From my point of view this piece of software isn’t enough if you want to use it for professional work, especially not print work, but as a start it does amazing things and saves a lot of time. Photoshop is still needed for things like lips and any other bodyparts that might be a part of the portrait, but won’t be covered by the procedure.
My biggest concern is what it will look as a printed result.
The screen cannot even show a fraction of the detail that will be visible in a printed product, and I’ll save my real review until we bought the £40 version. After I’ve edited a portrait in .RAW format and printed it with satisfaction I’ll publish my cheers.
Facts remains however that it IS manipulating pixels and anything that does that will remove detail.
For now it works great for display on the screen in 72dpi.
– Christa 2007-03-07 23:46 UTC
It’s a great starting point, and might even cover everything that some portrait photographers might need. It makes more sense to use it before fine-tuning in Photoshop afterwards though, even if it’s just a case of adjusting colour balance and adding a touch of unsharp mask. Or a whole lot more. Either way, it could save hours of work though.
Like you, I want to see what the result looks like in print
– GreyWulf 2007-03-07 23:51 UTC