to personal interpretation, or subject to the rules of submission for competitions or standards for publication.
I am only a hobbyist photographer and would not lay claim to any great skill. The overwhelming majority of shots I take are, even in my own opinion, not much to write home about. I readily concede that the output of most other people whose work I see and who describe themselves as I do, is better than I can achieve. However, I do occasionally take the odd shot that really does please me and which gives me a sense of achievement.
Portrait photography is something I have steered clear of for a number of reasons. There are very often issues of time, space and cost as well as subject matter. The latter point is the one I actually find most difficult. Absolutely everyone I know is camera shy to a degree equivalent to times in the past (if they ever truly existed) when people thought that their souls were being stolen.
As an example, I have a really pretty granddaughter (we all think that don't we) who would rather die than
not pull a grotesque face whenever my camera is about. I shall have my revenge in the fullness of time though. One day she will have boyfriends and I will really enjoy showing them the photographs I have carefully archived.
I might even give one or two of them a session of the liquefy tool for good measure.
I have no connection to the makers of Portrait Professional and have only recently discovered it. It does, however, work for me. My intention is only to share the fact that it exists with other people. Hopefully this will help to ensure it continues in development and gets even better, thus doing an even better job for me (that's my self interest bit)
In terms of capability and value for money it ranks alongside a few other programs I use. Qimage for printing - once paid for all upgrades are free and it is oh so capable. Picasa for ease of use for viewing, extremely easy quick editing and providing a reasonable amount of web space for free. Faststone Image Viewer - it does what it says on the tin and so much more. And finally Pixmantec's Rawshooter RAW converter - sadly now killed off by those dastards (is that a real word?....it's certainly very close to what I mean) at Adobe.
I shall try to add before and after examples on another post but my computer skills are none too hot either. If I manage it they will appear as if by magic (or it might as well be as far as I'm concerned).
In the meantime the links in my original post will take you to some.
To those that have stuck with it and got to the bottom of this post my thanks. I know I ramble on a bit and I have few equals in this 'skill'.