Experts in here now; Photoshop VS Illustrator

[sortie]

Help me out here.

I've been using photoshop to do illustration when I need it.
I have messed around with illustrator from time to time and I'm just not seeing the difference.

I know that I can create "vector" graphics with illustrator which means I can blow them up(enlarge) without loss. But is that all there is to it?

I not seeing why I need illustrator when I have photoshop.

Help.

[xroach]

illustrator PWNS photoshop for anything except playing with photos

[sortie]

Originally Posted by xroach

illustrator PWNS photoshop for anything except playing with photos

OK, but why? Some details please, cause I don't get it yet.

[xroach]

there's a hot new site out there .. it's called google, let's you find stuff based on what they call "keywords"

i found this for ya
http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/best.html

http://www.google.ca/search?source=i...e+Search&meta=

[sortie]

Originally Posted by xroach

there's a hot new site out there .. it's called google, let's you find stuff based on what they call "keywords"

i found this for ya
http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/best.html

http://www.google.ca/search?source=i...e+Search&meta=

See, I wanted webmaster opinions from people who do what I do.
The opinion of some ivory tower dweeb who dosen't do shit for money is not what I'm looking for. So that's why I'm not using google.

So in short, the reason you posted those links is because you don't know what you are talking about. You just heard it was best and repeat is like sheep.

[Verbal]

I think Illustrator could easily and will inevitably be integrated into Photoshop. The only reason it hasn't is that Adobe would lose one of their hottest selling products.

[xroach]

Originally Posted by sortie

See, I wanted webmaster opinions from people who do what I do.
The opinion of some ivory tower dweeb who dosen't do shit for money is not what I'm looking for. So that's why I'm not using google.

So in short, the reason you posted those links is because you don't know what you are talking about. You just heard it was best and repeat is like sheep.

no the reason i posted the link is because i don't want to type out a tutorial on the basics of graphic design.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Verbal

I think Illustrator could easily and will inevitably be integrated into Photoshop. The only reason it hasn't is that Adobe would lose one of their hottest selling products.

Seems like it's 80% already in photoshop to me.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by xroach

no the reason i posted the link is because i don't want to type out a tutorial on the basics of graphic design.

No, you posted the links because you are the typical dumb-shit fuck face who shoots off his mouth without knowing shit about the subject.

You could have posted anything positive about illustrator already if you knew anything. But you would rather spend the next hour in a flame with me instead.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by sortie

Seems like it's 80% already in photoshop to me.

Yeah more or less ... It's the little things that bother me. For example Photoshop obviously has vector capabilities in it's text, pen and shaping tools. You CAN'T however (as far as I know) import an .AI or .EPS file without rasterizing it.

Again, it seems to me that if this was a possibility, Illustrator would only be used to create 'elements' for Photoshop and Flash, but wouldn't really have any other purpose as a stand-alone software.

I would be interested in hearing another point of view.

[Doctor Dre]

Lots of features in illustrator are slowly getting integrated in photoshop.

But Illustrator is better for ... illustration and vector designs. It's two different things... illustrator is used mostly for print.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Verbal

Yeah more or less ... It's the little things that bother me. For example Photoshop obviously has vector capabilities in it's text, pen and shaping tools. You CAN'T however (as far as I know) import an .AI or .EPS file without rasterizing it.

Again, it seems to me that if this was a possibility, Illustrator would only be used to create 'elements' for Photoshop and Flash, but wouldn't really have any other purpose as a stand-alone software.

I would be interested in hearing another point of view.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. If I need vector graphics, then yeah illustrator, but I don't really need vectors for any specific reason.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

But Illustrator is better for ... illustration and vector designs. It's two different things... illustrator is used mostly for print.

But today's print media technology doesn't even need this stuff any more.

Even silk screens are made from "rasterized" film separations that photoshop prints.

I mean, if you went to some really cheap run down printshop to get some biz cards made then maybe you need vector art.

When you say better at illustration, I can illustrate in photoshop anything that I can draw in illustrator.

[sortie]

I tell you one thing that illustrator is definitely the best for:

Making your image any size you want with no change in quality.
That's what vector images can do.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by sortie

I tell you one thing that illustrator is definitely the best for:

Making your image any size you want with no change in quality.
That's what vector images can do.

Correct, but if Photoshop would 'allow' you to import these files into Photoshop, without rasterizing it could do the same thing.

[Steve Awesome]

I would never create a logo using PhotoShop. It simply doesn't have all of the features that are available to me in Illustrator. I probably felt the same way you do at one time; however, after I took an Illustrator class it was painfully obvious that Illustrator is way-way-WAY more advanced in comparison. There are only a subset of more obvious functions in PhotoShop. So, no, you can't do everything in PhotoShop that you can do in Illustrator.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Verbal

Correct, but if Photoshop would 'allow' you to import these files into Photoshop, without rasterizing it could do the same thing.

Yeah, they obvioulsy do that for one reason only...to make people buy both programs.

Well, it could also be that the "engine" of photoshop just wasn't written with that in mind and the cost to make the engine handle editing of the vector data is not worth it for them. The cost could be in cash and/or performance.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

I would never create a logo using PhotoShop. It simply doesn't have all of the features that are available to me in Illustrator. I probably felt the same way you do at one time; however, after I took an Illustrator class it was painfully obvious that Illustrator is way-way-WAY more advanced in comparison. There are only a subset of more obvious functions in PhotoShop. So, no, you can't do everything in PhotoShop that you can do in Illustrator.

Do you do a lot of "free hand" drawing?

Because that's mostly what I do and photoshop works good for me in that respect.

[cj_purve]

Originally Posted by Steve Awesome

I would never create a logo using PhotoShop. It simply doesn't have all of the features that are available to me in Illustrator. I probably felt the same way you do at one time; however, after I took an Illustrator class it was painfully obvious that Illustrator is way-way-WAY more advanced in comparison. There are only a subset of more obvious functions in PhotoShop. So, no, you can't do everything in PhotoShop that you can do in Illustrator.

Illustrator is not in any way more advanced than photoshop except illustration & documents for print ... its a rediculous comparison. Illustrator is for vector (or print), Photoshop is for pixels (for web or to import into print) & they now cross over in a bunch of ways because technology has evolved to allow that to happen.

I guess now days it is much harder to see the difference between the 2 programs, but I was designing paysites with photoshop back when you had to rasterize a text layer, duplicate it and blur it to make a drop shadow. (fabulous designs those! LOL) The *why* really is tied in with a lot of old school print procedures that have not yet been improved on with digital technology.

If you know photoshop well enough, you can make it do almost anything, but if you design brochures & multi page documents for print often you start to see how the programs work in together.

Bleed for trimming, registration & crop marks, pantone color matching, publishing pdf's ... all much better supported with programs like illustrator, corel draw and even old school ones like freehand!

You'd think that with macromedia & adobe merging they could afford to do away with some of the extra products ... especially now that they are all included in 'suites' anyway. But then we'd spend less!

[mike-al]

Gotta love the scan /trace feature of illustrator, doodle your image, trace it
spend a few minutes fixing up the points and color it.. voila instant logo

after taking a illustrator demo, and not having one bit of artistic talent, I now spend 80% less on all graphic needs.. Artists are way overcharging lol

[Steve Awesome]

No, I don't ever freehand draw in Illustrator. There's no reason to when you can adjust the curves and make other feeding curves adjust dynamically. Sounds like PhotoShop is the right tool for you if you're doing freehand work.

And again, I don't think people who think both products are the same are aware of every feature available to them in the CS3 packages of Illustrator and Photoshop. I'll drop out of the discussion from here but I think it's nice to at least have fellow designers in here to talk about the products and your preferences and observations.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by cj_purve

Illustrator is not in any way more advanced than photoshop except illustration & documents for print ... its a rediculous comparison. Illustrator is for vector (or print), Photoshop is for pixels (for web or to import into print) & they now cross over in a bunch of ways because technology has evolved to allow that to happen.

I guess now days it is much harder to see the difference between the 2 programs, but I was designing paysites with photoshop back when you had to rasterize a text layer, duplicate it and blur it to make a drop shadow. (fabulous designs those! LOL) The *why* really is tied in with a lot of old school print procedures that have not yet been improved on with digital technology.

If you know photoshop well enough, you can make it do almost anything, but if you design brochures & multi page documents for print often you start to see how the programs work in together.

Bleed for trimming, registration & crop marks, pantone color matching, publishing pdf's ... all much better supported with programs like illustrator, corel draw and even old school ones like freehand!

You'd think that with macromedia & adobe merging they could afford to do away with some of the extra products ... especially now that they are all included in 'suites' anyway. But then we'd spend less!

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I am just not doing the things that would make illustrator more useful because I don't do any "old school" print jobs. If I worked for the newspaper I would be more into illustrator.

[beanamid]

Illustrator is a great tool when you need sharp clean graphics, or ones that are scaleable, in your case it would be great to use illustrator for your logos/banners/ text and retouch enhance your images in photoshop.
Me personally I use illustrator for everything I can, then mix it with photos or add shadows and highlights in photoshop....

Hope this helps.

They are both very different tools that work very well together, if you had to pick one use photoshop because it will do everything but not as clean

[Az A Bay Bay]

soRRy nO can HELP "(

[Az A Bay Bay]

wish i cud HELP but cant "(

[harvey]

Originally Posted by Az A Bay Bay

wish i cud HELP but cant "(

you. sir. fucking. moron. much.


back to the topic it's amazing what I'm reading, gosh...

First: You can make vector images with Photoshop. I repeat: You can make vector images with Photoshop.

Second: you can resize without loss vectorized images made with photoshop. I repeat: you can resize without loss vectorized images made with photoshop

Is it clear enough? The difference between what you all are calling vectors (which is the common name for Bezier curves) is not that you can do vectors with one program or another, but the output rasters in CURVES (Illustrator, Flash, Corel Draw) as Photoshop output is in PIXELS.

Now, if you read this thread you'd think photoshop can't make vector images (that is shapes with edition nodes) and furthermore, even if you can, you can't resize it. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. You can make shapes, add all nodes you want and resize it the size of a building as long as you have the PSD files (before anybody says anything, you can't resize without loss an image made in Illustrator unless you have the .AI files).

So, going to the differences... there are many. The most noticeable of them is the pixel vs curves resolution as mentioned. But most of the other differences are concerning to specific tasks. Basically we could say Photoshop is the most complete image program, Illustrator takes 1/50th of Photoshop and developes it to create a new product with more specific features for that tiny part of Photoshop that are the illustration tools.

And pls stop with "Illustrator is for printing", I finish all my printing work in PS even if I use Illustrator, same as 99.99% of magazines (as we're at it, Corel Draw is way more extended in graphic arts industry than Illustrator). Unless you're meaning InDesign, Quark or something else SPECIFIC TO GRAPHIC DESIGN (as opposed to "web" or "electronic" design), the "illustrator is for printing" debate is senseless.

In short: illustrator makes better and more appealing vectorized images due to the curves raster. Other than that, you'll use Photoshop for everything else.

[harvey]

I forgot to say: I'm quite positive that in the next 2-3 years Illustrator will disappear or get integrated/bundled into Photoshop, there are many free or way cheaper illustration programs and for what I saw on PS CS3 most complete version (it even includes 3d and some video editing) it seems they're going towards the ultimate all-in-1 graphics program. Plus, they solve that or they will require like 5 gis of RAM to open PS, Image Ready (talk about another dying program) and Illustrator at the same time (left alone Bridge and all that crap)

[montel]

photoshop rules but illustrator is good for logos.

[FrameShifter]

I prefer photoshop more and more. I only use Illustrator for print work and custom shapes/fonts

[xroach]

Originally Posted by sortie

No, you posted the links because you are the typical dumb-shit fuck face who shoots off his mouth without knowing shit about the subject.

You could have posted anything positive about illustrator already if you knew anything. But you would rather spend the next hour in a flame with me instead.

Yep, That's it.

[yumma]

ill better when you're working with ALOT vector details

[sortie]

Originally Posted by yumma

ill better when you're working with ALOT vector details

That seems to be the consensus. So I must agree.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by xroach

Yep, That's it.

Whatever guy.

I would have appreciated the links you posted but you tried to get sassy with it and you don't do that with a

[xroach]

Originally Posted by sortie

Whatever guy.

I would have appreciated the links you posted but you tried to get sassy with it and you don't do that with a

riiight.. nub