Portrait enhancement

[FredSpencer]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forum but have been reading the newsletter for some time. I have never really got into portrait photography because I have always found it difficult to get a flattering look to people's faces. I recently came across a program which makes this so much easier. It is called Portrait Professional and their home page is at http://www.portraitprofessional.com/.

There is also a fledgling forum at http://www.portraitprofessional.com/Forum/index.php

I'm not connected to the business in any way, other than as a user, and hope it is alright to highlight here what I think is a usefull program.

[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.

[Nicole]

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.

The program itself is an interesting concept, the ability to mould the actual facial structure, etc, is interesting in it's own right. It seems to be good technology because it seems to work well and doesn't seem to cause unwanted distortion per se. If it works for you, then great. :)

However, personally I'm kind of shocked to think that a program would be developed so a person could be reshaped to fit the idea of "perfection". I mean, it seems to take away from the person. I'd much rather a picture look like me, even if it's not runway/airbrushed gorgeous. Kind of like photographic plastic surgery. But hey, that's just me... but I'm also notoriously fickle about getting the shot in camera. :p

That said, FredSpencer, is there any chance you'd be willing to show us a before and after that you've done using this product? It would be interesting to see. And of course, as always, Welcome :D

[Saralonde]

Some of the best portraits I've seen have had "imperfections". Wrinkled skin, a crooked smile, droopy eyes, etc. They help tell the story of the individual and add to his/her character. Of course, I'm speaking from the point of view of a photograher. If it was me in the picture, I'd want a lot adjustments :D :rolleyes: . I can see that this would be useful for photographers taking shots of high school seniors or brides, not to mention commercial photography where you are trying to sell a product.

[FredSpencer]

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. :D I might even give one or two of them a session of the liquefy tool for good measure. :eek:

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). :confused: 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'.

[FredSpencer]

Some of the best portraits I've seen have had "imperfections". Wrinkled skin, a crooked smile, droopy eyes, etc. They help tell the story of the individual and add to his/her character. Of course, I'm speaking from the point of view of a photographer. If it was me in the picture, I'd want a lot adjustments :D :rolleyes: . I can see that this would be useful for photographers taking shots of high school seniors or brides, not to mention commercial photography where you are trying to sell a product.

What you say is absolutely true. To show someone had lived to a great age you might even want to emphasize things like a stooped posture and their wrinkles. PP is just a new tool designed for a purpose and obviously does not have a use on all occasions. It is a different way to do some things which is quicker and easier. That's all really.

[FredSpencer]

The program itself is an interesting concept, the ability to mould the actual facial structure, etc, is interesting in it's own right. It seems to be good technology because it seems to work well and doesn't seem to cause unwanted distortion per se. If it works for you, then great. :)

However, personally I'm kind of shocked to think that a program would be developed so a person could be reshaped to fit the idea of "perfection". I mean, it seems to take away from the person. I'd much rather a picture look like me, even if it's not runway/airbrushed gorgeous. Kind of like photographic plastic surgery. But hey, that's just me... but I'm also notoriously fickle about getting the shot in camera. :p

That said, FredSpencer, is there any chance you'd be willing to show us a before and after that you've done using this product? It would be interesting to see. And of course, as always, Welcome :D

As with any post processing you can go over the top with it and end up with something that looks bad. It starts you off with a 'default' overall adjustment and I am finding that my preferred finished shot is somewhat less than that, if only in some areas. You have the ability to reset any or all controls so that they don't have an effect. For example, you can reset the jaw slider to zero and it will look exactly like the original shape.

We live in a world where people, especially women but increasingly men, are dissatisfied with their 'image'. Real plastic surgery is a booming business. It is almost inevitable that it will carry over into art forms. I'm sure if someone commissioned a painter to do a portrait they would have a whole list of points to make themselves look better. It's only 'artistic license' really.

One of the shots I tested PP on was a scan of a small (550x550) print in a magazine at work. The female subject has a ruddy skin tone worsened at regular times each month. She hates it along with her face shape, eyes, nose, the whole lot really. She spends a lot of money on all sorts of creams and potions to try to improve it. Nothing works, certainly not for long anyway.

The professional photographer who took the shot clearly had no concern for how she looked (she wouldn't look out of place in a serious burns unit or isolation ward). The subject was, needless to say, mortified when she saw it. I have processed it in PP to her idea of how she would like to look (it's over the top for me). I have done a second shot of her wearing a crash helmet (to test the flexibility of the program) which I took. I've processed that to her liking also. She has gone from not liking my original shot to wanting a framed print to display (when I work out why my printer won't do anything). That, to me, is success.

I've tested PP on my favourite shot of one of my dogs (don't ask me how I thought of doing that). He now has a more alert expression rather than the somewhat dopey look he had before. Don't get me wrong, I love the original shot but it is nice to have an alternative as well.

I'm going to try to add before and after shots of another reluctant subject to this post. Suffice to say I had no time for any kind of setting up and it was taken with a compact camera using flash. I don't think the original looks bad but again the subject does not like it. The PP processed image is, I think, still recognizable as a distinct person but just looks that bit better. Imagine she was a bride at a wedding ceremony. I bet none of the guests there would really notice the picture enhancements. I think the only comments would be along the lines of how good she looks, with maybe a few plaudits for the photographer thrown in.

I'm going to, hopefully, add the shots now. I would be very interested in anyones views.

Later

I have added a version with the face sculpting controls turned off for those who do not like the idea of using this part. I think the remaining alterations are what you might achieve by the application of makeup before taking the shot.

[wulf]

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.".

Check out the YouTube video The Evolution of Beauty (http://youtube.com/watch?v=knEIM16NuPg); it says, in motion, what I think Jiminy is driving at with his words. There is certainly a point, often crossed in product advertising, where post-processing (which was going on well before computers got involved with developing tricks and airbrushes) creates an impossible standard of physical beauty.

Wulf

[FredSpencer]

Wulf,

Thanks for that. That is the first time I've watched anything on Youtube. I agree entirely with the sentiment of it. My personal view of each of my two subjects is that they are both 'beautiful' in their own way. But it doesn't make a jot of difference how many times I, or anyone else, tells them this, they don't see themselves as such.

It is a bit simplistic to just blame advertisers though. Women put themselves through all sorts of ordeals just to compete with their best friends in the looking good department for a night out together. That's been going on a lot longer than any form of marketing has. Probably greatly increased and accelerated, I grant you, because of advertising, but nevertheless something of a natural process.

By coincidence, I was on a night out last night (well, till the early hours of this morning really) in a club mostly filled with young people. This is not something I have done much of for many years but in reality nothing has changed from when I was young and doing it regularly. It seems to me that women (and men) are constantly competing with each other in the attraction stakes. Marketeers have only taken advantage of this, not actually caused it.

It's rather like film producers who tell the stories of outstanding women. They will, inevitably, cast a 'beautiful' woman in the starring role when the real person probably wasn't. To me it can be a distraction from the story but, for the most part, it must sell more films or they wouldn't do it.

The reality is that we all do it to each other. And I don't suppose I'm any different to anyone else.

One thing I noticed that hasn't changed is that when you see two women on a night out together you rarely see a pair where there isn't a marked difference in the 'beauty' of them. A 'beautiful' woman gets the company and support of a 'plainer' woman whilst also displaying a reference to judge her from. The plainer woman doesn't lose out though. She will have a better chance for a good looking man from the leftovers of her friend than if she only associated with other 'plain' women.

There are so many more things to life than looks, but you usually have to get past them before you can see anything else.

I'm rambling again (I did warn you) but let me tell you a tale about another woman I know. She would be categorized as stunning, even by a blind man on a galloping horse. She's about 5'10", slim, gorgeous black hair, classic features, lovely long legs, perfectly proportioned - I could go on but you get the picture. We regularly work together and I've seen, on several occassions, men walk into lamp posts and street signs because they've been watching her and not where they were going (I always get a sheepish grin from them when they've noticed me watching this happen). But, almost inevitably, she too does not think much of her looks. In all seriousness it is very sad how much torment there is over this issue. And I don't suppose the women I know are any different to those I don't.

The film also made my point about pre processing. Altering the subject, however and whenever you do it, is still manipulating the photograph. It is done to achieve an aim, whether this be to sell more motor cars, or, as with my two subjects, to give them a photograph of themselves that they actually like.

Before you ask, no, the raven haired beauty doesn't like having her photograph taken either. There might be hope though. She has seen the other photgraphs and did remark, "do you think you could make me look that good". I live in hope! :)

[jiminyClickit]

FredSpencer,

If you read #2 again: "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."

My reply was for anyone who may not have considered anything beyond their own glory.

If you read #2 again: "There's a place for each, as long as it's understood which is being presented."

My edits include changes to facial features when it seems likely the person may at some time change on their own: reduce a double chin, blend a blemish, cut random hair, and so on. These are exercises for displaying what a photo could look like, often with better knowledge of photographic applications.

You bring to mind ". . . he doth protest too much." In the end, you are showing a person what you believe to be "wrong" with them. The ones who ask you to change features are less likely to feel insulted, and whether it's just feeding their insecurities is a question you alone have to answer.

[Benji]

Some people like their wrinkles, zits, scars, moles, bags under their eyes, freckles and birthmarks. Others like a little less reality. It would seem most of my customers like less reality and a little more fantasy.

I have only tried it on several images, but I love it already. See below.

Benji

[terryjoey]

I like the product and have the software, you can do as much or as little as you want, this is a picture of my wife, she started off pretty in the first place, but I still had to have some fun with it.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/231/493829377_bd7bee0ad9.jpg

[jiminyClickit]

terryjoey, Welcome

And thanks for showing yet another reason I miss Texas. Even without a 'before,' it looks as if you know how to keep it reasonably lifelike.

[JJthethird]

Very pretty indeed Terryjoey, I must say that I prefer yours to Benji's, it looks more natural. I dont like the look on Benji's, it reminds me of old airbrushed magazine shots.

John.:)

[terryjoey]

Here is the before picture.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/509265479_af341ce6ef.jpg

[JJthethird]

terryjoey, You lucky man, you didnt really need to do anything to the original!!

John.;)

[FredSpencer]

terryjoey,

This is a well done example, especially when viewed as an overlay. What does your wife think of it?

How about posting them on the forum at Portrait Pro for other users to see?

[terryjoey]

What does my wife think? Well, I have turned her B&W, Green, Red and she is always a great sport about it, and thinks nothing of it.

[terryjoey]

Fred,
Is Portrait Pro a forum here at DPS

[FredSpencer]

Is Portrait Pro a forum here at DPS

I see you've already found the Portrait Pro forum but for anyone else who might be interested it is at http://www.portraitprofessional.com/Forum/index.php

[terryjoey]

Thanks Fred, I do like the software, I haven't tried it on my dog yet, he's not as cooperative as my wife.