Why bother with Illustrator?

S
Posted By
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Views
2395
Replies
104
Status
Closed
Why bother with Illustrator, when you can save Photoshop as EPS files. Is there a difference?
Can anyone give a specific example of when you would need to use Illustrator? For example, if you want to make a large poster/billboard, does the print shop ask for an Illustrator file type….or what?
What do they ask for at Print shops for very large posters etc? Thanks.

Powered by Creative Market

DM
dave_milbut
Dec 17, 2003
You use illustrator for illustrating (aka drawing) and photoshop for photo editing.
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Actually, as an illustrator, I use Photoshop for illustrating….I don’ think there is anyhting Illustrator can do that photoshop cannot in that regard, in fact I think it is more limited for detailed attention with a graphics pen…..but photoshop handles color and subtle tones better(for my ink-jet printer anyway)
DM
Don_McCahill
Dec 17, 2003
I use Illustrator when I need to create vector objects. The program is optimized for this, and the tools are more efficient.
H
Ho
Dec 17, 2003
Illustrator is one of the tools of professional graphic artists. It creates vector postscript/eps files and art work, while Photoshop does not. A Photoshop EPS file is still a bitmap and cannot be flagrantly resized without catastrophic loss of quality. Crisp, clear resolution independent objects and text are the hallmark of vector apps such as Illy and FreeHand, and the difference between a magazine ad created in either one of those apps vs. one created in Photoshop is visible a mile away. Even you could see it. Okay, that sounded a little too condescending. Anyone could see it. 🙂
SV
Steve_Vesperman
Dec 17, 2003
Hey Ho,

what he said!
H
Ho
Dec 17, 2003
Hey Steve. <gives FreeHand secret shake and salute>
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Thanks Ho:
Are you saying that a jpeg image at 300ppi in a magazine would look different?….I doubt it. (I’ve seen people compare Illustrator prints to a printed photoshop image or jpeg and claim they look the same…..when in fact the photoshop image has more subtleties in color.)
Anyway, are you sure a jpeg or tiff printed at 300ppi would look worse than an Illustrator print? Printers don’t ask for illustrator files do they? Or do they??? They seem happy with 300 ppi jpegs when I send them, or just a photoshop image with its four color channels…..And the resulting prints are totally sharp and vibrant.
Thanks, I’m just trying to see if I should buy Illustrator or not. I know the file sizes are much smaller….and that is good!
My understanding though, is that if you want to rescale to very large poster size then you need illustrator, but what kind of file do the print shops ask for…..an Illustrator or Freehand file???
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Hi Ho,
I mean’t to say:
"are you sure a jpeg or tiff at 300ppi resolution printed at 720dpi or 1440 dpi, would look worse than an Illustrator print? "
Plus the rest of the the questions, re. what kind of file do most print shops ask for? for large poster or billboard files, if you know?
Thanks:)
B
Brian
Dec 17, 2003
Satwa wrote:

Are you saying that a jpeg image at 300ppi in a magazine would look different?….I doubt it.

Then you’re not looking hard enough, not to mention you are disagreeing with the proven facts. (Why do you think there are separate vector and raster formats in the first place?)

A.) any raster format (TIFF, JPEG, BMP, etc.) @ 300ppi will look different than a vector format, for things where vectors excell (esp. text and sharp, crisp lines). The best thing to do is combine formats: use vectors for all of the above, and if you need the subtleties of raster fills for colorization purposes then incorporate said fills into your otherwise vector artwork. Illustrator will help in this regard (both with its internal tools as well as being able to place artwork from

B.) You should not be sending JPEGs for print output. JPEG is a lossy compression format, and is really meant for web and other on-screen purposes. You should be saving your files as CMYK TIFFs, EPSs or PSDs to supply for print output.
B
Brian
Dec 17, 2003
…as well as being able to place artwork from

Photoshop. (I hit send before I was done, oops!)
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Dec 17, 2003
Illustrator can do lots of things that Photoshop can’t: blends, gradient mesh, pathfinders, snap to…
Yes, Photoshop has a few vector tools built in (text, paths) and Illustrator has a few bitmap abilities (it can import bitmaps and …), but neither is a substitute for the other.
JM
John_Mensinger
Dec 17, 2003
It’s really not a case of which is better, but which is appropriate. Many images, by their very nature, could not be anything but raster images. As for vectors, in good design work, anything that can be vector should be vector. Any real magazine layout is neither 100% vector nor raster, but rather a mix of appropriate data for each element. Photos are raster, and anything else that can be vector, (text, shapes, logos, etc.), should be vector. That’s why there’s page layout software to facilitate the mix.
P
Phosphor
Dec 17, 2003
Why NOT bother with Illustrator? That is the question.

It hasn’t been developed—and praised by users—for all these years, if it were possible to do the exact same thing in Photoshop. There are compelling reasons to bother with Illustrator.
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Thanks to all, I really appreciate your help:

John is making sense here.
A photo printed from a resolution of 300ppi or more does not have to be in Vector format, in fact you might lose quality???
1.What about detailed quality illustrations scanned in at 300 ppi??? Are they to be treated like you treat photos….ie raster?

However I agree, text etc is much sharper in Vector, so I will buy Illustrator for the combination capabilities.

Thanks Brian also:<<<Then you’re not looking hard enough, not to mention you are disagreeing with the proven facts. (Why do you think there are separate vector and raster formats in the first place?)<<<

As far as I can see, the only reason they exist is to save file space, and to allow for increase in dimensions to large billboard size….this is very important.
However, a photo or illustration printed properly from 300ppi resolution(even a jpeg saved at ‘maximum’ and at 300 ppi), will be as sharp as the eye can see….these are the "proven facts".
In addition, I can make text extremely sharp from a raster image, you just have to know how to treat it like an image, and get sharp results….I think the vector programs for text though is generally easier to get sharp results for text.

But the question still needs clarification anyone please:
2.What do print shops for high end print quality posters, magazines usually ask for?
Illustrator file?
Photoshop file?
Tiff?
or what.?
Do they always ask for Illustrator (or freehand) (vector) files specifically???

2.One last question: If I scan my own hand drawn/painted illustration into photoshop, tweak and clean it up there….then put it into Illustrator to add text, and maybe borders etc. will this work? Or should I scan it into Illustrator and do the touch up there…..
Does illustrator have the artists tools that photoshop does? Eg – clone stamp, all the brushes, blur tool, pencil sizes, opacity of brush, magic wand, adjust replace color, selective color, levels and of course, LAYERS???

3. One last, last question:
Why is the Photoshop 7 manual, 3 times as thick as the Illustrator manual? Is it because there are more detail tools?? or what??…the ability to do very close artistic detail touch up is important to my images.

Thanks
DM
Don_McCahill
Dec 17, 2003

1. Most print shops will ask for files in PDF these days. If you must give a native file format, then they will opt for tiff.

2. Yes, this is exactly what you should do. (No, the tools in AI are different … otherwise it would be Photoshop).

3. PS has more capabilities, in my opinion, so it needs more explanation. AI is not a toy though. It has been around longer than Photoshop, and does vector better than anything I know (although Freehand buffs will object to this statement).
B
Brian
Dec 17, 2003
wrote:

However, a photo or illustration
printed properly from 300ppi resolution(even a jpeg saved at ‘maximum’ and at 300 ppi), will be as sharp as the eye can see….these are the "proven facts".

No they are not… set some text in Illustrator and print it. Set some text in Photoshop, rasterize (save as a non-layered TIFF or JPEG) and print that. If you can’t see the difference then you’re really not looking at it with a critical eye.

Photos printed at 300ppi will print clearly (as long as they were scanned or created properly, of course) but if it *can* be vector then it *should* be vector for maximum output quality.

In addition, I can make text
extremely sharp from a raster image

Not as crisp as vector you can’t. Let me try to explain a bit further: raster elements are locked into their resolution, in most print-output cases that would be 300ppi at print size. Vectors have no resolution as far as you (the designer) is concerned; they are still rasterized, but at the output stage and at the resolution of the output device. In the case of something being imaged to film or plate that resolution is typically 2400 or 2540 – there’s just no way that a vector object that has been rasterized at 300ppi in Photoshop can compare to a vector object that was rasterized at the RIP at full output resolution. It’s just not possible.

I’m not going to keep going around and around on this; what I and others have told you are the *realities* of raster vs. vector formats – if you choose to ignore them or insist that somehow you know something that the entire rest of the professional print and prepress industry doesn’t then that’s your problem.

2.What do
print shops for high end print quality posters, magazines usually ask for? Illustrator file? Photoshop file? Tiff? or what.? Do they always ask for Illustrator (or freehand) (vector) files specifically???

They want you to supply the best format for the work you’re doing, and as the artist it really is your responsibility to understand the various formats and to use them appropriately; if you are working in a raster format then supply TIFFs or PSDs (not JPEGs, though); if you are working in a vector format then supply EPSs. Combine in a layout program where applicable (large amounts of text, long documents, etc.).

They will gladly take your JPEGs and use then, but you are doing yourself (and potentially your customers) a disservice by not using the most optimum formats (that means avoiding JPEGs for raster work, and using vectors to your advantage).

2.One last question: If I scan my own hand drawn/painted illustration into photoshop, tweak and clean it up there….then put it into Illustrator to add text, and maybe borders etc. will this work?

Looks like someone else already answered this, but in brief: this is exactly what we’re recommending to you. Do the work that must be raster in Photoshop, bring that into Illustrator to add to the vector elements, save as an EPS and send it off to the printer. Best of both worlds.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 17, 2003
No… Somethings coming over me… I can’t fight it… HULK SMASH!!!

For some reason I’m feeling a little cranky…
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Thanks Brian:

No they are not… set some text in Illustrator and print it. Set some
text in Photoshop, rasterize (save as a non-layered TIFF or JPEG) and print that. If you can’t see the difference then you’re really not looking at it with a critical eye. Photos printed at 300ppi will print clearly (as long as they were
scanned or created properly, of course) but if it *can* be vector then it *should* be vector for maximum output quality.<<<<

I appreciate this but a high resolution ink-jet printer uses DOTS to create an image. If the image starts at 300ppi there is no way that the eye can tell the difference. This is a fact of optics. A vector image cannot create more dots, and 300 ppi is considered much sharper than the eye can see(266ppi is the standard).
What you are talking about with text is if you create the text and print it directly. There is a way to make text as sharp as any printer could manage in a rasterised image, and you could not tell the difference (If you then try to blow it up really big, then of course the Vector is needed).

Vectors have no resolution as far as you (the designer) is concerned;
they are still rasterized, but at the output stage and at the resolution of the output device. In the case of something being imaged to film or plate that resolution is typically 2400 or 2540 – there’s just no way that a vector object that has been rasterized at 300ppi in Photoshop can compare to a vector object that was rasterized at the RIP at full output resolution. It’s just not possible.>>>>

Vectors can only be printed at the printer dots per inch. What you appear to be talking about is dpi not ppi, there is a difference. A printer that prints 2,400 dpi, cannot print a 300 ppi image sharper than it is. 300ppi is more than can be seen by the human eye(this is optics) if it gets printed, even at 2,400 dpi.
A Vector image, cannot be made sharper than that. 300 ppi is beyond the eye(266ppi is considered the cut-off). And the vector image is printed at 2,400 dpi just like the raster image would be.

Text is different because of the way photoshop does text. However, there are ways to make text as sharp as a vector image, save at 300ppi and print at 2400 dpi, and I don’t think you will see the difference.

Anyway I appreciate all your other help, and Illustrator is much better for space saving and blowing up to very large.

Do the work that must be raster in Photoshop, bring that into Illustrator
to add to the vector elements, save as an EPS and send it off to the printer. Best of both worlds.<<<<

Thanks…. makes sense.
Is an EPS file a vector file then? like an Illustrator file(but takes up more space)? Thanks again.
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
In other words, if I don’t want to buy Illustrator yet, but save my images as EPS files, even if they take up more space(which I think they do), is that an alternative to an Adobe Illustrator file…..for the Print shop? (As long as they are happy with large file size).
What is the standard, other than an Illustrator/Freehand file, for the Print shops?……EPS? Isn’t EPS a bit-mapped image? Raster?
JS
John_Slate
Dec 17, 2003
That’s it everybody, let’s all go home.
G
graffiti
Dec 17, 2003
Race you to the bar.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 17, 2003
If this guy could read my mind, he’d be deeply offended.

ps. IMHO. 😉
S
Satwa
Dec 17, 2003
Don, I missed this message….thanks.
Makes sense.
So far, I’ve been told PDF, EPS, or Tiff.
I’ve had some PDF files appear to loose resolution, but maybe I’m just saving them wrong. EPS files are huge, even bigger than TIFFS, so I guess I’ll stick to TIFFS at 300ppi, until I can get Illustrator.
SV
Steve_Vesperman
Dec 17, 2003
LOL, that’s my good laugh for the day.!!!
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
In other words (you and the other boso’s who don’t explain anything don’t know the answer) lol ! ! !
…….no wait……LOL ! ! !
DM
Don_McCahill
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa

FWIW I don’t agree with the statements that objects printed in a raster file will look worse than a bitmap file. If the objects are created in PS at the resolution of the final output device, and output to TIFF, they should be equal (not better) than AI files.
I know of no printer that prints vectors directly (although some plotters might be able to). They all rasterize the text first.

Now, printing a 300 dpi image to a 600 dpi printer might not have as high a quality, which might be what some of the others are saying. And if an image has to go to a higher resolution, then it can be worse in quality.

And jpg is a worse choice than TIFF. TIFF compresses without losing data, JPG will progressively lose data to make the image smaller.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
the other boso’s

The other "boso’s" what?
SC
Scott Cunningham
Dec 18, 2003
I appreciate this but a high resolution ink-jet printer uses DOTS to
create an image. If the image starts at 300ppi there is no way that the eye can tell the difference. This is a fact of optics. A vector image cannot create more dots, and 300 ppi is considered much sharper than the eye can see(266ppi is the standard).

This is a falicy, if the eye cannot distinguish more than 266ppi then why would the laser industry need to produce laser printers that print at 600 and 1200 dpi.

The most obvious example would be to draw a line in Photoshop that is near horizontal or near vertical (2 degrees off would work nicely) At 300ppi printed at any dpi will still show signs of stepping. This will be much less apparent with an Illustrator file output to an imagesetter or platesetter at 2400dpi. Anti-aliasing will only blur the edges and make the line appear less clean.

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you do not see the need (and your clients don’t either) then by all means do everything in Photoshop.

-Skacey
J
jeffreyjburke
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

I think what you’re missing here is that it’s a question of the best tools for the job at hand. Illustrator is a vector based drawing program, Photoshop is raster based. You can use a wrench to hammer nails, but in the end, you’re making it a bit more difficult on yourself, and the building quality isn’t as good as if you used a hammer. Both programs excel in different areas. If you are happy with a 300 DPI image, jpeg, tiff, or eps, and your client is happy with it, then that’s fine. Other users here would prefer to use different tools for the task at hand. Also, other users have explained the nitty-gritty details of vector based drawings in contrast to raster, and you still aren’t convinced.

Personally, I use Illustrator AND Photoshop in combination an awful lot, for a variety of image creation tasks, again, depending the job at hand and the best tools.
J
jeffreyjburke
Dec 18, 2003
The other "boso’s" what?

I think he meant "bozo’s"
RW
Rene_Walling
Dec 18, 2003
Now, printing a 300 dpi image to a 600 dpi printer might not have as high a quality, which might be what some of the others are saying.

Yes, but you also have to take into account the screening that a RIP may add to a raster image, which it may not add to a vector one (i.e., something like 100% black type on a laser is nice and sharp, send the same size type at 300ppi as part of a colour image and you will see the RIP tried to screen the edges of the type, creating an ugly jaggy edge)

Satwa: the people who have answered you have more experience put together than you have lived, even if you are the oldest person on this planet. they DO have the answers and they DID explain things to you. You just don’t seem to understand what they are saying (this reflects a lack in your vocabulary, not your intelligence), I recommend reading a good general book on computer graphics ("The way computer graphics work" would be a good place to start) or better yet, take a class.

That way you’ll speak the lingo and understand better what’s being said.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
I think he meant "bozo’s"

Oh I know that. The other Bozo’s what though?
J
jeffreyjburke
Dec 18, 2003
Oh I know that. The other Bozo’s what though?

Ahh… I get it.
DM
dave_milbut
Dec 18, 2003
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
LMAO, yup.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Don:
I agree that a raster file will print as good as a vector file if the raster image is at 300ppi or more.
PPI is different than dpi.
I was talking about printing a 300ppi image ast say 2,400 dpi. People here seem to mix them up.
It is because Twain calls it "dpi", when they really should call it PPI. An image scanned at 300 so called "dpi", is 300ppi in photoshop. To rpint a 300 ppi image at photo real quality you need to print it at 2,400dpi print setting.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Rene:
PPI is different than dpi.
I was talking about printing a 300ppi image at say 2,400 dpi. People here seem to mix them up.
It is because Twain calls it "dpi", when they really should call it "PPI".(and the British also seem to mix them up)
An image scanned at 300, so called, "dpi" in TWAIN, is 300ppi in photoshop. To print a 300 ppi image at photo real quality, you need to print it at 1200 or 2,400dpi print setting.
Photos are best as raster images. Text(apperently) as vector. In fact, isn’t that what Illustrator is good at….having photos(and illustrations) in raster, while text is in vector?
In the end though, the print shop will rasterise the image. People here have explained that a high quality print shop can print high resolution tiffs or EPS files just as good as any vector file.
DO PRINT SHOPS ALWAYS ask for Illustrator/Freehand files???…….People here have said "no"…..EPS or TIFF are good.
Maybe you are the one that needs to take a class
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
{snicker}

Yeah, take a class. 😀
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Jeffrey:
Thanks – I agree.
But no, I am not happy with a 300 dpi image…….I am happy with a 300ppi image. There is a difference.
If you scan an 6 x 6 inch image(or photo)….as what TWAIN calls "dpi"….at 50 "dpi", it is a 50 ppi image in PS.
Then print the 50ppi image(or photo), at 2,400 dpi print setting….it will look like crap. If you scan it at 300 – so called – "dpi", (which is 300ppi in PS) and print it at 2,400 dpi print setting, you will get a photo quality image.
Now put the same scanned image into Adobe Illustrator, and print it at 2,400dpi…..you will not get a higher quality image, if everything else is the same(same printer, same paper etc.)
DM
dave_milbut
Dec 18, 2003
Twain calls it "dpi", when they really should call it PPI.

actually they should call it spi (samples per inch) when scanning.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Also:
Rene:

(i.e., something like 100% black type on a laser is nice and sharp,
send the same size type at 300ppi as part of a colour image and you will see the RIP tried to screen the edges of the type, creating an ugly jaggy edge)<<<

True, but it is also because you don’t know how to create a raterized type with a fine edge. You are creating the type at(or close to) the size you want it…..a mistake.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
Yeah Rene!

Man I am laughing so hard now this is fantastic!

EDIT: An ellipsis = three dots!
RW
Rene_Walling
Dec 18, 2003
True, but it is also because you don’t know how to create a raterized type with a fine edge. You are creating the type at(or close to) the size you want it…..a mistake.

Wrong, unlike you, I know about RIPs, screens, vectors and rasters and I’ve probably forgotten more about printing than you currently know. You name it, I’ve worked on it, from magazines and flyers to trade show booths and murals. Don’t even try to teach me anything. You’re the one who needs a class. The fact you don’t even know what Illy is about and seem to confuse vector and raster images says it all.

’nuff said
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Then GOOD !
You can help me.
Explain this:
If you scan an 6 x 6 inch image(or photo)….as what TWAIN calls "dpi"….at 50 "dpi", it is a 50 ppi image in PS.
Then print the 50ppi image(or photo), at 2,400 dpi print setting….it will look like crap. If you scan it at 300 – so called – "dpi", (which is 300ppi in PS) and print it at 2,400 dpi print setting, you will get a photo quality image.
Now put the same scanned image into Adobe Illustrator, and print it at 2,400dpi…..you will not get a higher quality image, if everything else is the same(same printer, same paper etc.)

Go ahead…. TRY it with a photo.
G
graffiti
Dec 18, 2003
Who was it that said they come over here on the Windows side because it’s more entertaining?

Oh yeah…It was ME. 😛
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
{Clutching my stomach and belly laughing)

Stop it, please. You’re killing me.
RW
Rene_Walling
Dec 18, 2003
Timothy

In the name of humanity, I will 😛
DM
dave_milbut
Dec 18, 2003
satwa, you’re here asking for advice. several of the posters who’ve answered you are professionals. you keep challenging them but not listening to their replies. for the love of pete, man, if you want to know, you need to learn how to listen!
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Dave:
"For the love of pete man", then why can’t you and the other "pro’s" answer 2 simple questions:

1. DO PRINT SHOPS ALWAYS ask for Illustrator/Freehand files???…….People here have said "no"…..EPS or TIFF are good, they said.

2.Also Explain this(forget about text for a minute):
If you scan an 6 x 6 inch image(or photo)….as what TWAIN calls "dpi"….at 50 "dpi", it is a 50 ppi image in PS.
Then print the 50ppi image(or photo), at 2,400 dpi print setting….it will look like crap. If you scan it(in photoshop) at 300 – so called – "dpi", (which is 300ppi in PS) and print it at 2,400 dpi print setting, you will get a photo quality image(or if you think 300ppi us not enough, hell….go for 1200ppi).
Now put the same scanned image into Adobe Illustrator, and print it at 2,400dpi…..you will not get a higher quality image, if everything else is the same(same printer, same paper etc.)
……True or False?
If false…..explain clearly the optics of it please………….or, maybe the "pro’s" can actually explain something……..they have NOT explained this…..at all.
A printer can only print what is essentially dots of clay, and the EYE cannot see the difference in a well printed TIFF image which has a pixel resolution of 300ppi or more, and is printed at 2,400 dpi printer setting.
JS
John_Slate
Dec 18, 2003
….and the cat came back

Satwa:

We give up.

You are right.

All the pros are wrong.
RW
Rene_Walling
Dec 18, 2003
At the risk of killing Tim, I’ll give it another go

1. DO PRINT SHOPS ALWAYS ask for Illustrator/Freehand files???…….People here have said "no"…..EPS or TIFF are good, they said.

Cause every print shop is different! how obvious can that be?

I mean are burgers at McD’s, Harveys, and Wendy all the same?

Most just ask for your file to be properly prepared, they have pretty much all the software anyway (or should).

If you scan an 6 x 6 inch image(or photo)….as what TWAIN calls "dpi"….at 50 "dpi", it is a 50 ppi image in PS. Then print the 50ppi image(or photo), at 2,400 dpi print setting….it will look like crap. If you scan it(in photoshop) at 300 – so called – "dpi", (which is 300ppi in PS) and print it at 2,400 dpi print setting, you will get a photo quality image(or if you think 300ppi us not enough, hell….go for 1200ppi).

Yes, you’re coming along nicely, you’ve figured out a lores image doesn’t print nicely.

Now put the same scanned image into Adobe Illustrator, and print it at 2,400dpi…..you will not get a higher quality image, if everything else is the same(same printer, same paper etc.) …..True or False?

Yes! Cause they’re still pixels!!!!! How hard and unobvious is THAT?

If false…..explain clearly the optics of it please………….or, maybe the "pro’s" can actually explain something……..they have NOT explained this…..at all.

We have, we just didn’t nother with the bleedin obvious because it was , well bleeding obvious.

A printer can only print what is essentially dots of clay, and the EYE cannot see the difference in a well printed TIFF image which has a pixel resolution of 300ppi or more, and is printed at 2,400 dpi printer setting.

Depends on what it is, for photos and other scanned images, what you say is true, but I sure can tell when someone rasterized type and 300 ppi and then prints it.
RW
Rene_Walling
Dec 18, 2003
And that’s IT!

At this point, I am treating you like I would a troll
JS
John_Slate
Dec 18, 2003
Rene, do you like being tied up?
H
Ho
Dec 18, 2003
I suppose a tiff file saved at 2540dpi (typical imagesetter resolution) might have sharp, vector like text (don’t know, never dood it, never will), but you could knock an elephant down with the file size unless you were printing postage stamps or such. (Do not jump in to beat me up over spots vs. dots vs. anything else you choose to call it, I’m just hypothesizing here.) Suffice it to say, 2540dpi tiffs do not constitute a good workflow.

Pictures come from Photoshop, text and other graphic elements come from page layout apps (InDesign, Quark) or Illustrator/FreeHand. The pictures are imported into the layout/vector app and words and shapes are added and arranged. (gee, this is really easy… sort of like playing with Legos only not 3D). When you’re done playing, the whole thing goes to your printer, who will gladly accept anything but a Corel Draw or Publisher file (oh, some gripe about FH files, but they’re just twits. Find one who is a free thinker and move on).

DON"T FIGHT IT. This is how it’s done if you are outputting to something that slaps ink on paper with rollers and plates instead of spraying it out of cute little nozzles. Tiff, ID, AI, FH, EPS, etc. are all viable, professional formats. Some are preferable to others in certain situations, but that topic is beyond the scope of this post and my patience. PLEASE READ UP ON THIS. If you are at all interested in the art of design and the craft of printing, you will find it fascinating. And, you will learn a lot more from a good book than you will hanging around here arguing about something you don’t have a handle on yet.

Good luck. Really.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
But if I "put" that 2540dpi into Illustrator, would it print any better?

{Tears streaming down my face, laughing}
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Ho
At last someone who makes sense.
However you don’t seem to know the differnce between ppi and dpi. And you are not alone in that !
I never said anything about SAVING an image at 2,400ppi…..that would be stupid. Save it at 300ppi, print it at 2,400dpi….that is a print setting, not a pixel resolution setting!
Do you guys even KNOW the difference?!

Thanks for the rest of your post…..thats exactly what I thought from the start: Except for SOME instance with text, a Tiff image will be accepted by a high quality print shop, and will print just as good as an lllustrator file.
However, Illustrator will be the smaller file size, (plus it can be blown up real big, say for a billboard)
(please don’t get back into 2,400 ppi again….that is absurd! 2,400dpi that I spoke of, means the printer setting!….not the photoshop pixel resolution!)
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Ho.
Your post really helped though.
The rest of what you said re. print shops etc. makes total sense. Thanks.
B
BeckyWC
Dec 18, 2003
This poor horse is dead, I mean really dead. It should be buried. But I have never laughed so hard in all my life.

You know sometimes you can’t see the forest because of the trees, I think this is a for instance. Best of Luck.
JK
John_Kallios
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa

Create a 3"x3" document in Photoshop at 300ppi.

Create a solid black line conecting two diagonal corners.

Save as a tif file.

Download the Illustrator tryout. (it is a full working 30 day trial)

Create a diagonal stroke in Illustrator the same dimension as the photoshop file.

Place the tif file into Illustor.

Label both for easy identification.

Print that out from Illustrator.

Do you see a difference?
PH
Photo_Help
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

Do you really want to know the difference.

Ok here is your shopping list.

1 piece of graph paper
1 Drawing Compass
1 ruler

Ok now I want you to draw a 8" diameter circle using the compass. Now redraw that circle using only the lines on the graph paper.

Now here is your quiz. I hope you are ready…

Which circle looks better?
L
LenHewitt
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

I never said anything about SAVING an image at 2,400ppi…..that would be
stupid. <<

You may think it stupid, but that is the ONLY way to get the same ‘quality’ from rasterized type as from vector type. Only when the image resolution matches the output device resolution will the maximum quality for SOLIDS be achieved, and black type will be repro’d as a SOLID.

This isn’t a matter of confusing ppi and dpi – we’re talking about un-screened output when talking about type repro, and that can only be at the best possible quality when the ppi is equal to the output device dpi.

(Interestingly, the OE spell-checker wants to change your name to "Satan"….)
H
Ho
Dec 18, 2003
(Interestingly, the OE spell-checker wants to change your name to "Satan"….)

<falls off chair, cannot get up> Don’t send help, I’m enjoying the moment.
V
viol8ion
Dec 18, 2003
In other words, if I don’t want to buy Illustrator yet, but save my images as EPS files, even if they take up more space(which I think they do), is that an alternative to an Adobe Illustrator file.

No.

Photoshop EPS images are not true vector, and will not scale as well as Illustrator or other true vector graphics.

You are under the misconception that vector images, even though the printer will print them as dots, consist of dots. this is not true.

Vector images are made up of mathematical equations that dictate where lines, points, junctures etc fall. Therefore, the image can be scaled up or down with absolutely no loss of information.

Raster images, which is what Photoshop creates, are a series of dots of information. When you create a raster image, then scale it up while trying to maintain the PPI, the application now has to fill in information that was not in the original.. it has to make it up. Yes, it can intelligently add these pixels, but since they were not there int he original it is making the info up, hence the degradation in quality.

You would not necessarily use (not saying you can’t) Illustrator for scanned images that you will then manipulate, that is what you use Photoshop for, so any analogy or comparison based on a scanned image is faulty from the start.

Illustrator is an iluustration program, it is used to create graphics fromt he ground up, which then can be imported into PS for further photographic manipulation, or done entirely in Illy.

Yes, PS does have basic vector capabilities in the more recent releases, but, NO, it is not a vector application and has an entirely different purpose than Illy.

That, my friend, is why Adobe expends a phenomenal amount of money and resources supporting BOTH applications. They have different uses, even if some functions cross-over.
B
Brian
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa wrote:

I appreciate this but a high resolution ink-jet printer uses DOTS to create an image.

And so does every other output device, not that this changes the vector vs. raster issue one iota.

For starters I’m not even talking about an inkjet printer, I’m talking about an imagesetter, platesetter, etc. – professional-level output devices that these magazines you are submitting to are most certainly using. To one of these devices the difference between text and vector elements and rasterized versions of the same are readily apparent.

To an inkjet printer you can rasterize nearly everything and not see a difference, but that’s inherent to how the inkjet is laying down the ink, not the quality of the file itself. Send that same file to a service bureau and compare their print to your inkjet and you’ll suddenly be very disappointed.

If the image starts at 300ppi there is no way that
the eye can tell the difference. This is a fact of optics. A vector image cannot create more dots, and 300 ppi is considered much sharper than the eye can see(266ppi is the standard).

Huh? I don’t even know where you got this from, and it has no relevance to this discussion nor is it correct. The 300ppi number you throw around as if it’s some sort of inarguable truth is based solely on the target linescreen of the output, nothing more; if your film is output at 150 linescreen then 300ppi is the optimum resolution to use. However, if you are outputting at 100 lpi then you only need 200ppi of image resolution, and other than the differing halftone you will see no difference in the quality of the image on the final output.

What you are talking
about with text

Excuse me, I *know* what I’m talking about, you need to listen a bit more to what I and the others here are trying to tell you. I’m not trying to be rude or flame you or anything like that, but it’s pretty annoying when you (or anyone else who doesn’t have a clue) starts arguing with those who do, and insisting that you/they are right and we somehow have it wrong despite years in the industry.

is if you create the text and print it directly.
There is a way to make text as sharp as any printer could manage in a rasterised image, and you could not tell the difference

Sure, if you set the text in Photoshop @ 1200ppi or higher, then save the file as a 1-bit image for output. Not at 300ppi.

Vectors can only be printed at the printer dots per inch. What you appear to be talking about is dpi not ppi, there is a difference.

Trust me, I know the difference (I have over 15 years working in prepress). One of my biggest pet peeves is the common usage of DPI where PPI is the correct term (there are no dots in a digital image – ever).

300ppi is more than can be seen by the human eye(this is optics)

Again, you say this as if it is fact but it’s not. Optics has nothing to do with image resolution without a discussion of linescreen, and since you’re not including linescreen then the your statement is completely false.

Is an EPS file a vector file then?

That depends on the file. An EPS can be either, or both. An EPS file is really just PostScript, with a wrapper (and optional preview image) so the file can be placed into a layout application rather than dropped directly onto a RIP.

If you want help I’m more than happy to oblige, but I’m done with this thread. (I’ve probably spent more time on it than I should already).

Brian
AJ
Amanda_Jones
Dec 18, 2003
I don’t know if you guys have helped Satwa, but I’ve sure learnd a lot! Thanks!
DJ
dennis_johnson
Dec 18, 2003
None of you has "helped" Satwa at all, since he came into this discussion with his mind already made up, and was more interested in displaying his ignorance than in listening and learning.

He did actually ask a question at the beginning of this nonsense:

"Why bother with Illustrator, when you can save Photoshop as EPS files. Is there a difference?"

He has been given the answer. Repeatedly.

None is so blind as he who will not see.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Thanks to all……I appreciate it very much…….this has been VERY helpful. Especially, the intelligent responses(they know who they are). But no thanks to the spotty faced teenager apes(they know who they are).

1. Bottom line: A HIGH QUALITY INK JET PRINTER – that I know some top professional photographers use – can produce top quality results.
2. There are a certain number of dots per inch of INK that the EYE will not see the difference if you go higher than that. SORRY you are not Superman.
3. The correct PPI resolution of an image if printed at the correct printer resolution(dpi) will produce results that cannot be determined with the EYE from any other print.
WHY DO YOU THINK photographer USE them for high end professional prints….(yes text can cause trouble…we know).

bye.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
To all those that spent the time to explain things….THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

What I’ve learned:
Illustrator is something I will get into, but most print shops can print high quality prints from a quality TIFF or EPS file.
For the time being, unless I need to do posters and billboards, I should be able to get good results through photoshop rasterized images(which is what you need for photos and quality illustrations anyway….I’ll worry about getting clean text myself in raster….since I seem to be the only one that knows how to do that)

Other than that, I have alot to learn…..and learned ALOT from you guys…..THANKS !
PH
Photo_Help
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

You are using the term "professional" very loosely.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
One more thing:
THANKS again to all those that wrote explanations….I REALLY appreciate it. I printed them all out so that I can study them…..you have been a TREMENDOUS HELP. Thank you.
M
matrixrose
Dec 18, 2003
This is unbelievable . . . seriously, if I didn’t read it for myself I wouldn’t believe it. There is thick, and there is concrete wall stuck lined with lead..
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Photo Help

You are using the term "professional" very loosely. <<<

You mean like the friend of mine who has had his photos on the cover of TIME magazine a couple of times.
He uses a very large ink jet printer.(seems about 6 feet across)
P
Phosphor
Dec 18, 2003
Just F.Y.I., Satwa…

I spent years working on DocuTech systems, since before the Sun front end was incorporated.

A careful and attentive operator had the capability—under the older Xerox document-editing interface—to move raster page elements in increments as small as 1/640" (0.0015625"), and I can tell you, without equivocation, that my uniaided eye was able to spot those changes.
M
matrixrose
Dec 18, 2003
Ask your friend the difference I bet he’ll know! Or do you mean TIME put a picture of him on the cover a couple of times. . . hope he’s one of the good guys
H
Ho
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

I bought a shrink-wrapped, full version of FreeHand 8 on ebay for $15 earlier this year. I already had FH9 but could not pass up the bargain. I suggest you look for similar deals at computer shows or on ebay. You can demonstrate to yourself the difference between raster and vector files for very little strain on your budget. I’m sure deals can be found on older versions of Illustrator as well. Warning: DO NOT buy FH10, don’t even let someone give it to you. Bad release. Sort of the Windows ME of graphic apps.

NOTE: Beware of bogus software. Look for LOTS of positive feedback (on ebay) and a money back guarantee or paypal buyer protection.

< http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=36466 97915&category=41877ViewItem&item=3646697915&cat egory=41877>
P
Phosphor
Dec 18, 2003
Dirck Van Lieu "How to create short text links" 12/18/03 10:26am </cgi-bin/webx?13/14>
PH
Photo_Help
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

He uses a very large ink jet printer.(seems about 6 feet across)

And your point is? Our engineering department has 2 Ink Jet plotters.

Again. You use the term loosely.
B
Brian
Dec 18, 2003
Once again Satwa claims to know more than those of us who have been doing this for years… whatever.

Plonk.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
He uses a very large ink jet printer.(seems about 6 feet across)

I use cp series just to print film for sublimation screens. I should send Time some photos. 😀
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Ok guys….you convinced me:
1.ANY ink jet printer is NO GOOD for high photo quality.
2. You CANNOT print high photo quality (up to say 10"x12" from a raster image, a TIFF, etc.
3. High End print shops ONLY use Vector images(such as AI or FH), if they want clear prints.

Ok, I AGREE……If thats what you all say….then I assume you are right.

Thanks again….really!

And thanks for that last tip Ho, good idea.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
And your point is? Our engineering department has 2 Ink Jet plotters.<<<

Thats just sad. PLOTTERS !???!
B
Brian
Dec 18, 2003
Alright, this is the last time I bother (you have been killfiled):

1.ANY ink jet printer is NO GOOD for high photo quality.

Never said that. Your original post mentioned sending files to magazines, which are NOT printed on inkjet printers.

2. You CANNOT print high photo quality (up to say 10"x12" from a raster image, a TIFF, etc.

Never said that, either. There are plenty of high-quality professional-level inkjets on the market.

3. High End print shops ONLY use Vector images(such as AI or FH), if they want clear prints.

Never said that, either – what I DID say was that for clear print quality of objects than CAN be created in a vector format (such as text) that you SHOULD use a vector format because the results will be SUPERIOR to raster every time.

Take your fingers out of your ears, put them in your ass (to keep you from talking out of it) and listen for a change. Hell, don’t bother with us: get yourself some reading material on vector vs. raster and do your best to separate reality from your so-called "facts."

Brian
H
Ho
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

You are in danger of being branded a troll. Nothing makes a person so unattractive as a (unmerited) superior attitude. No offense, but you have an eyedropper of knowledge and you are trying to use it to dilute an ocean of experience.

A simple Google search for raster vs. vector turns up hundreds of links. Here, keep yourself busy for a while:

Google links < http://www.google.com/search?q=raster+vs+vector&sourceid =opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>

(thanks, phos)
JK
John_Kallios
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa

Do the test I prescribed. You obviously will not believe what anyone says. Maybe you will believe what you see. Then, have a cup of coffee, a soda or a beer, realise you may not know everything and learn to listen.

If you cannot see a difference, then you are using a low resolution device, have the device set to print low resolution or you need to have your eyes checked.

BTW, nobody is saying that "photo" quality cannot be achieved by high res inkjet from a raster image.

What we are saying is that every vector shape that is imaged becomes equal to the raster level (dpi) of the output device regardless if scaled or distorted in any way before hand. Raster is set at the resolution it isat or will be reduced if the output device cannot handle the resolution. Thusly, vector will at least always be as good as but most of the time will be better than raster elements in terms of clarity and resolution.

A simulated test is to create a 72 ppi image. Resample to 1200 ppi. Regardless if you image to a 1200 dpi image device, you are still left with a 72 ppi image. (or 72 dpi on paper)
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
Thats just sad. PLOTTERS

Do you know what a plotter is? It looks kinda like a six foot wide (but more likely 36" or so) ink jet printer. 😛
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Well, thanks Brian…..I really apreciate ALL your help….It has become much clearer for me, and I have printed it up so that I can study it…..The books don’t explain this stuff very clearly, and getting anyone to do so has been like getting blood out of a stone…..but now that I specified more clearly, people are able to give me good answers ….thanks!
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Thanks Ho, but none of the Vector vs Raster info, or books explain as well as you guys have….its much clearer now
G
graffiti
Dec 18, 2003
It looks kinda like a six foot wide ink jet printer.

In fact, I had one that was EXACTLY like a six foot wide ink jet printer.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
Mines not exactly like a six foot ink jet. It has more buttons and it’s a lot more temperamental.
JK
John_Kallios
Dec 18, 2003
Six foot! Me who is afraid to go in a public shower since I only have a 2 foot wide inkjet.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
It’s not the size of your media it’s what you print on it. (Me who has 125 foot long rolls of backlit imaging film) 😉
P
Phosphor
Dec 18, 2003
You ain’t lived till you’ve wrestled a 16’6" wide inkjet billboard printer into submission.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
That’s some girth ya got there Phos!
JK
John_Kallios
Dec 18, 2003
A vendor I used at my last job had a printer roughly that size. My faded memory cannot remember the model or the exact size. I just remember the building that it was in. Virtually a aircraft hanger and large amount of their floor space consisting of connecting tables to create one large table.

Since oversize media is not my thing, it was a little daunting to see how much support space is required for this type of work.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
<Toolman> Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh </toolman>
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
I know what a plotter is.
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
Well… You do now
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
I mean….I know what a plotter is, Mr. Tom Fools with himself.
P
Phosphor
Dec 18, 2003
Lexicological age verification complete.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Sorry….thats ‘Tim Fools with himself’ isn’t it?
Is that an Native American name?
TF
Timothy_Foolery
Dec 18, 2003
Yup, I’m a Seppo. :/

It’s a bit mean making fun of peoples names you know. You don’t realise the shame and humiliation of growing up with a name like Tom Foolery. 🙁
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
Ok, sorry….its a nice name.
Look back at the posts and see what people called ME ! ! ! Way worse.
PH
Photo_Help
Dec 18, 2003
Satwa,

Thats just sad. PLOTTERS !???!

First your friend is a pro, now they are sad. At least we agree on something.
S
Satwa
Dec 18, 2003
uh, an engineering plotter as you describes is very different than an ink jet printer….least the ones I’ve seen…..but you probably have fancier ones.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections