Paul
Former Member
- Messages
- 12,879
- Likes
- 7,023
Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
3D 2D into 3D with PS app potentially.
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- app potentially
chrisdesign
Guru
- Messages
- 4,194
- Likes
- 6,189
Nice find Paul.
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,223
- Likes
- 4,343
FWIW, the latest version of Portrait Professional already has a so-called "relight" feature. It's not terribly accurate (e.g., you can't use it to produce sharp shadows to simulate grazing incidence lighting), but it still is kinda fun to play with. I think it could easily evolve into something *very* useful.Relighting is really nice feature.. wow
T
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,223
- Likes
- 4,343
If I'm mass producing a bunch of headshots for small sized web display and the customer isn't very particular (eg, grade school "yearbook" photos, a page of fire department volunteers, etc.), I love PP because it allows me to crank out many more reasonable looking images with vastly less effort.
OTOH, if I'm producing an image or two that will be scrutinized more carefully, and / or for a more discerning customer, I correct blemishes, bags, etc. at the pore-by-pore level, use frequency separation techniques, manual burning and dodging, the patch tool, etc.
On occasion, if I realize that I've slightly screwed up the lighting ratio or positioning of my lights, I have used just the re-light module of PP to make a quick fix. Also, if a little slimming is requested on a more serious headshot and I can't immediately get it quite right with puppet warp, I'll sometimes use the sliders in PP to give me ideas of what to change.
What I *never* **ever** use on a higher end headshot is PP's smoothing, blemish removal, and CC modules.
They certainly are not horrible, and probably produce better results than many PS newbies could do, but I know that I can do better ( if I spend a bit more time & am motivated to do so).
HTH,
Tom M
OTOH, if I'm producing an image or two that will be scrutinized more carefully, and / or for a more discerning customer, I correct blemishes, bags, etc. at the pore-by-pore level, use frequency separation techniques, manual burning and dodging, the patch tool, etc.
On occasion, if I realize that I've slightly screwed up the lighting ratio or positioning of my lights, I have used just the re-light module of PP to make a quick fix. Also, if a little slimming is requested on a more serious headshot and I can't immediately get it quite right with puppet warp, I'll sometimes use the sliders in PP to give me ideas of what to change.
What I *never* **ever** use on a higher end headshot is PP's smoothing, blemish removal, and CC modules.
They certainly are not horrible, and probably produce better results than many PS newbies could do, but I know that I can do better ( if I spend a bit more time & am motivated to do so).
HTH,
Tom M
Last edited:
Tom Mann
Guru
- Messages
- 7,223
- Likes
- 4,343
PS - Sorry: I just realized that I forget to answer your question about other retouching software.
No, for me, it's either PP (used as I described in my previous post), or PS's native tools.
Over the years, I've tried other so-called retouching software, and I was never happy with any of them. Of the lot, Imagenomic's "Portraiture" is probably the best of the lot for skin smoothing (definitely better than PP), but it doesn't even come close to what you can achieve by using manual frequency separation techniques (of course, preceded by manual spotting of blemishes).
No, for me, it's either PP (used as I described in my previous post), or PS's native tools.
Over the years, I've tried other so-called retouching software, and I was never happy with any of them. Of the lot, Imagenomic's "Portraiture" is probably the best of the lot for skin smoothing (definitely better than PP), but it doesn't even come close to what you can achieve by using manual frequency separation techniques (of course, preceded by manual spotting of blemishes).
Last edited: