# How to create stunning digital portraits with out spending alot of time in "PhotoShop"



## donny1963

*How to create stunning digital portraits with out spending alot of time in "Photoshop"*

Well it's not that difficult, just the right software and you can enhance portraits that would take tons of time in Photoshop, in only a few minutes or less.
Did I catch your attention yet?

Want to learn how to enhance portraits in a fraction of the time?
Not only  take portraits of female models with out having to pay for a make-up artist and apply the make up in the software as it would be done in real life on the model.
take a look at these images and let me know if your interested in this little secret. Some of you may know about it,  probably most of you do not. as I said let me know if you want to find out how this is done so easy.


Donny


----------



## gsgary

She looks like she has a plastic face after your processing 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron

To be frank, your 'secret' looks like a very heavy-handed application of something like "Portrait Pro" in auto....


----------



## Ysarex

The Ultimate Guide To The Frequency Separation Technique | Fstoppers


----------



## pjaye

I'm sorry but that after shot is truly horrible. There is absolutely no texture left to her skin. I would hope that if you were doing a portrait of someone, you would start with a properly lit and composed photo and not end up with doing so much editing that it looks unnatural.


----------



## donny1963

donny1963 said:


> *How to create stunning digital portraits with out spending alot of time in "Photoshop"*
> 
> Well it's not that difficult, just the right software and you can enhance portraits that would take tons of time in Photoshop, in only a few minutes or less.
> Did I catch your attention yet?
> 
> Want to learn how to enhance portraits in a fraction of the time?
> Not only  take portraits of female models with out having to pay for a make-up artist and apply the make up in the software as it would be done in real life on the model.
> take a look at these images and let me know if your interested in this little secret. Some of you may know about it,  probably most of you do not. as I said let me know if you want to find out how this is done so easy.
> 
> 
> Donny


 which one you talking about??


----------



## donny1963

symplybarb said:


> I'm sorry but that after shot is truly horrible. There is absolutely no texture left to her skin. I would hope that if you were doing a portrait of someone, you would start with a properly lit and composed photo and not end up with doing so much editing that it looks unnatural.


 
it was properly lit and composed,  the exposure was perfect, the face wasn't because there was no make-up..
I don't believe that looks so bad at all, the software the first picture of the blonde was done digital touch-up, and then another day we did a portrait of her after real make-up was applied and the results was the same, so I don't get how that loks un natural..


----------



## donny1963

tirediron said:


> To be frank, your 'secret' looks like a very heavy-handed application of something like "Portrait Pro" in auto....


 actually it's not so hard, we did  real make up on the same girl to compare, and it looks very good..


----------



## donny1963

symplybarb said:


> I'm sorry but that after shot is truly horrible. There is absolutely no texture left to her skin. I would hope that if you were doing a portrait of someone, you would start with a properly lit and composed photo and not end up with doing so much editing that it looks unnatural.


 here is another one, I believe it looks very natural..


----------



## limr

You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.


Agree.  You're the photographer, and they're you're images, so if you're happy, that's what counts.  BUT...  I would NEVER consider handing images like these to my clients.


----------



## donny1963

limr said:


> You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.


 really your speaking for every one?   you believe your every one shares your opinion?    first off that last picture was not edited,  it was done with a professional make-up artist no editing, so if it still looks like that to you maybe your opinion is just  "Your opinion and nothing more..
see I know what I see, and yes I posted that last image to see if  you would stick with a neg statement..
so where are you seeing heavy handed re-touching in that last picture if there is none?


----------



## donny1963

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.  You're the photographer, and they're you're images, so if you're happy, that's what counts.  BUT...  I would NEVER consider handing images like these to my clients.
Click to expand...

They work for me, I do a ton of weddings,  I don't normally use digital portrait pro, for that unless they don't have professional make-up done, and I have used it then.    
In fact,  I get a lot of work because of that, on my wedding photography website I have before and after images, and I get a lot of work just because of what portrait pro can do.  The clients seem to be happy with it.   The amount of weddings work I have received doubled because of that.
Basically what I have learned over the years of what clients for wedding  photography wants
here is what brides that hire top end wedding photographer want:

1. Totally amazing, kick ass wedding photos that make them look gorgeous.
2. Every single photography related detail taken care of for them.
3. An emotional connection with you – a trusted professional and friend.

it doesn't matter what else your good at or what type of photography you have experience with, all they want is to look good.
If your not aware of this, what are women always worried about? how they look? they are always have hang-ups of flaws in their looks,  they notice the smallest wrinkle or blemish, and think it makes them look less then perfect.

who is the boss when it comes to wedding pictures? well the bride, we all know that, it's all about what she wants.
And when you can provide a way to make them look "better then they really look" they are drawn to that.

if you have 2 different photographers going up for the job and one shows they are able to make them look more beautiful or eliminate any imperfect blemishes or wrinkles and the other doesn't, then it won't matter who has more experience in the job to her, what will matter is perfectly clear..
I realized over some time I been going about it the wrong way before I realize that, I thought it was all about experience and how large your portfolio is when it comes to getting a wedding photography gig, but  as I said that is not so..

and I also found out that a lot of wedding photographers who charge twice as much get the jobs simply because the clients believe that more expensive photographer will do a better job.

This is how these people think believe it or not.
 So another thing I learned is by cutting your price thinking you have a better chance in getting the gig because you undercut the competition, is BS,, in fact may cause you to lose that gig.


----------



## limr

donny1963 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.
> 
> 
> 
> really your speaking for every one?   you believe your every one shares your opinion?    first off that last picture was not edited,  it was done with a professional make-up artist no editing, so if it still looks like that to you maybe your opinion is just  "Your opinion and nothing more..
> see I know what I see, and yes I posted that last image to see if  you would stick with a neg statement..
> so where are you seeing heavy handed re-touching in that last picture if there is none?
Click to expand...


Hey, you were the one who asked. You got a lot of comments that said that the retouching was too much, and you basically told us all that we were wrong. So why even bother asking in the first place? Quite frankly, I don't care how you achieved the look in the last photo. It still looks heavy-handed and unnatural. I'd want my money back if you made me look like that.


----------



## donny1963

limr said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe it all you want, but it will still look to the rest of us like heavy-handed editing that makes her look unnatural.
> 
> 
> 
> really your speaking for every one?   you believe your every one shares your opinion?    first off that last picture was not edited,  it was done with a professional make-up artist no editing, so if it still looks like that to you maybe your opinion is just  "Your opinion and nothing more..
> see I know what I see, and yes I posted that last image to see if  you would stick with a neg statement..
> so where are you seeing heavy handed re-touching in that last picture if there is none?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you were the one who asked. You got a lot of comments that said that the retouching was too much, and you basically told us all that we were wrong. So why even bother asking in the first place? Quite frankly, I don't care how you achieved the look in the last photo. It still looks heavy-handed and unnatural. I'd want my money back if you made me look like that.
Click to expand...

 
well I don't see how your seeing heavy-handed editing when no editing was done at all..
not making a joke or anything but maybe your monitor is not calibrated? what do you use to calibrate your monitor? or do you not use any calibrations?
or maybe the make-up artist was heavy-handed editing, and doesn't know how to apply make-up..
the shot was 100% natural as far as the shot goes, maybe your perception of what you like is what  it is who knows, but  I did ask I was looking to see if I can get an opinion of how the editing looks compared to natural, and well I got one from some one who doesn't know the difference between the two is all..


----------



## donny1963

by the way if your not using any hardware to calibrate your monitor to do your digital enhancements then what looks right to you may not be, specially if you intend to publish anything you do, because after you do post production, the actual print will not be the same.


----------



## Vtec44

To be honest, this looks like the portrait style 15-20 years ago when the over softening of the face was popular.  I have bunch of those taken of me throughout my high school.


----------



## KmH

donny1963 said:


> by the way if your not using any hardware to calibrate your monitor to do your digital enhancements then what looks right to you may not be, specially if you intend to publish anything you do, because after you do post production, the actual print will not be the same.


Prints and publishing for electronic display are 2 very different things.

There are different electronic display device types, many of the same display type using differing operating system software, and a broad assortment browsing software, some of those color aware, some not color aware.
Of course if the electronic display device your digitally enhanced image isn't also calibrated exactly the same as your display device your carefully enhanced digtail image may not look the way you intended.

Soft proofing for prints in your editing application still only shows you an approximation of what a print will look like. It can be a close approximation if you use the right ICC profiles (print making device profile _and_ print paper profile) but still only an approximation.
Then the print has to be lit properly where ever it hangs to have any chance of looking like the soft proof you saw in your editing application.

But no doubt, routinely calibrating your display is essential if you want to have a solid foundation for doing any digital editing.


----------



## donny1963

KmH said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way if your not using any hardware to calibrate your monitor to do your digital enhancements then what looks right to you may not be, specially if you intend to publish anything you do, because after you do post production, the actual print will not be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Prints and publishing for electronic display are 2 very different things.
> 
> There are different electronic display device types, many of the same display type using differing operating system software, and a broad assortment browsing software, some of those color aware, some not color aware.
> Of course if the electronic display device your digitally enhanced image isn't also calibrated exactly the same as your display device your carefully enhanced digtail image may not look the way you intended.
> 
> Soft proofing for prints in your editing application still only shows you an approximation of what a print will look like. It can be a close approximation if you use the right ICC profiles (print making device profile _and_ print paper profile) but still only an approximation.
> Then the print has to be lit properly where ever it hangs to have any chance of looking like the soft proof you saw in your editing application.
> 
> But no doubt, routinely calibrating your display is essential if you want to have a solid foundation for doing any digital editing.
Click to expand...

 

I use a  Eizo CG247 24" Widescreen ColorEdge  monitor it's perfect for photo editing. has panels around it to keep any light hitting on the screen.
But even with that monitor you still need to calibrate it,
 I use the X-Rite i1 Display Pro Densitometer it's only a couple hundred dollars and it does a fantastic job.
it's easy all you do is put it on your monitor surface and the software does all the calibrating for you.
how it works is a chord hangs over the top and the unit is flat against the screen and the software just displays a bunch of colored squares in different areas of the monitor, and then the calibrating takes place, when it's done your all set..
I've use a couple different brands and found that the X-Rite is the best!!!!
and if you don't believe in them, pull up one of your favorite pictures you done before you calibrate your monitor then do your calibration and then pull up the picture again and you will see a noticeable difference.. just about 99% of all monitors are off on calibration, but most people don't care they are not that picky because most are not doing any photo post production.  But if your a photographer and specially doing wedding gigs, you want to calibrate your monitor before doing any post production..


----------



## donny1963

Vtec44 said:


> To be honest, this looks like the portrait style 15-20 years ago when the over softening of the face was popular.  I have bunch of those taken of me throughout my high school.


 I had a softening filter attached to the lens.. that's it..


----------



## Vtec44

<-- wedding photographer 


Portfolio  
|
V


----------



## table1349

Dear Playboy,

One of you out of work photo editors has escaped the compound now that Hef has decided to take the magazine to an articles only format.  You will find him above.

p.s.  He seems cranky without any thing to do.


----------



## pixmedic

Personally speaking, the after shots look too soft. Theres very little detail left on the face. Whether from the software, or the filter you mentioned, I do not know.
I also think your MUA is a little too heavy handed on the foundation and blush.

I'm not saying some people aren't partial to that look...I grew up on 80s glam rockers so i get it...just not anything I would hand to clients myself. 

"Quick" software fixes are no substitute for knowedgable and deliberate editing.
You might as well shoot with your camera on auto too.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Vtec44

donny1963 said:


> first off that last picture was not edited,



Just to clarify, are you saying that his image was NOT edited?


----------



## donny1963

Vtec44 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> first off that last picture was not edited,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, are you saying that his image was NOT edited?
Click to expand...

 right, Not with portrait pro or Photoshop as far as making up the face, I did do some changes in white balance and stuff like that but never used any brushes..


----------



## donny1963

now obviously my style is not Jimmy Williams, A lot of the work I do is soft, most of it any way, not all..
Now as far as photographer Jimmy Williams, that guy is probably the best photographer out there, all his stuff is perfect..
Jimmy Williams Photography

I like his natural look in his work and 99% of it looks perfect and probably Un-touched with any digital editing, maybe i'm worng, but doesn't look like it has been..


----------



## The_Traveler

donny1963 said:


> I had a softening filter attached to the lens.. that's it..



I think I wouldn't use those.
Not only does it look too soft to me, it also removed her neck - and I like females with necks.


----------



## donny1963

The_Traveler said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a softening filter attached to the lens.. that's it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I wouldn't use those.
> Not only does it look too soft to me, it also removed her neck - and I like females with necks.
Click to expand...

 
LOL she has a neck, you can't see it because of the way she posed, her head is turned and her chin is on her shoulders, so that would be why lol


----------



## zombiesniper

Dude let me get this right.
You come on a forum FULL of photographers. Some of which have a GAZILLION shutter cycles to their credit. Then proceed to get pissed when they don't bow down this amazing piece of software (which some say they have tried and dismissed) that you suggest does just as well as hiring a makeup artist.

Are you as eager to accept that I can shoot a wedding just as well as you with my cell phone and Instagram? Didn't think so.

You like the software and thinks it does a good job. Awesome. Now stop trying to sell your belief to everyone else. Do what you like to do and let the pics fall where they may.

I'm Zombiesniper and I approve this message.


----------



## donny1963

zombiesniper said:


> Dude let me get this right.
> You come on a forum FULL of photographers. Some of which have a GAZILLION shutter cycles to their credit. Then proceed to get pissed when they don't bow down this amazing piece of software (which some say they have tried and dismissed) that you suggest does just as well as hiring a makeup artist.
> 
> Are you as eager to accept that I can shoot a wedding just as well as you with my cell phone and Instagram? Didn't think so.
> 
> You like the software and thinks it does a good job. Awesome. Now stop trying to sell your belief to everyone else. Do what you like to do and let the pics fall where they may.
> 
> I'm Zombiesniper and I approve this message.


 
now see, that's arrogant, you can shoot a wedding just as well with your cell phone, Ya ok,, and first off, how would you know how many shutters cycles I have, first off you have no idea, how long I been doing this, #2 you have no foundation of information to tell me what my skills are and what I have done, or to claim you do anything as good as I can, I get a kick out of idiots who put them self up so high like they are all that and a bag of chips, and never met some one and claim who can do what as well or better.

right there tells every one your arrogant, have no idea what your talking about when you say something like that, you simply have nothing to work with to make a statement like that at all, and your wrong I didn't get upset because people didn't like the software..
don't come on here and put your self above me like your some guru photographer and I should bow down to you, that ain't gonna happen.
claim anything you want,  you don't know me, or have any idea of what I have done in my life i'm 52 years old, so if I been doing photography since I was 14  I think I have quite a few shutter cycles under my belt, mr.

not only that,  I go way back in the film's and slide days, yeah where you don't have the luxury of looking at a digital screen or histogram to check your exposure..  how many shutter cycles you got on that?

As the old saying goes, if you don't have anything nice to say, or have any respect for some one you don't even know, then get lost I don't need your arrogant comments.


----------



## limr

donny1963 said:


> don't come on here and put your self above me like your some guru photographer and I should bow down to you, that ain't gonna happen.



Isn't that what you did in your very first post?



donny1963 said:


> take a look at these images and let me know if your interested in this little secret. Some of you may know about it,  probably most of you do not. as I said let me know if you want to find out how this is done so easy.


----------



## 480sparky

I'm 56 and have been clicking shutters since 1968.  Am I qualified to respond?


----------



## tirediron

I think we've pretty much wrung all the possible value out of this thread!


----------

