Manipulating perfection?
Author
Discussion

cy88

Original Poster:

2,808 posts

260 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
Has anyone ever tried these softwares to “improve” any of their portrait shots?

Would any of you pros admit to doing this kind of stuff? Its not so much the basic improvements, but the subtle alterations to the whole shape of a face or the size of certain features.

www.myperfectpicture.com/
www.portraitprofessional.com/

I was going to download it and see what it was like, but I can’t at the moment think of a shot that needs manipulating hehe

(Ps. The Sharon Stone and Teri Hatcher examples are reassuring!!)


Edited by cy88 on Monday 21st August 09:48

Gemm

1,833 posts

245 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
I just watched the demonstration clip for My Perfect Picture, but it seems to leave a huge tattoo-like blemish on the model's forehead. Not good at all.

poah

2,142 posts

258 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
I touch up the pictures in photoshop. remove a spot or a wrinkle if it is needed. I generally smooth the skin to using blur but I don;t go that far. the problem arises when you see pics of a model with tight buns, pert boobies and clear skin but then when she turns up she lacks tight buns, pert boobies and clear skin. has happend to me (not as extreme as that) but you are left feeling cheated

2jamesl

1,346 posts

245 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
MY GOD ARE SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE UGLY!

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
There was an article on the BBC website about this. Impressive technology.

It can take a butt ugly minger and significantly reduce the butt-ugliness. Whilst doing so it turns the picture into one of someone else - not a portrait. "Cheated" - I should say so.

"Airbrushing" out skin imperfections - I can see why you'd do this. Similarly removing teeth braces and similar. Fundamentally the picture is of the person the photograph is of. But if you significantly alter the profile of the face - its not them anymore.

Nasty.

mph999

2,778 posts

250 months

Monday 21st August 2006
quotequote all
Impressive, but if you look closely I think (it appears to me anyhow), they've taken the pic, and made them "um" less perfect, and then called these the originals.

???

Martin

simon beech

1 posts

242 months

Tuesday 22nd August 2006
quotequote all
The last post is true for one example - on the myperfectpicture website we put what I am reliably infored is an "unsharp mask" on the face displayed on the homepage, which exposes every pore and blemish to the absolute max, then edited it with the software to show just how much it could do.

We updated the pro software over the weekend and put up some user notes on the portrait professional site to help people work with it more easily. It's not meant to "weird up" your pictures - just enhance them gently to make the subject look at their best.

I don't personally like the idea of manipulating pictures beyond recognition, even though I work for the company that created the software! The only pro users that use this feature to the max tend to work in glamour / lingerie shoots, where the model's face needs to look nice but isn't, shall we say, the main feature on show. Most users stick to low levels just to give their subject a bit of a lift.

Nice to know that some of the people out there trying out our software are, like me, dedicated petrolheads. Cheers.