RoboRetouch

[eronald]

Has anyone here used this thing?
My impression is that most girl's instagram images are now retouched better than some pro stuff.

http://www.portraitprofessional.com

I'm not really impressed by the relighting, but the automated makeup and faceshape alterations are interesting.
http://www.portraitprofessional.com/photo_editing_software/

Edmund

[Paul2660]

Has anyone here used this thing?
My impression is that most girl's instagram images are now retouched better than some pro stuff.

http://www.portraitprofessional.com

I'm not really impressed by the relighting, but the automated makeup and faceshape alterations are interesting.
http://www.portraitprofessional.com/photo_editing_software/

Edmund

One of the standards in the portrait photography market. Most the studio shooters I know in my area are very familiar with it or a similar software.

Paul

[Manoli]

Has anyone here used this thing?

I looked at one of the original versions ( can't remember which one) and promptly dumped it. It's now up to version 15, but from the sample images I still see the plastic skin effect and as far as reshaping facial features .. well, you can get that on your iPhone with Adobe's just released Photoshop Fix.

The best 'baked' solution, with built-in masking etc etc is still Imagenomic's Portraiture which still runs second to subtle use of the 'frequency separation' method, both backed up by judicious use of the liquify tool. Still best left to pro retouchers.

BTW, one needs to be careful auto fixing female portraits - it's a fine line between giving them a shot which flatters as opposed to presenting one where they can see they've been digitally altered (without their permission). The first makes them treat you like a God, the second will see you rot in hell. Err on the side of caution 

Off topic: has anyone seen and tried the recently released Lightroom mobile on iOS ? Now without cloud and adobe ID requirements - it's a stand alone app - recommended.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Has anyone here used this thing?
My impression is that most girl's instagram images are now retouched better than some pro stuff.

Hi Edmund,

Don't know about RoboRetouch, but I use Portrait Professional as a productivity tool and it's very good at that. Of course it's also dangerous in the wrong hands like any tool that is used without proper care and with a lack of taste.

I'm not really impressed by the relighting, but the automated makeup and faceshape alterations are interesting.

IMHO, the relighting works great, especially because it has knowledge of 3D face shapes and can thus let the light angle produce semi-specular reflections and cast shadows that make sense. Of course it has to build on the original lighting, so it's meant as a correction, not a completely new lighting setup (although it goes a long way).The face shaping is something I use only tuned down to very low amounts or none at all. If the purpose is not a realistic portrait, but a glamour (post-facial surgery) fantasy, then by all means one could let the reigns loose.

Is the result better than a professional retoucher can achieve in Photoshop? Of course not, but it's a whole lot faster and thus a good investment if one needs to do that kind of retouch a lot. But it needs to be used with restraint, because it's easy to go overboard with so much power in inexperienced hands, or people with poor taste.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I've attached an (overdone) animated example of what (mostly relighting, and some makeup) can do to a face with as much character as the subject has. It's a bit like the difference between a natural shot (as it was intended), and one where she's ready for an exclusive romantic dinner date, make-up applied and looking several year younger, more glamorous. Important, the next step would be to dial down the amount of the corrections and stay closer to what she really looks like, that's where the taste part comes in, or the wishes of the customer.

[Garry Sarre]

Sharp eyes, guassiand skin = Possessed.

[Bo Dez]

Erg, this plug in is vile. It looks hideous, IMO.

[Go Go]

In real life this is called hair and makeup, this is why it takes 2 to 3 hours of on set time before I can take a frame (digital capture).

[Bo Dez]

In real life this is called hair and makeup, this is why it takes 2 to 3 hours of on set time before I can take a frame (digital capture).

and casting, and lighting, lens selection, decent posing, subject connection, creating a moment. If a person feels good, they look good, and you don't even have to retouch them. Skin, apart from the worst of situations which are few, is beautiful and does not need retouching.

[Gandalf]

I have a fair amount of experience with an older version of the software because a client wanted that look and using that software was part of the agreement. It took a year before I convinced them that women are more beautiful if they look human, but before that I did learn to use the software a little. I had two basic workflows, one: the client wanted the face reshaped (which is the main selling point of the software), and two: leave the face intact. If I used any of the reshaping features, I would try hard to keep the subject looking human. If I didn't change the shape, I would make changes that I thought were necessary (or requested by the client/model), when the image roundtripped back to Photoshop, I would I would use edit/fade to reduce the changes down to about 50% or less. The resulting image was close to what I would do in Photoshop, but I could get there much faster. After I got that client away from that look, I never went back to that software again. Overall, I don't think it's a bad tool, but it is very easy to over do it, and a little tricky to keep changes down to a low level. If I were to use it again, I would do it twice: Photoshop -> portrait professional for color and tone adjustments only -> Photoshop, fade 50% or more -> Portrait Professional for shape changes -> photoshop for final edits. Supposedly the software has been revised to be less heavy handed, but I have no first hand experience. I think the last version I used was 11.

[eronald]

My impression is that women now expect to use something like this for selfies, and that therefore these expectations will carry over to pro images. The real novelty is in the face-changing transforms: Most photographers are incapable of doing these by hand.

Edmund

I have a fair amount of experience with an older version of the software because a client wanted that look and using that software was part of the agreement. It took a year before I convinced them that women are more beautiful if they look human, but before that I did learn to use the software a little. I had two basic workflows, one: the client wanted the face reshaped (which is the main selling point of the software), and two: leave the face intact. If I used any of the reshaping features, I would try hard to keep the subject looking human. If I didn't change the shape, I would make changes that I thought were necessary (or requested by the client/model), when the image roundtripped back to Photoshop, I would I would use edit/fade to reduce the changes down to about 50% or less. The resulting image was close to what I would do in Photoshop, but I could get there much faster. After I got that client away from that look, I never went back to that software again. Overall, I don't think it's a bad tool, but it is very easy to over do it, and a little tricky to keep changes down to a low level. If I were to use it again, I would do it twice: Photoshop -> portrait professional for color and tone adjustments only -> Photoshop, fade 50% or more -> Portrait Professional for shape changes -> photoshop for final edits. Supposedly the software has been revised to be less heavy handed, but I have no first hand experience. I think the last version I used was 11.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

My impression is that women now expect to use something like this for selfies, and that therefore these expectations will carry over to pro images. The real novelty is in the face-changing transforms: Most photographers are incapable of doing these by hand.

This software is cheaper than a plastic surgeon, that's for sure ...

The reshaping algorithms they use are more or less anatomically correct in the direction of what is deemed more beautiful by a large group of respondents. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most can agree that too thin lips, or too short a neck, or eyes that are too wide apart, etc. are less desirable, in general.

What most of the negative comments keep missing, is that there are sliders that allow to modify the amount of adjustment, also down towards subtle 'corrections'. Those are very effective and hardly noticeable. Of course most people would like to look a bit better than usual, less prominent bags under the eyes and slightly reduced wrinkles are also part of that, just like removal of temporary blemishes, zits, and scratches.

Cheers,
Bart

[Gandalf]

I'm not incapable of doing this by hand, but I fully admit it is much easier to do it in the software to a certain point; that point being getting a person to match the scientific view of a pretty face. As a point of note, when I showed a model a photo that had the face manipulated image from the software next to a photo that had the same skin and color changes but without the face reshaping and asked which one model thought looked the most like him/her, probably eight of ten times they picked the manipulated image. I'm not sure what this means, but I was really surprised by that. In the whole time I was working with that client, only one person complained about the image being over done. This also bothered me, because they were all overdone.

I think it is a cycle: The software exists because people want to look like the ideal human, and they want to look a like the ideal human because the imagery industry has photo manipulated everyone and then sold it back to people as the ideal. So Edmund, getting back to your original question, if the goal of photographer/client is to make everyone look like the scientific ideal (perfect symmetry and proportions; smooth and even skin tone; big, white, bright radiant eyes; full red lips with the hint of a smile), this software does and excellent and efficient job. If you want anything different, it is almost impossible. It is also a great tool for an inexperienced (or inept) photographer to make nice portraits. I should mention that the photographer who was doing the shooting fell very much into that category.

[eronald]

There are countries where elective face or body surgery is quite popular.
It would follow that people would expect their images to project the same illusions, especially since the effects can be obtained more cheaply and with little risk

Edmund

I'm not incapable of doing this by hand, but I fully admit it is much easier to do it in the software to a certain point; that point being getting a person to match the scientific view of a pretty face. As a point of note, when I showed a model a photo that had the face manipulated image from the software next to a photo that had the same skin and color changes but without the face reshaping and asked which one model thought looked the most like him/her, probably eight of ten times they picked the manipulated image. I'm not sure what this means, but I was really surprised by that. In the whole time I was working with that client, only one person complained about the image being over done. This also bothered me, because they were all overdone.

I think it is a cycle: The software exists because people want to look like the ideal human, and they want to look a like the ideal human because the imagery industry has photo manipulated everyone and then sold it back to people as the ideal. So Edmund, getting back to your original question, if the goal of photographer/client is to make everyone look like the scientific ideal (perfect symmetry and proportions; smooth and even skin tone; big, white, bright radiant eyes; full red lips with the hint of a smile), this software does and excellent and efficient job. If you want anything different, it is almost impossible. It is also a great tool for an inexperienced (or inept) photographer to make nice portraits. I should mention that the photographer who was doing the shooting fell very much into that category.

[swisscheese]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and some people like women with hairy arm pits.
I like using Portrait Professional as part of a retouch, usually @ 30% to 40 %. I just upgraded to the latest version 15, but found, that some settings induced some weird artifacts (new lines showing up in skin). What still puzzles me, is why the facial outlines (eyes, mouth, nose, face shape etc) are so far off, to begin with. But even taking the time to adjust these, still saves time. I usually don't use the face shape alterations, which also makes it easier to blend the PP layer with the original layer.
I tried Portraiture, and don't find any use for it.
Time to go back to PP 15, and fiddle around some more.

Markus