Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to clarify. An action uses the different tools in PS and can be replayed and batched. A plugin is a separate program that can be launched in PS and applied without saving the file and reopening it. So no. A plug in is not the same as an action. A plug in is not using PS tools.
That's the technical stuff; but the bottom-line is that one can use PS to accomplish the same things done by actions and plugins. That was the point I was trying to make:
Quote:
In its most basic form, an action is a sequence of steps that can be played back at the click of a button or stroke of a key. Although they are essentially actions with a less utilitarian interface, plug-ins tend to be far more flexible and are generally separate programs that are launched from within Photoshop. True, anything that can be done with plug-ins and actions, can be done without them, so why pay for a piece of software that can do what can already be done in Photoshop?
anytime I've seen this program used I can tell its coming from the program and Ive always found it to look horrible. most of the before shots on the site look better then the ones run through the program.
anytime I've seen this program used I can tell its coming from the program and Ive always found it to look horrible. most of the before shots on the site look better then the ones run through the program.
I'm sorry that is your experience. Anything that is used to the extreme will look worse than if nothing had been done to it. That includes over sharpening, over saturating, and all other ilks of post processing that can be overused even on regular photos, not just portraits. I can tell you from my experience that I'm definitely happier with how portraits of myself turn out after I remove those blemishes, whitened my teeth a little, widened one eye (because one is always smaller than the other), brightened the whites of my eyes, tidied up loose strands of hair, and the list goes on. Noting from the number of Likes on my Facebook profile photo, I think it was worth it. To do all that in PS, I'd have to lasso or use the selective tool, use masks and layers (which I definitely am an amateur on), filters to blur or liquefy a little of that double chin, and so forth. My intent is not to transform me to a really poor imitation of Christine Brinkley, but just to highlight my better features and downplay the not-so-flattering ones I was born with. I always aim to be recognizable as me, not my younger version, just one with a little less imperfections. The key is in using good judgment and moderation. The operator has full control of those sliders, and therefore can over correct features. In any application, that is just poor editing.
That's the technical stuff; but the bottom-line is that one can use PS to accomplish the same things done by actions and plugins. That was the point I was trying to make:
One could use Microsoft Paint to accomplish anything that Photoshop can do for that matter as well. Sure, I could edit the pixels in Paint and remove a beer can from a beach scene. But it would be a hell of a lot more work than simply lassoing the beer can in PS and hitting the Delete key. That's a pretty fair analogy of Photoshop compared to Portrait Professional. The former is a generalized picture editor, and the latter is a program that understands and edits faces. That's a huge difference.
One could use Microsoft Paint to accomplish anything that Photoshop can do for that matter as well. Sure, I could edit the pixels in Paint and remove a beer can from a beach scene. But it would be a hell of a lot more work than simply lassoing the beer can in PS and hitting the Delete key. That's a pretty fair analogy of Photoshop compared to Portrait Professional. The former is a generalized picture editor, and the latter is a program that understands and edits faces. That's a huge difference.
Still, PhotoShop has the tools for image retouching. That was my point. Yes, PP and other applications are much easier to use for portraiture retouching than PhotoShop, and I don't have any arguments with anybody who wants to use it. Actions, plugins, and applications such as PP save photographers a lot of time, and that's their main advantage over PhotoShop.
If one does not want to take a PhotoShop course, there are numerous places one can use to learn, including books. For example Martin Evening dedicates a complete chapter in his book titled "Adobe PhotoShop CS5 for Photographers" for portraiture retouching. He even includes a DVD with photos of models you can use to learn how to do simple retouching to very complex retouching for professional models. Scott Kelby does the same in his book for CS5, except that he does not include a DVD with images and training videos.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
