Digging a little further into one of the new Lightroom Presets. "Polished Portrait."

 I think some readers were a bit hasty to give the human version of the images I showed yesterday a quick win. I'm not sure everyone understands that it's not a "me" versus "binary setting on the machine" contest that I was trying to communicate. What I was trying to do is to point out that the new preset is a very, very good starting point for anyone trying to retouch a portrait. And here's why:

The settings you get when you choose Polished Portrait (or any other of the new, A.I. driven presets) is not a binary setting, etched into stone that you must either accept or decline. Far from it. Rather, the preset does a lot of heavy lifting to quickly mask all the parameters you might wish to further enhance in a portrait in one smooth step. I've included a screen shot of part of a sub-menu in Lightroom from a similar test this morning. Yesterday's sample gave me back 17 different layers which allowed for corrections in small parts of the overall image. Today's sample gave me 9 layers. You can see in the screen shot that Polished Portrait gives me nine discreet, masked layers along with the option to add additional layer masks manually. The number of layer choices will vary by image and also by any work you have already done on a file. 

When one clicks on one of the masks, like "eyebrows", you get a full menu of controls like the one on the right side of the screen shot. The image of the subject shows you, via a color mask, which area you are working on. You now have many options just for eyebrows. You can increase or decrease the shadow slider which makes the eyebrows darker, and which appears to make them also look fuller. You could enhance clarity, change colors, even apply curves if you want to. The range of control and the amount of final changes to the file are limited only by your choices. But, importantly, each of the very accurately masked selections is there for you to enhance, de-enhance or ignore. The preset is there as a powerful assist, not an arbiter of style or taste. 

If I had dived more deeply into the file created yesterday I might have pulled some of the shadow out of the eyebrows since that seemed to be the area that vexed most readers. I personally liked the way the preset presented the eyebrows to me and if the image was made for myself I would have gladly left it that way --- but the point is that you have absolute control over each of the masked selections. That doesn't make my manually arrived at version "the winner." It just means I didn't make the same choices as the preset and it didn't make the same choices I did. 

There were a few things that sidetracked some readers. One being the skin color. It was suggested that the preset made the skin tone too yellow. But checking the selected mask for skin tone showed me that no changes had been make in the preset to the skin color. That was a global adjustment I made after the fact. That one is on me. 

But I think people have the tendency to want to prove automatic analysis and automatic setting suggestions like this as "not ready for prime time" and in doing so they miss the absolute value of the automation for making precise masked selections for adding overall control to image editing. 

If we divorce this time saving addition to portrait retouching in LRC from the existential angst currently being generated by generative A.I. programs like DALL-e and Midjourney, and also ChatGBT we can see that at it's core this is a method merely to identify and mask selective parts of the image and then "suggest" changes/enhancements to each individual segment. Don't want to change the eyebrows at all? Then disable that selection. Want more control over the whiteness of the subject's teeth? Well, click on that selection and get to work. 

But to couch the process as some sort of contest between a human photographer and the machine is the wrong way to look at this. It would be similar to all those early Photoshop users, myself included, who used the program before you had "command Z". There was not such thing as an "undo" command. You saved and saved and saved your work as you went. And I'm sure there were some hot shot early adapters who thought everyone who wanted an "undo" command was some sort of tyro pussy who couldn't understand the value of neolithic computing. No layers either. No...  I could go on. I usually do...

Each step forward in programming like this is a time saver and wholly welcome by the folks who already spend a lot of time retouching. And it's all under your control.

It's okay, I guess, to hate technology, and by extension, any change. But let's not assume that because you got a sample from me that you didn't like that all the fault lies with the program or that the things you didn't prefer aren't readily changeable and controllable. Now more than ever before. 

The presets are supplied to you for free. It's considered an upgrade by most. But you don't need to click on them if you prefer to do all the selections, masking and layering for yourself. It's always your choice. The thing we should be on guard against are programs that don't give you any choice. Now that would be bad.

Let's resist the temptation to toss the screaming baby out with the bathwater. Let's just learn to take advantage of some extra control delivered with less work. No contest here.

I drink coffee sometimes while I'm driving. I don't want a clutch and a manual shifter. I love the convenience of automatic transmission. YMMV.