What's the point? 2

[gcaluna13]

Hi All,

Forgive me for being ignorant... I've been a long time user of Photoshop as well as Quark Xpress for brochures, posters, and other production needs.

Recently a friend suggested using Illustrator because I needed to create a vector drawing for some laser work that my company is producing. Our laser writer etches and creates images based on vector graphics.

Anyhow, Here is my question:
Aside from creating vector drawings (and maybe the new Photoshop CS2 allows this as well now???) why do I need Illustrator for anything?

I've been using photoshop as mentioned for quite some time now with brilliant results. Any circle, any line, any shade, anything... has been created using just photoshop. When I need to add text I simply apply my photoshop image directly into Quark for crisp textual detail.

Could someone please explain to me... Why Illustrator? It seems to cost as much Photoshop. It must be of some worth, but I just don't get it.

Again, apologies to the avid Illustrator expert, but I'm just not making the connection.

Thanks,
G.

 

[carlow]

It's the old pixel versus vector question.

Vectors are scalable items without a loss of sharpness.

Pixels when scaled loose their quality, even when you use the Photoshop vector tools.

So if you create a logo based on vectors you can scale it at your needs as long that you didn't include any images. When you do the same thing with pixels than you won't be able to do that.

Illustrator is used for creating logo's, posters, everything that doesn't exceed one page.

 

[gcaluna13]

Thanks carlow.

Yeah, that's why I've been thinking about using Illustrator, -for the resizing issues. However, like I said, I've been totally successful creating logos, posters, etc... within Photoshop.

Wish I could figure out another reason why I should take the leap into Illustrator. It hardly seems worth it at this point just to create one vector graphic.

G.

 

[jmgalvin]

It’s all about scalability.

Here’s a simple test. Create a new Photoshop document at 72 to 600 dpi (the smaller dpi will reveal faults more quickly) with 2 boxes right nest to each other. Color one red and one blue. Now REALLY blow the thing up – you’ll see all the definition where the 2 boxes come together is lost and you get a blurry hogdgepodge. Blow it up even bigger and you’ll see all the individual pixels with more blurriness.

Do the same thing in a vector app like AI and you’ll see that the line where the 2 boxes meets remains crisp, no matter the size. No matter how big you go, you’ll never see the blurry pixels.

There are also few things you can do with vector paths that don’t work so well in rasters, just as there’s things you can due in rasters that you can’t do in vectors.

In my own real world use, i have to supply logos for those huge screens in Times Square on a pretty regular basis. Their format requirement is always the same. 100% vector saved in eps format. The physical size of the logo I send them is immaterial due to that format.

if you want to try it, Adobe used to have 30 trial downloads that allow full saves. The app just stops working after 30 days.

Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4

 

[gcaluna13]

Ok. I'm getting there... slowly.

I do like the clarity. I'm still a bit hesitant since I've had so many years experience using photoshop alone for just about all my graphic needs.

I noticed that Photoshop CS2 saves files as vector eps files. Is it as effective as Illustrator's vector eps?

Uh oh, talking myself out of it again...


to be continued...

 

[jimoblak]

I've been totally successful creating logos, posters, etc... within Photoshop.

Logo designers are not so successful with Photoshop. Keep in mind that a logo is something that appears everywhere: a business card, a letterhead, a billboard, the side of a passenger jet. I challenge you to enlarge your bitmap logos created in Photoshop to a size suitable for a billboard. Then email it somewhere.

You can browse

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/

to see all the logos that are prepared in vector form.

 

[jimoblak]

I noticed that Photoshop CS2 saves files as vector eps files. Is it as effective as Illustrator's vector eps?

EPS from Photoshop does not necessarily mean you are working with vector data. EPS is a container format, just like PDF. That container can hold vector or bitmap data (or both).

It is true that Photoshop can create vector art with its type and shape tools. But Illustrator offers infinitely more tools to work with vector art.

 

[gcaluna13]

Thanks jimoblak.

Perhaps that is why I wasn't concerned with Illustrator. Almost all of my work is either meant for 8.5 x 11 or screens up 19 inches. Photoshop fit the bill, even logos (pixel details considered of course).

However, I can understand everyone's point about scalability.
Illustrator wins me over if that is the case.

I'm getting there...

Can I drive it easily? Are the tool similar? If a diehard Photoshop user decides to pick up a copy, will he/she find it easy to make the transition?

g.

 

[jmgalvin]

Beware of eps. it can contain both vector and raster data. I really don't know how much vector data would be saved in the photoshop eps.

You might find Adobe creative suite premium a better bet. You get AI, PS, Indesign, Acrobat Pro, Dreamweaver, etc.

If you have Photoshop 7 or later, Adobe will sell you CS2.3 for $750 as opposed to $500 for AI alone.

Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4

 

[gcaluna13]

Dreamweaver?

Isn't that a bad word here? I must have been sleeping. Did Adobe buy Macromedia?


Anyhow, thanks for the tips. Much appreciated.

Now that you mentioned InDesign... How does it compare to Quark? Not a huge Quark fan at all. Have always been looking for a reason to switch. Tell me more.

 

[jmgalvin]

Yes Adobe did buy Macromedia - about a year ago

Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4

 

[jmgalvin]

My own opinion if Indesign vs Quark is that there's simply no comparison. I have not dreated a new Quark doc since I got Indesign CS. Now I only use Quark to open stuff sent to me. To be honest I always liked Pagemaker better than Quark.

I have not had one single problem with Indesign. It interface is very similar to Illustrator so it wasn't hard to pick up at all.

You will experience a learning curve from photoshop to Illustrator. Vectors apps and raster apps are quite a bit different.

Using OSX 10.3.9 on a G4

 

[gcaluna13]

wow ... zzzzzzzzzz!

Haven't worked on a website in a year. What happened to Go live?

I always thought Dreamweaver was a fairly descent product. Probably a clever "if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" move on Adobe's behalf I suspect.

 

[2Graphic]

I noticed that Photoshop CS2 saves files as vector eps files. Is it as effective as Illustrator's vector eps?

I get files from my customers daily that are photoshop files "saved as Illustrator vector files." The customer insists that they are sending me vector art. They are NOT VECTOR. Not vector. I deal with this day after day. Buy Illustrator