What are the differences between using FF as standalone and as plugin?

Thanks for asking these questions SpaceRay. I recently was shocked to find out that my most recently submitted "Homemade Paper" filter does not seem to work properly when hosted in Photoshop. I had tested it a lot before putting it in the library and it seemed to work, but now it just won't work right as a plug-in. Hope folks can answer your quwstions. It would sure help me as well .... Gene

From my experience....FF seems to be more stable, runs smoother, and renders faster as a stand alone app....which I attribute to the host app and FF sharing resources....and FF being a 32-bit app running on my 64-bit host programs... The higher risk of error running FF as a plugin is more than enough for me not to use it as a plugin...

I only use Filter Forge as a Photoshop plugin.

Usually I copy my image to a new layer, modify it in Filter Forge and then blend it with the background image. Using Filter Forge as a stand alone would involve opening the image, running Filter Forge, saving the modified image, then opening it in Photoshop, copying it, pasting it into the original image and blending the copy layer with the background.

In a word, much more of a fiddle, as I learned when the plug-in didn't work with the OS X Lion upgrade for a while.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: have also an opinion from the the Filter Forge team

I cannot speak for the entire team but I doubt that Vladimir or Kochubey who are the most active internal FF users will get to this thread soon.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: What benefits and advantages (or disavandtages) can you have using FF as a plugin?

I'm not an active or expert user of Photoshop and compatible apps. For me the most obvious advantage of the plugin is the ease of applying an effect to a selection.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: Why would you recommend to use standalone or plugin version? Why choose one or another

Again, I do not use host applications much so my opinion may be biased. Naturally, I use the standalone version and I tend to agree with Ghislaine above.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: Is it the plugin ONLY a bridge for connecting FF to the host

Exactly.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: If you get an error or bug in the standalone version (or plugin) will you get exactly the same bug using the standalone? <...> If there is a bug in FF standalone, the bug will kepp the same in the plugin, or it depends of what kind of bug is it?

Of course it depends on the issue! For example, the most popular bur report is about the pipe is being closed issue which occurs when the host application terminates unexpectedly. This issue cannot possibly appear with the standalone FF version.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: How important is the host of the FF Plugin

To my knowledge, all hosts that we support officially should work with Filter Forge exactly the same way.

Quote
Ghislaine wrote: Glad that you asked these questions.

I am glad too that you like them and are useful

Quote
Ghislaine wrote: I prefer to use the standalone. When used as a plugin, it takes me longer to make it appear compared to the opening of the standalone which opens instantly. I do not have Photoshop but a similar compatible host which takes time to open because of the number of plugins in it, and time again to open the FF plugin.

YES, is the same to me, I prefer to use it as a standalone because it opens instantly and can begin to work very quick, and using it as a plugin, must start the host and then the FF plugin.

Although, this is a problem of Loading time, I have recently been lucky and fortunate that after 6 years waiting I have changed my computer and have put a SSD drive SATA 3 and this has changed MUCH, and if before I have been waiting a lot of time for application to load, specially big ones like Photoshop, now the load time is MUCH less than before and Photoshop opens in a few seconds.

Quote
StevieJ wrote: From my experience....FF seems to be more stable, runs smoother, and renders faster as a stand alone app....which I attribute to the host app and FF sharing resources....and FF being a 32-bit app running on my 64-bit host programs... The higher risk of error running FF as a plugin is more than enough for me not to use it as a plugin..

Yes I agree with you, I think the same as you and have seeing and experienced the same, and that is why I have been using it mostly as a standalone VS plugin.

FF is not a 64 bit application and using a 64 bit host have a higher risk of errors.

Quote
Lucie wrote: I've always used FF as a plugin because I always work in photoshop and really don't like switching from one app to another. Because I've never used it as a standalone I can't compare really, but I've never had any problem using it as a plugin and am happy with how it works and the result I get with it.

Very interesting to find someone that has NEVER used FF as a standalone (well really the standalone is the same application as a plugin and has nothing different) and I agree with you that I don´t like either switching applications, but it depends what you are going to do with image result from FF. If you are JUST going to see how a filter works or make some tests or try some presets or any other thing that the result wil end there and does not any further modification I refer to use it as a standalone, because as said Ghislaine, you do not have to start 2 applications, and have less risk of errors as said by StevieJ.

I am glad that you have never had any problems as a plugin, I have had some problems and that is why I have prefered to use it as a standalone.

Quote

Tom Gore wrote: I only use Filter Forge as a Photoshop plugin. Usually I copy my image to a new layer, modify it in Filter Forge and then blend it with the background image. Using Filter Forge as a stand alone would involve opening the image, running Filter Forge, saving the modified image, then opening it in Photoshop, copying it, pasting it into the original image and blending the copy layer with the background.

YES, I agree with you, as I have just wrote above, I agree that if you need further modification and the FF result is going to be used as part of an ongoing project and you mwant to include it in others images or use the blend modes, is better to use FF as a plugin. Is true that is much better and faster way than using as standalone.

All I can say is that with large enough images I managed to squeeze a bad allocation error from FF while in plugin mode

Yep, I agree, it's much more rare to see a bad allocation error in plugin mode.

The image I used was a mere 4000x3000 image, but I think it's a combination of
image size, filter complexity, filter settings (which preset is used), and other unknown variables, like having all the filters from the online library (9000) and most filters from the forums (1000+)...

I did manage to get the full render though, more than once, so I can't say for sure what made FF hickup that time.

I have found 2 more important differences between using Filter Forge (FF) as standalone versus plugin

FF CONVERTS TO 72 PPI WHEN SAVING THE RESULT FROM FF SOFTWARE

StevieJ has told in this thread FF Killing Resolution that all the images that are saved through the standalone version of FF with the menu File-->Save or Save as will be converted from whatever resolution it has the original (for example 300 ppi) to 72 ppi.

The good thing is that FF does not resample the image so it will keep the same size resolution and so it will not change the quality or the pixels amount of the result and so then you can easily change it back to the original resolution (back to 300 ppi) with Photoshop or any similar software that can do this, and there also free software that can do this too, BUT the important thing is that when changing it back to the original you must NOT use and deactivate the resampling

A good news is that this does NOT happen if you use FF as plugin with a host software, and instead of saving the image with FF you just and only APPLY the filter from FF to the original source image, and it will keep the same 300 ppi (or whatever it may have) that the original image had before applying the FF filter.

Although even using the FF plugin you can´t save directly from the plugin using the File-->Save because it will also convert it to 72ppi in the same way as it happens with the standalone version, so as I said, using the plugin version is suggested and recommended to only use the APPLY filter.

FF WILL CONVERT ANY IMAGE LOADED TO sRGB COLOR SPACE WHEN SAVING THE RESULT FROM FF SOFTWARE

This is the main reason I will not be using the standalone version anymore.

Making tests with the above, I have also discovered that FF will always save the result in the standalone version with the sRGB color space EVEN if the original source did not have this color space, so it will convert it without asking for your permit to do it and FF will not tell you that it has converted your image to sRGB. So this is a very important (at least for me) thing to know.

The good news is that this does NOT happen if you use FF as plugin with a host software, and instead of saving the image with FF you just and only APPLY the filter from FF to the original source image, and it will keep the same color space that the original image had before applying the FF filter.

Although even using the FF plugin you can´t save directly from the plugin using the File-->Save because it will also convertto the sRGB in the same way as it happens with the standalone version, so as I said, using the plugin version is suggested and recommended to only use the APPLY filter.

See also Why FF converts all the images to sRGB color space WITHOUT asking?

Different compiler. Simple as that. [edit] and probably a bunch of other technical things.

Does anyone else have found any other difference, advantage or disadvantage for using FF as standalone or plugin ?

It seems that if you want to keep the original source image settings (for example dpi and color space) you need to use it only as a plugin

There may be other things that maybe we do not know yet

I personally prefer to use FF as standalone, as it seems slightly slower in photoshop... That could be because I have older versions of Photoshop, CS 2 and CS 3. Also there were a few filters that did give as great results in PS as in standalone... I forget which, but if I recall correctly they were usually ones that needed a selection. Too bad FF can't work with GIMP, because once Adobe turned to subscription only, they lost me as a customer.

Quote
GMM wrote: You can! Just go to the File > Open Selection menu.

It tells me to chose a picture when I say "open selection" then says "The selection must have the same dimensions as the main image" and gives the beep sound that means that what I've tried to do has failed.

If I pick the same image as the open image AND the open selection, then I get some sort of subtle layering effect of the two images.

OK, probably a dumb question, but I thought that when I picked selection I would be asked what portion of the picture I wanted to apply the filter to, or something like that. How does opening a selection actually differ from opening an image?