I stay away from plug-ins whenever I can;only use 'perfectly clear and 'portrait professional' everything else I do in plain Photoshop to keep it simple and get a better understanding of PS your thoughts?
plug-in war
-
D
- Thread starter RalphLambrecht
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
some plugins provide an extension of PS's power doing things PS does not such as OnOne's "perfect resize" , others such as 'portrait professional' are time savers. I use "perfect resize" a lot along with the nik and topaz plugins.
If you are "only" using Perfectly Clear and Portrait Professional then you have fully embraced plug-ins for your editingI stay away from plug-ins whenever I can;only use 'perfectly clear and 'portrait professional' everything else I do in plain Photoshop to keep it simple and get a better understanding of PS your thoughts?
OP
OP
If you are "only" using Perfectly Clear and Portrait Professional then you have fully embraced plug-ins for your editing
guilty as charged.
I wasn't able to replicate either in plain PS.Just to add to Doyle Thomas's comment about On1 Perfect Photo Suite. It can be used as a stand alone or PS plugin. I find it has many excellent features and they provide easy to follow tutorials. I use their software independent of PS but switch between both for whatever feature works for an image. I am using PS CS5 and don't wish to rent PS.
HOME
HOME
It can get very confusing. Just a quick look around and I identified no less than 6 'major' plugins for the production of portraits--now of course google fed advertising shows me a rotation of three of them on many pages I visit... 
Having only embraced digital as a venue for production of fine art prints recently--I am cautious and conservative with my money here. Photoshop is now "leased" instead of as a standalone install (even though it is installed!). I resisted this strenuously for several years. The logic here was a no-brainer. My previous versions of PS (up to 6) no longer offer the RAW supports for my new Nikon. Nor a number of handy, new improvements. Second, I always have the latest version of the software, Bridge, plus Lightroom (if I used that in my workflow) for the tidy sum of $10.79US a month. I spend more than that on gasoline and a lunch to go out for a days shooting...
The Nik Collection is the prime plugin. It seemed pricey at first--but very often saves me hours of fiddling about with several layers and configurations to get what I am envisioning. Native PS sharpening still beats it there in my estimation, though. I have two small "freebie" plugs that either make a mirror reflection, or simplify selection of certain elements. Time savers all.
I think that some people go "add in crazy" and load their PS with too much stuff--and then go on a treasure hunt with an image to see how it renders. I guess that this is artistic--but I have gotten so tired of various overworked HDR flavors and "vintage" rubbish that many of these I do not even bother to take time to appreciate the base image--moving quickly on.
My philosophy on plugins is this--a selection of them should be based on the photographer's vision and plan for the image. They are something to 'shortcut' the post process to arrive at that vision--not make up for ignorance, incompetence, or lack of vision when capturing the original print. I see so many these days that slurp up as many images as they can capture with the camera on 'program', paying no attention to creating the best technical conditions for that image--and relying on post process to make their pig into a silk purse. I feel blessed coming up through film when we had 12, 24, or 36 images on a roll (or 2 in a film holder) and had to achieve a modicum of balance to get a good negative.
There ain't no plugin that replaces those skills...
Having only embraced digital as a venue for production of fine art prints recently--I am cautious and conservative with my money here. Photoshop is now "leased" instead of as a standalone install (even though it is installed!). I resisted this strenuously for several years. The logic here was a no-brainer. My previous versions of PS (up to 6) no longer offer the RAW supports for my new Nikon. Nor a number of handy, new improvements. Second, I always have the latest version of the software, Bridge, plus Lightroom (if I used that in my workflow) for the tidy sum of $10.79US a month. I spend more than that on gasoline and a lunch to go out for a days shooting...
The Nik Collection is the prime plugin. It seemed pricey at first--but very often saves me hours of fiddling about with several layers and configurations to get what I am envisioning. Native PS sharpening still beats it there in my estimation, though. I have two small "freebie" plugs that either make a mirror reflection, or simplify selection of certain elements. Time savers all.
I think that some people go "add in crazy" and load their PS with too much stuff--and then go on a treasure hunt with an image to see how it renders. I guess that this is artistic--but I have gotten so tired of various overworked HDR flavors and "vintage" rubbish that many of these I do not even bother to take time to appreciate the base image--moving quickly on.
My philosophy on plugins is this--a selection of them should be based on the photographer's vision and plan for the image. They are something to 'shortcut' the post process to arrive at that vision--not make up for ignorance, incompetence, or lack of vision when capturing the original print. I see so many these days that slurp up as many images as they can capture with the camera on 'program', paying no attention to creating the best technical conditions for that image--and relying on post process to make their pig into a silk purse. I feel blessed coming up through film when we had 12, 24, or 36 images on a roll (or 2 in a film holder) and had to achieve a modicum of balance to get a good negative.
There ain't no plugin that replaces those skills...
There ain't no plugin that replaces those skills...
OP
OP
That may well be but,There are also some plug-ins that can't be replaced by even advanced skills;Portrait Professional is such a plug-in.Perfectly Clear is another. Good luck simulating their effects
Studio portraiture seems to be something that is pretty much lost in the race to mediocrity that drives many things these days. I can remember when portraitists had a makeup artist on staff. Lighting a complex affair of diffusers, grids, snoots, reflectors--with selective softening via gels and filters. Carefully matching skin to film and filtration to reduce certain untoward tones. Anyone remember how useful vasoline can be? 
The printing side had its own magic!
We have also been indoctrinated to much fakery and idealization of the 'perfect' image--especially when it comes to portrait and style photography. Average looking models suddenly turn into sculpted nymphs and Adonis like creatures. When you meet them in the street it can be a bit of cognitive dissonance... There is a reason fashion photographers like long lenses. Portraits have become the thing of Walmart and Olan Mills in the popular genre. How ever did photographers like Van Vechten and Karsh ever create without the benefit of Photoshop?
As I said originally, apps should match the vision of the final products the photographer intends on presenting. Portraiture is a specialized subset of photography--and the use of select apps can indeed be a time saver--and rightly used--not overused--to achieve a quality product. But there is nothing that any one of them does that cannot be done without them by a skilled PS technician. After all, an app merely combines a complex set of steps--masks, contrast and focus layers, brushes, so on and so forth into a unified panel that allows the photographer simultaneous access and automated outputs. They are time savers--not magical tools that cannot be replicated through other means.
My comment about skill and the negative still stands. The better the captured raw image, the better the outcomes for the finished print. A shoddy negative with poor curves, shadow and highlight loss, and focus issues can be jimmied about a bit to look better--but at the end of the day it is still a mediocre mess. The goal is to enhance--not repair. And I still stand by what I said about app collectors--applying random and multiple transformers to vomit out a kaleidoscope of colorful bits on the sidewalk--but be absolutely devoid of any intrinsic emotional value in the image itself. Twenty minutes surfing about at photo.net can yield a trove of these...
The printing side had its own magic!We have also been indoctrinated to much fakery and idealization of the 'perfect' image--especially when it comes to portrait and style photography. Average looking models suddenly turn into sculpted nymphs and Adonis like creatures. When you meet them in the street it can be a bit of cognitive dissonance... There is a reason fashion photographers like long lenses. Portraits have become the thing of Walmart and Olan Mills in the popular genre. How ever did photographers like Van Vechten and Karsh ever create without the benefit of Photoshop?
As I said originally, apps should match the vision of the final products the photographer intends on presenting. Portraiture is a specialized subset of photography--and the use of select apps can indeed be a time saver--and rightly used--not overused--to achieve a quality product. But there is nothing that any one of them does that cannot be done without them by a skilled PS technician. After all, an app merely combines a complex set of steps--masks, contrast and focus layers, brushes, so on and so forth into a unified panel that allows the photographer simultaneous access and automated outputs. They are time savers--not magical tools that cannot be replicated through other means.
My comment about skill and the negative still stands. The better the captured raw image, the better the outcomes for the finished print. A shoddy negative with poor curves, shadow and highlight loss, and focus issues can be jimmied about a bit to look better--but at the end of the day it is still a mediocre mess. The goal is to enhance--not repair. And I still stand by what I said about app collectors--applying random and multiple transformers to vomit out a kaleidoscope of colorful bits on the sidewalk--but be absolutely devoid of any intrinsic emotional value in the image itself. Twenty minutes surfing about at photo.net can yield a trove of these...
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP
I have to disagree;There are some plug-ins an eventfully skilled PS artist cannot replicate within reasonable time.Yes, a Calvin Hollywood can do almost anything in PS but some of it is not everyones taste nor does it come close to some plug-ins,which take a different approach and are not just an action or sequence f PS commands.Their proprietary algorisms are unique and very hard or impossible to duplicate in PS:cool2:
OP
OP
Iuse the programmode a lot.'P' stands for professional, right?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
Studio portraiture seems to be something that is pretty much lost in the race to mediocrity that drives many things these days. I can remember when portraitists had a makeup artist on staff. Lighting a complex affair of diffusers, grids, snoots, reflectors--with selective softening via gels and filters. Carefully matching skin to film and filtration to reduce certain untoward tones. Anyone remember how useful vasoline can be?
We have also been indoctrinated to much fakery and idealization of the 'perfect' image--especially when it comes to portrait and style photography. Average looking models suddenly turn into sculpted nymphs and Adonis like creatures. When you meet them in the street it can be a bit of cognitive dissonance... There is a reason fashion photographers like long lenses. Portraits have become the thing of Walmart and Olan Mills in the popular genre. How ever did photographers like Van Vechten and Karsh ever create without the benefit of Photoshop?
As I said originally, apps should match the vision of the final products the photographer intends on presenting. Portraiture is a specialized subset of photography--and the use of select apps can indeed be a time saver--and rightly used--not overused--to achieve a quality product. But there is nothing that any one of them does that cannot be done without them by a skilled PS technician. After all, an app merely combines a complex set of steps--masks, contrast and focus layers, brushes, so on and so forth into a unified panel that allows the photographer simultaneous access and automated outputs. They are time savers--not magical tools that cannot be replicated through other means.
My comment about skill and the negative still stands. The better the captured raw image, the better the outcomes for the finished print. A shoddy negative with poor curves, shadow and highlight loss, and focus issues can be jimmied about a bit to look better--but at the end of the day it is still a mediocre mess. The goal is to enhance--not repair. And I still stand by what I said about app collectors--applying random and multiple transformers to vomit out a kaleidoscope of colorful bits on the sidewalk--but be absolutely devoid of any intrinsic emotional value in the image itself. Twenty minutes surfing about at photo.net can yield a trove of these...
hi pragmatist
i agree with what you have said to a certain degree.
IDK 28 years ago i worked for someone trained in the art of portraiture
she went to school at the new york institute of photography
( did it through the mail except for her retouching classes she lived in nyc )
they did have something like photoshop back then, it was called retouching and skill
i can't say anything bad about life touch studios either ( i imagine you mean them too, you mentioned olin mills ) while you might suggest that the people who
make the portraits at those type places don't have skill, some of the folks i know who use their camera/system were extremely skilled portrait photographers.
maybe not as skilled as mr karshigian or his mentor mr garobedian, but as skilled as many others who use a camera to make portraits.
photoshop ( or the art of retoucing on a negative or post retouching on a print ) the camera, and depressing the shutter is only a part of what portrait making is
the rest is working with the sitter, as mr avedon said, it was a dance between the photographer and the subject. ..
no matter how great the algorithms or retouching skills, or how wonderful the camera might be, if the photographer can't do the dance it won't really matter ...
OP
OP
I'm happy to report that I'm now plugin-free. I have ditched the above plug-ins in favor of PS commands.I stay away from plug-ins whenever I can;only use 'perfectly clear and 'portrait professional' everything else I do in plain Photoshop to keep it simple and get a better understanding of PS your thoughts?
OP
OP
true; and the time is better spent Learning PS more deeply!
I took four Dan Margulis workshops ,,, he drilled us not to use plug ins, I am sure there are some that are fantastic but I like learning the program front to backI stay away from plug-ins whenever I can;only use 'perfectly clear and 'portrait professional' everything else I do in plain Photoshop to keep it simple and get a better understanding of PS your thoughts?
Sadly, now that Google has abandoned the Nik Collection and set it adrift, soon to fall under the hatchet of OS upgrades that inevitably render it unusable, yet another of the most powerful editing tools is taken from us. Those of us who PAID for these tools feel even more ripped off and betrayed by Google, who has demonstrated time and again their policy of "consume and destroy" as regards acquisition of other developers properties. I have stopped upgrading my OS, my Lightroom and all other editing tools, and once they stop working, then I will abandon digital editing of my photographic works and rely solely on the darkroom. I'm tired of these software betrayals as "new and better" tools and systems replace them and older tools are abandoned and jettisoned. Google, you are evil.
wow Paul tell us what you really think!
It's funny. I own and have used tons of plugins over the years. I rely on them daily in programs like Pro Tools (music) and After Effects and Maya (video). However, I don't use any plugins for photography. I find Photoshop has everything I need built into it. I don't even use Lightroom. I have no idea what the point of that program even is! It seems just like a preset loaded version of PS Elements to me. It causes me more grief than it resolves. While sometimes Photoshop's native tools can be more tedious than using a plugin, they give you more control. And like anything, once you've done it a thousand times, you get pretty quick at it. Since PS added the "preserve details" option on their resizing, I can't think of anything I would even want in a plugin. And that's good. Because the software alone is expensive enough.
And I know what you mean Paul Barden. The world of music plugins is even worse. Different DAW's (digital audio workstations) often require different plugin types. So if you switch from one to another, all of your very expensive plugins won't work anymore. And since many of your clients will use different programs to record their stuff before sending it to you to mix, you have to own copies of each of the major programs, and the all of necessary plugins to go with them if you want to stay current and attract new customers and keep old ones! And, even if you don't use more than one DAW, they'll update the one DAW you do use, and then all of your old plugins will become obsolete! And no, they're not free to upgrade. So you can literally find yourself paying for the same plugin 2-3 times in a given year. So naturally, the trend is to buy the hardware version of the plugin, since it won't go obsolete. Only now instead of spending $100 on a plugin you can use on as many channels as you want, you're spending $3,000 on a box of wires that you can only use one a single channel at a time! So you probably need to buy several of these $3k boxes! Bottom line, people don't own music studios to make money. People own music studios to spend money.
And I know what you mean Paul Barden. The world of music plugins is even worse. Different DAW's (digital audio workstations) often require different plugin types. So if you switch from one to another, all of your very expensive plugins won't work anymore. And since many of your clients will use different programs to record their stuff before sending it to you to mix, you have to own copies of each of the major programs, and the all of necessary plugins to go with them if you want to stay current and attract new customers and keep old ones! And, even if you don't use more than one DAW, they'll update the one DAW you do use, and then all of your old plugins will become obsolete! And no, they're not free to upgrade. So you can literally find yourself paying for the same plugin 2-3 times in a given year. So naturally, the trend is to buy the hardware version of the plugin, since it won't go obsolete. Only now instead of spending $100 on a plugin you can use on as many channels as you want, you're spending $3,000 on a box of wires that you can only use one a single channel at a time! So you probably need to buy several of these $3k boxes! Bottom line, people don't own music studios to make money. People own music studios to spend money.
Gee Bob, I thought I just did!
Ya know, when you pay $500 for an axe, you kinda expect to be able to use it for twenty years. Ten, at least.
I stay away from PS, not only pins. Just LR most of the time. At some point I realized what SOOC is often great if you are capable with your gear. My daughter doesn't use PS or pins, either, but also LR and does it all in LR to achieve the look she likes. She does process images. Apparently it works for her as paid photographer.
I haven't spent a penny on plug-ins so far. I might have downloaded couple of free trials. None I found to do something Photoshop didn't already do good enough job of - in my limited universe of usage. I am still using CC 2014 that is adequate for me even though they keep pushing me to upgrade to 2017 which I am paying for anyway. Not been on Lr also even though it is included in the subscription.
OP
OP
I don't know him but fully agree with that approach.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,347
- Format
- 35mm RF
I loaded the Nik plugins when they freed them. Never used them once. I think I got them free a million years ago from Nik as well. Never used them then either. They keep popping up when I open Photoshop, and I close them. You think I would just delete them....
Other than that, I don't think I have any plugins installed. I have been using Photoshop for over 20 years now. I've learned a few things in that time. Usually in Photoshop there are a few different ways to accomplish something. The trick is knowing which way is the best under the circumstances. The real trick is learning how to use the program in the first place. I don't think very many people really understand it frankly so there is a big market for fakedom in the plugins.
Other than that, I don't think I have any plugins installed. I have been using Photoshop for over 20 years now. I've learned a few things in that time. Usually in Photoshop there are a few different ways to accomplish something. The trick is knowing which way is the best under the circumstances. The real trick is learning how to use the program in the first place. I don't think very many people really understand it frankly so there is a big market for fakedom in the plugins.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |