I'll do another critter and the one shot I've taken of a human in two years -lol.

1. The horse is a Norwegian Fjord and was making sure I didn't get between him and his harem I loved his powerful, intelligent look and his thick, windblown mane. I was standing in a ditch for this shot.

2. I learned from Graham Smith that my artsy angle on the short order cook is called a Dutch Tilt! I don't know if this composition would be considered a portrait.

Thanks for sharing an unusual take on a portrait! It looks like one that would be pretty cool printed on canvas. I like the concept though I do wish I could see a little more around the horse's head. The tail is the story here, and a cool leading line that thing is, too.

I appreciate your detailed discussion of the workflow, which sounds very complex. My workflow can get that way too. But I fully agree with you that our plugins are much more likely to give us the result we seek if we take the time to apply the effects we want using brushes and layers and masks rather than relying on the plugin to make all the decisions, building up effects over time.

I'll add a tip to your excellent discussion, for those who are just embarking on the journey you've already passed most of us on, "label your layers as you work". Once you return to a layered file after a short while away from it, you can get flummoxed by what you have done where. Naming those layers can help you return to a specific effect and make a change if you see something that needs adjusting.

Late to the party again as usual. The thing has gone 6 (no, 7!) pages already with some fabulous stuff. Some people think that because I shot portraits for a living I must know what I'm talking about, but the portraits I shot were almost entirely totally staged, in studio, with total control (which don't mean a thing if you ain't got that...). Thus my portraits were, bluntly, stodgy and predictable. So does that mean that I judge other people's portraits if they are not stodgy and predictable? Not on yer tintype! Portraits for me are a know-it-when-I-see-it proposition. I tend to be reeeeeaaaalllly unconventional with what I "judge" (and I hate to judge) to be a "portrait." What are my criteria? Heck, I don't know. EYES, I guess. Mostly. Eyes in a portrait are the windows to the soul, but I can see a portrait with no eyes and it's still a portrait (think Karsh's unforgettable portrait of Pablo Casals from the back).

So, late as I am, I'm just scrolling through the whole post so far and jotting notes. Here y'go:

Min, OP, went first with the Little Ninja. All other considerations aside, whether it needs cleaning up or whatever, I consider it to be a fabulous portrait! That one baleful blue eye fixed straight on me... the kid is a powerful ninja! Really! And I love that his shirt matches the color of his ninja thingy. 5 out of 5.

Frank 2013's single, wire sharp eye is, to me, also a portrait. It's true I cannot see the rest of the face, but I want to because that single eye stops me cold and makes me want to see more. The quality is superb, detail absolutely everywhere and long scale. Maybe because I cannot see the whole face I give it 4 out of 5.

Linda from Maine has a terrific new avatar (technically not an avatar as it is her really truly lovely self) and collaborated with Bob Yankle to produce a really truly portrait of Trixie. I love what they did, tremendous skill needed and so well done I would not know it was "'shopped" if I did not know, but I can only give it 3 out of 5 because of what I perceive as a lack of life in the eye. It could use a catchlight.

Thee Gambler's pooch is a portrait. If I had made it I think I'd desaturate the blue collar and tag to make them less distracting. The bright blue tends to attract my eye. She gets a 4 out of 5 because Pooch is not looking directly at the camera (yeah he's a picky SOB).

Dixigirl's pooch Bonnie gets a 5/5 from me because it made me laugh out loud. I don't even know what rules it breaks and don't care if it does or not, it's a swell portrait of a playful pal.

Treepusher got the eyes! 5/5

Cap'n Cliff gets three 5/5's. Cliff needs no advice from me! He does what I should'a done when I was in the racket. If I'd had his skill and talent I might still be at it, but...

Andrea presents two, the first absolutely a portrait and solidly well done. All attention is on GET THE EYES, the pose is good, posture is good (something I tend to look for is good posture), eyes are bright, background well blurred, color is good... 4/5
The other, as CaptC points out, is basically a very charming snapshot. The dynamics and expressions are just adorable--captivating-- two BFF's on the soccer pitch (I bet). Indeed the faces should be brighter and the background is a distraction mainly owing to it's being white. It will likely never be a portrait-portrait, but much can be fixed in post to turn it into not-a-portrait-but-more-than-a-snapshot. 3/5

Linda's portrait is a collaboration. Treepusher made it and Linda finished it. I suspect Linda likes it well enough 'cuz she's using it. I think it's a fabulous portrait-portrait, even though I see things that are unusual, starting with the low angle (I was taught to shoot from eye level or slightly above), but there is not a thing wrong with unusual, and it's a terrific portrait, well finished. 5/5

Alissa, I personally award 5/5 for the whole set and there y'are. This lad has kind eyes. Some might carp on the busy shirt, but I won't. Sure, a solid blue might be better, but put it this way: my eye goes first to those gentle eyes. The one thing I might carp on is the (is that a) fence in the background. It is so soft I can't tell what it is so I wonder, plus it has some bright stuff that may lead the eye out of frame to the right. If I had made it I think I would probably brush down those slightly brighter spots on the post and rail. Nevertheless, 5/5

RLaugh, I award an overall 4/5 for all three. To me Milo looks a little overprocessed, but that's me, and I tend to blow either way depending. The one thing that maybe bothers me is the green erosion fence (?) behind him, but I know from long personal experience that ya can't always control the background. I think the only reason I'm a little bugged by it is that I think I shouldn't have noticed it. Your 3rd shot, the profile portrait, I personally give 5/5 for unusually terrific, very strong, well lit including a faint rimlight on the back of his head to separate him from the background. AND ya can't see his eye so there y'go.

Minnie returns to present two "street" portraits. We've seen numerous discussions, some a little heated, on what constitutes "street," "portrait," "street portrait," and the fluctuating cost of tea in China. My opinion, worth exactly what you pay for it, is that these are street (or at least fair) portraits and so there. And they each get 5/5.

Anvil also presents two candids that may or may not be portraits by definition (I tend to separate portrait-portraits from something identified as street from something else identified as Candid, and in my heyday I shot bazillions of candids--still do. So what is a candid? I-know-it-when-I-see-it. These are candid portraits, both gorgeous, and 5/5

Linda returns with a stunning portrait of Trixie with her red blankie and deeply soulful eyes. Don't care about not no processing "errors" (can't see 'em anyway): 5/5

Dave Chinn presents two versions of a street portrait, either and each deserving of a 5/5. I like them both equally for different reasons since they are waaaaay different from each other, but both are solid and compelling.

Neil has made what I consider to be a near-perfect candid portrait with a grab shot with a camera on a tabletop on the crowded patio of a busy restaurant. Later he shows us a more finished version (very nice), along with the unbelievably cluttered original, showing how he extracted a diamond from the considerable rough. I like the first version fine, warts and all. 5/5

R G shows us a grab candid made with a cheap compact which flash fired and lit up the reflective striping on a man's safety jacket. I suppose it's arguable that it's a dreadful picture, but like virtually all discernible pictures it captures a tiny slice of time, a memory of a pleasant looking man at work. Quality, 2/5. Value, priceless.

Andrea returns with a portrait of her daughter in her bright, sparkly going-to-a-dance outfit (social dancing? or recital). Technically lots'a flaws, but do the flaws ruin it? NO! To me, one of the most important things about a portrait is whether it seems to capture the essence of the person; this captures Sydney's sparkly essence! The light is uneven and Andrea has a problem with the background (I don't know if you can work in layers but I'd try lifting her off the background and either replacing it or applying Gaussian blur to it). Quality, 3/5. Vibrance and expression, 5/5

Anvil submits a fabulous portrait of a bull elk. My eye goes to and stays on the magnificent animal. All the background is just background (and foreground), soft and just--there, not intrusive in any way. 5/5

Linda counterpunches with a bighorn sheep calmly munching on grass. The shot almost has motion (I can see the jaw working and the grass jumping). Beautifully lit, focus on the eyes (GET THE EYES), no distractions, 5/5

TheeGambler presents the one picture so far that, I'm afraid, fails to enthuse me. I see where you were going with it (you explained it very well), but try as I might I can't classify it as a portrait. I cannot see the faces of either rider or horse. My "classification 'system'" is pretty loose, so it may qualify as a candid, but honestly, had you presented this single picture as a thread I'd most likely have bypassed it without comment. 3/5

So now it's 7 pages and I will shut up now!