|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
Hello,
I mostly and mainly use Filter Forge in standalone mode because as FF do not support layers I think that it is the same to open the image or photo source from Photoshop (or similar compatible host) or load it in FF.
Please, I want to ask you all that have used already both ways the following questions:
1 - What are the differences between using FF as standalone and as plugin?
2 - What benefits and advantages (or disavandtages) can you have using FF as a plugin?
3 - Why would you recommend to use standalone or plugin version? Why choose one or another ?
4 - And I think that more important how FF works as a plugin vs standalone?
I mean if it exactly the same code and program or it works probably in a different way. Is it the plugin ONLY a bridge for connecting FF to the host, and nothing else is shared or FF works in a possible different way as a plugin versus standalone.
5 - If you get an error or bug in the standalone version (or plugin) will you get exactly the same bug using the standalone?
I mean that if I use one or another could it be fixed in some way. (of course that this would depend on what kind of error you are getting and kind of bug it would be)
6 - 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?
I mean that if I am getting an error and this is because a bug in the standalone version, if I use the plugin version could it be possible that this bug could be solved and do not appear or the plugin is only a bridge for FF
7 - I know that both version share the same engine and grapical interface, but are there any differences in working with standalone or the plugin?
I mean if FF works in exactly the same way and is completely independent of the host you are using and nothing is shared and all the work is made only by FF and does not use any part of the host program. Or it depends of what host you are using?
8 - How important is the host of the FF Plugin ?
Is there any advantages for using Photoshop versus any other compatible host ?
Would you get the same perfomance and speed?
DIFFERENCES I FIND FROM USING STANDALONE VS PLUGIN
I am sorry, that I do not find many differences between both, but I do not see the point why is better to use a host to use FF versus using it in standalone mode.
The only thing I see is that in Photoshop (or similar host) you can keep working on your image and manipulate and modify it until you need to apply a FF filter, and the you after this you can continue working on the image and make more changes, and then can apply a second filter and keep again working on the image.
As far as I know you can´t use FF with Photoshop actions that would be the real point to use the plugin.
Thanks very much for your opinions, comments and experience about this that you may have and want to share in this thread here and help to know more about how FF works. |
| Posted: December 7, 2011 8:44 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Gene S Morgan
|
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 |
| Posted: December 7, 2011 9:36 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Ghislaine
Ghislaine
|
Glad that you asked these questions.
With my experience of both version, 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. The standalone does not cause me any problems.Ghislaine @ http:3dscreensaver.t15.org |
| Posted: December 7, 2011 11:03 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
StevieJ
Designer/Artist
Posts: 11224
Filters: 163
|
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... Steve
"Buzzards gotta eat...same as worms..." - Clint :) |
| Posted: December 8, 2011 1:33 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Lucie
|
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. A couple of reasons why I also like using it in photoshop is I can use the "fade" tool in photoshop when I apply a filter to an image and I can also apply filters to different layers and play with the blending modes to get various effects and those are things that I use very often. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe I can do this in the standalone, or not as easily anyway... Lucie |
| Posted: December 8, 2011 8:15 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Tom Gore
Posts: 11
|
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. |
| Posted: December 8, 2011 7:20 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
Thanks very much for all your comments and experiences, it is very interesting to see different point of view, and ways to use FF.
I would like also if it would be possible to have also an opinion from the the Filter Forge team, and what they think about this.
Of course is also welcome any other comments, opinion and experiences of any other FF user.
Please, continue sharing your experiences and what you think about this topic here |
| Posted: December 13, 2011 3:34 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
GMM
Moderator
Filter Forge, Inc
Posts: 1726
|
| 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. |
| Posted: December 13, 2011 8:44 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
WOW!! GMM thanks very much for all your comments and answers !!! Very appreciated.
I HAVE NOT USED ANY OTHER HOST APPLICATION THAN PHOTOSHOP
I have to say that I have NOT tested FF with any other host compatible other than Photoshop and this have been a very short experience, as I said nearly most of the time I only use it as standalone and then after I could load it into Photoshop.
| Quote |
|---|
GMM wrote:
| Quote |
|---|
SpaceRay wrote:
Is it the plugin ONLY a bridge for connecting FF to the host |
Exactly! |
Good to know that then FF does not depend or use any of the host features and only acts with the host loading the images (and any other data needed) and sending them back with the filter applied.
| Quote |
|---|
GMM wrote:
| 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 |
Yes, if FF does not use any feature of the host and ONLY acts as a bridge as said above, it really does not matter the host and should work in exactly the same way, perhaps the question could change in this case
What features that Photoshop offers are not found on other compatibles hosts? I mean things that you can do in Photoshop and interact with FF, for example the selection
| Quote |
|---|
GMM wrote:
| 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. |
 Can you apply a FF filter to a selection made on the image from photoshop ??
Oh I am very sorry that I did not know that and have never tried to do this, thought that FF only used FULL images and not selections, and is true that as you say, this is a really great advantage, I will have to test it.
I suposse that there must be MORE advantages using Photoshop or any other host than this one.
I will have to dust off the FF Photoshop plugin  , clean it and make some tests and try different things with it, and see what it can do.  I will try many different things and see which ones works with FF and which ones do not work or is not possible. |
| Posted: December 13, 2011 11:43 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
| 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. |
| Posted: December 13, 2011 12:32 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
As now the only good way to use Filter Forge is as a Plugin and not as a standalone to be able to avoid the bad and unwanted "Bad Allocation" bug (at least in Windows) I want to bring this thread up again for anyone that want to know the difference.
Anyone that knows or want to add more advantages, comments or anything that could be useful to this thread is free to do it and welcomed. |
| Posted: July 9, 2012 1:29 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Morgantao
Can't script
|
All I can say is that with large enough images I managed to squeeze a bad allocation error from FF while in plugin mode  |
| Posted: July 9, 2012 3:09 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
SpaceRay
SpaceRay
|
| Quote |
|---|
Morgantao wrote:
All I can say is that with large enough images I managed to squeeze a bad allocation error from FF while in plugin mode |
What do you call "large enough images" ?
Is true that is possible to get a bad allocation error EVEN when using FF as a plugin but is much more difficult that this happens, at least in my tests I made 32 renders with different filters and got only 2 bad allocation errors, all with 10.000 x 10.000 pixels |
| Posted: July 9, 2012 11:04 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
|
Morgantao
Can't script
|
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. |
| Posted: July 10, 2012 2:13 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
