1. shows the original stitched pano image--183 mb size. The lake is lake Helen in Lassen Volcanic national park. Normal PP but no saturation. Lest one thinks its over saturated this is the way it came from the camera.
2. image 2 shows the addition of a sky--my sky--using Luminar 4 and then trying to bring the cloud reflections down into the lake. In hindsight I should have lightened this final image.
3. image 3 is a sky replacement using the new PS tool. Again, using the same sky as in the Luminar image--a sky I captured myself, not a preset sky. I then tried to copy the sky and move it into the lake for cloud reflections.
Is it perfect. Probably not as some will point out. But it does give a comparison of the two methods. One item of note. Due to the size of the original pano stitched image, processing in Luminar took a long time. Both methods took about the same amount of time to complete, except for the long processing time in Luminar. I thought it was easier in Luminar to bring the sky reflection into the lake.
If no reflections are needed in water I'd probably use the new PS tool.

When photographers like or dislike any particular PRESET type portrait retouching stand-alone or plug-in software , it is usually because waht the SOFTWARE decides to do with any given subject. The programs I have tried out and decided to use routinely in my studio are the ones with many sliders that enable the operator to modify and control each kind of correction. There is however a caveat, the operator should have a good understanding of facial structure as well as the basic principles of portrait retouching.

I'll explain. Basic skin softening and removal of blemishes is easy enough, a simple healing tool can do that and the degree of softening is just a matter of taste or the client's requirements. When, however, you begin to alter facial structures, change the appearance of the eyes, reshape the mouth, whiten eyes and teeth, slim down a face, or remove detail for the orbital areas of the face (under the eyes), you gotta really know what you are doing. Portrait retouching is an artform, skill and talent in an of to itself. Nowadays, in digital retouching, you don't need as much manual skill as in the old method with pencils, dyes and etching knives, but you still need insight into facial structure and lighting.

So...I am not what I would call an expert master retoucher but as a portrait photographer, I wanted to learn as much as I can to maximize my knowledge, enable myself to do some basic retouching, and be able to communicate and direct retouchers that work in my studio. I took in several seminars given by well-respected master retouchers and although their styles, tastes and techniques varied, there was one important principle that they all agreed upon, that is you have to know WHAT to retouch WHAT NOT to retouch, and WEHN TO STOP RETOUCHING. Basically, if you remove certain lines, natural contours, and indentations on the face, the results will resemble a mask, If you seriously over-retouch a face you will end up with what they jokingly called "an embalming job"!

If you want to work "freehand" with frequency separation, other than simple blemish removal, besides the low and high frequency and layers techniques, you better understand facial structures and norms, otherwise, you are better off with the preset programmes and just learn-to control the sliders to your taste and/or the client's expectations. My full-time in-house retoucher has her own ways and uses frequency separation. Me- I am a big fan of Portrait-Pro but there there are also caveats which I will explain.

If you are the photographer AND the retoucher you have full control over how you light, pose and shoot each subject so you can create files that do not require radical or complex retouching techniques and make certain decisions, at the camera, to decide whether you are going to remedy a problem on the shoot or in retouching and make the best compromises. For example- let's say the subject has a serious double chin or jowls around the chin-jaw area. A slightly higher camera position and higher lighting ratio and more shadow around that area might solve the issue. Suppose, however, the subject also has a very long nose that will intersect with an upper lip at a high angle- you can't shorten the nose effectively in retouching but a lower camera position will fix that so you religate the chin/jaw issue to retouching. There are many other facial charismatics such as asymmetrical facial structures, uneven eye sizes, rough skin and much more that can be addressed in shooting lighting and just tweaked in post-processing and retouching.

The job is to NOT make the subject unrecognizable or perform radical "plastic surgery" but rather to deemphasize certain aspects of the face and body that the subject my consider undesirable or distracting.

There are subjets and times when NO retouchg is required or when everyoneagrees that "just let it all hang out"! There is nothiing wrong woth a detailed portraot study with all the "warts", however, I am in the BUSIBNESS of portait photography and that is not always up to me. Most folks don't mind a little beautification and some demand allot!

I just happened upon a presentation by Blake Rudis. For those of you unfamiliar with Blake, he owns f/64 Academy and presents techniques and practices that enhance processing photographs. This presentation focused on the use of AI.

His contention is that its use is up to the individual but there are consequences. Aren't there always?

AI is a new buzzword. There's always going to be the next best thing. There is always something to entice the average photographer to purchase new software. There will always be improvements otherwise there's no need to upgrade software. But, is AI the way of the future, Blake doesn't think so. He then presents 3 good points why.

1. AI is just a buzzword. It's nothing more than a buzzword to make folks think this is the future.

2. Absolutely nothing can replace handwork and experience. If one wants to be a true artist, one is going to want to spend the time making the best one can make. That instead of letting some artificial intelligence take over and do the work for you.

If one is jumping on the AI bandwagon, they are probably, at best, an average photographer. Any true artist-photographer is going to put in the hard work and personal experience to obtain the best photographs they can create. Artificial Intelligence just can't do that.

3. When one places their trust in AI what they are saying is they are letting some company determine the benchmark for their success.

Trying something and succeeding provides motivation to keep going. Trying something and failing leads to learning and betterment. Without the bedrock foundation of failure, one can't measure success.

Until AI can express the emotional experience of producing a beautiful photograph, it's not something on which to rely. It simply allows one to think they are a better photographer then reality will show.

This brings up the speed at which processing can be done. Sure the one-button approach to processing leads to more time of going out and clicking that shutter. I agree with Blake. Photography involves both making the exposure and making a photograph. If one is going to rely on AI to produce that photograph, one will never be any better than the software they use.

These are some of the points Blake made in his presentation. I agree with them. It might be the dividing line between being a photographer and being a button pusher.

If you're interested in Blake's presentation you can search for

Blake Rudis 3 Reasons why AI is NOT the future of Photo Processing!
--Bob