applepie1951 Loc: Los Angeles,California

I’ve been using it for years I love it but the key is not to over do it when retouching a photo, just a little dab will do it, it’s a great program once you learn how to use it.

William Stewart

You got it.. that's how to use it!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

It's an absolutely fantastic product that can make the average person beautifully plastic looking. I use Frequency Separation and that's free.
--Bob

William Stewart

I don't have this but check out this YouTube and see what you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzpEO7FLoqs

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

William, this looks like a great program for anyone who doesn't want to learn how to do photography, but would rather just push buttons. Anything I'd say past that will become very uncivil.
--Bob

Rick Fox

If you enjoy post processing and don't mind spending a lot of time on each portrait, don't buy it. Yes, there is a learning curve so don't apply too much 'electronic make up', but it's worth it! If you do lots of portraits, buy it.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I purchased V17 this week, and am still learning to use it. In general, this version produces fairly good-looking results in the default settings. This version also has the ability to change backgrounds. I found that works pretty well with people with short hair, but am still at the beginning of the learning curve for people with hair long enough that it must be separated from the background.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Get it. It's great. You don't need the most expensive option.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Hi again, gang!

Since we are talking about PORTRAIT retouching which is intimately related to portrait photography, perhaps we should get down to the basic aesthetics of portraiture and discuss to what extent and purpose retouching, electronic or otherwise, should be applied .

Simply stated, no amount or degree of retouching, regardless of the method or level of expertise is gonna make a poorly crafted portrait into a masterpiece. If I had to put a number on it, I would say that 85% of corrective aesthetic treatment should take place at the camera by means of camera position as it relates to the subject's facial features and body type, posing strategies, precise lighting control and other optional effects such as optical diffusion, filtration and vignetting. Preparations such as costume/clothing planning and preparations such as hair styling and makeup factor in as well.

A partial “list” of issue that can be dealt with at the camera are as follows: Asymmetrical facial features, uneven smiles, differentials in the size of the eyes, very angular or long noses, very heavy or thin faces, deep set eyes, some undesirable lines and wrinkles, double chins, pronounced smile lines and more.

When the original image is aesthetically correct and pleasing, straight out of the camera, all that is left to the retoucher are blemishes and shall we say “dermatological” issues- acne, scars, rashes and very dry or coarse patches. Other common problems are “bags” or dark pigmentation under the eyes. Most of theses can be easily corrected in any retouching program and oftentimes just a the quick use of a simple healing or patching tool can do the job. Reshaping a face in the retouching stage will usually result in an unnatural likeness even if performed by a skilled operator. When done haphazardly, the results are usually grotesque.

Wrinkles and other noticeable signs of aging atre sometimes best left alone or de-emphasized by soft focus methods- specialized lenses or filters or actually emphasized to create a dramatic character study. The judicious and conservative application of skin softening can work well if not used over-zealously. I will always discuss theses issues with my clients well in advance of their portrait sitting to find out what their expectations are. Some folks feel they are aging prematurely and expect me to “take a number of years off their faces”. Many older folks just expect a gentle treatment. One of my very elderly clients told me that she does not want to look like a young kid but does not want here face to look like “a relief map of the Himalayas”!

In the olden days of manual retouching, each retoucher swore by their favorite method. Some preferred lead pencils, others extolled the virtues of dyes. Some purchased special etching knives and others preferred shards of glass and broken razor blades. Some called the folks who used the famous vibrating and oscillating Adams retouching machine “a bunch of amateurs” and fervently argued that there's nothing that can replicate hand work. It all boils down to the skill, visual perception, talent and judgment of the photographer/retoucher. Y'all know the old adage about the inapt carpenter who blames his tools.

The latest processing programs, plugins and software are just like sophisticated digital cameras. They enable cretin shortcuts and conveniences , make life easier through automation but you can't depend upon them to make art or blame them for failing to make art. You need to know the advantages and the shortcomings and use your own attributes and resources.

By the way- theses retouching plugins and programs are not terribly expensive when you consider the retouching gear of the olden days. In 1978, I spent about $2,000 (pre-inflation dollars) on equipping my retouching department with that Adams machine, pencils, negative dyes, Flexichrome and spotting dyes, pre-retouching fluids and sprays, high quality magnification gear, opaque materials, expensive sable brushes, color-accurate lighting, a Marshall's Oil kit, etching knives, abrasive pads, cotton balls, Q-tips and more. Oh- and plus 2 employees salaries to boot! Y'all are flying with less than a C-note for Portrait Pro- probably less than the cost of a newfangled modifier for your speedlight.

waynetgreen Loc: Florida

Been using it for several years. Love it and so do my clients. Having said that, I do agree with most everyone that it can over correct. But the nice thing with the sliders you can easily see just how much correction is natural. Well worth the purchase price.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I have used this app through the past three or four versions and have come to like it quite a bit, if for nothing else, its speed of getting to an end result. I will caution, as have others, that you need to be careful about not overdoing it. I believe there are free trials. If you do decide to purchase it, make sure you get a discount code (usually 10% or 15%) which can be found in magazines such as Shutterbug. (If you don't have a subscription, PM me). Best of luck.

woolpac Loc: Sydney Australia

I have been using this app for an number of years now I mainly use it for adjusting lighting positioning and makeup which I find quicker than using P.S. I still prefer P.S if I need to do some serious skin texture adjustments. As all have said and just like HDR its very easy to over do. Best results with this program come with accurate anchor point placement.

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

I purchased it two weeks ago after reading the high marks JerryC41 gave it. I had shot several outdoor portraits that morning that normally would not have received much post beyond minimal LR basics. After the basic LR touches I sent them to Portrait Pro. First I was happy with Portrait Pro's suggested facial touch ups. Next I took a shot at retouching the backgrounds--all were good SOOC, but Portrait Pro quickly added more blur with appropriate sidelighting. From there I exported to Photoshop where, after some playing around, I rendered one in B&W and realized Portrait Pro had perfectly set the table for final versions that rivaled my darkroom offerings 20 years ago. I'm hooked. I also agree that most of the time a good portrait needs to first be shot correctly...however, we don't always get the lighting, makeup, or background the way we would like during the shoot. Portrait Pro is now embedded in both LR and PS.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Sounds like you have a lot of experience and go back awhile. So do I. Sounds also like you were trying to make a point. Was it G.I.G.O?

Acufine3200 Loc: Texarkana USA

Jealous! Us po’ folk in the paper ‘bidness probably had a whopping $5 invested in our retouching tools. Straightened large paper clips with small ovals made from Portriga Rapid, and my trusty crinkled cellophane from cigarette packs made up the bulk of our tools. (I didn’t smoke, but most of those in that industry did. Learned early-on that Taryton packaging crinkled best!)

Since most of our work was recording events as they happened we rarely corrected for personal aesthetics but more to shape light. Consequently my two most used tools in PS are dodging and burning.

Thanks for your reply—I wish I could have spent time watching you use your tools ‘back in the day.’