Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

How to vector a jpg.

Sep 5, 2012 7:14 AM

I have a small picture that I want to make larger.  Resizing in Photoshop doesn't work with the clarity.  Could I be pointed into the right direction.

 

thanks

Mike

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 7:33 AM   in reply to squatch97401

    squatch,

     

    An image might make it easier to suggest something. Illy basically works with vector artwork, and depending on the artwork redrawing as vector might be the obvious solution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 7:51 AM   in reply to squatch97401

    squatch,

     

    If the image is raster artwork, such as JPEG, PNG, or GIF, it basically consists of coloured squares, pixels. The number of pixels determine how large you can make it without its losing clarity because the resolution becomes too low. With Illy, you may create vector artwork which can be enlarged freely without losing clarity, and the concept of resolution only applies when converted to raster.

     

    Still, an image would make it easier to avoid saying something silly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 5, 2012 3:30 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    squatch,

     

    If Smart Deblur is out of the question (see post #3 in this Photoshop thread),

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4211658#4211658

     

    the best way will be to increase the size with all the blur, lock it, and draw on top of it with the Pen Tool (see instructions in the Helpfile).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 2:07 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    You can use an online tool called Vector Magic (www.vectormagic.com) which basically takes any bitmap image and converts it into a vector graphic using points. You may have to do some adjusting but it's a quick and easy to do the conversion. Or, you could open the image in Illustrator, lock that layer, create a new layer and trace over it with the pen tool. That's the cleanest way but can take a lot of time depending on how comfortable you are with the pen tool.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 4:05 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    squatch97401 wrote:

     

    Here is the picture that I need to enlarge with clarity

     

    monkey2.jpg

     

    If all you have is this file, then forget about any autotrace functions (including Vector Magic) and learn to use the pen tool. Shouldn't be too difficult, but still some guesswork is needed with the banana.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 4:39 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    If all you have is this file, then forget about any autotrace functions...

    Correct. To elaborate:

     

    There is such a huge misconception about autotracing and "resizing with clarity" as you put it (i.e.; resolution independence). There is no magic. You don't get something-for-nothing. Running an autotrace routine does not create additional resolution. And garbage in, garbage out still applies.

     

    Entropy still rules. As in anything else, information is actually lost in mere "conversions" (especially automatic ones).True "resolution" is information. The amount of information (desired detail) and noise (undesireable detail) is just as fixed in a vector-based graphic  as it is in a raster-based image. When you autotrace an ugly (in terms of low information and noise) raster image, you do not gain the ability to enlarge it "with clarity." You simply trade one kind of low-information ugliness for another.

     

    Consider: What would be the "most accurate" automatic vector-based tracing of your image? It would be one vector square path for each square pixel in the image. That would be a "perfect" autotrace. And functionally it would be exactly equal to the original raster image. Absolutely nothing would be gained.

     

    That's the big misconception about autotracing. Only by applying intelligence to reinterpret the image as a vector-based graphic will yield the improvement you seek. And autotrace routines contain no reall shape-recongnition intelligence. An autotrace routine, for example doesn't know "monkey tail" from "monkey eyeball". Only human intelligence does.

     

    Learn to use the drawing tools. That's what vector drawing programs are really all about. There is no automagic shortcut.

     

    JET

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 6:08 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    Mike, You could always download a stock vector (shutterstock.com) so you won't have to worry about the techinical stuff. Try to look for vector graphics, not bitmap/pixel images.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 11:29 PM   in reply to squatch97401

    Firsti would be interested in knowing if you owned the copyrights to this image or did you purchase usage rights?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 6, 2012 11:32 PM   in reply to ry9546

    That would be the better way of going about this the artwork for these stock items if often so low that it much better to purchase.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2012 6:22 AM   in reply to squatch97401

    Sorry for the mass problems

    There is no "mass problem." Your post is a frequently-repeated question and, as explained, is another instance of a very widespread misconception among newcomers to vector drawing programs about autotrace features (largely propigated by marketing hype). This being the Illustrator forum, unless otherwise stated, it is generally assumed you are talking from the perspective of commercial reproduction.

     

    My also oft-repeated explanation still stands, as does the solution. It's not really a question of 'what's enough raster resolution for a good vector autotrace?' If the raster image is of sufficient resolution to result in an autotrace that looks good enough at the largest intended size, in all likelihood, the raster image itself would be of sufficient resolution to look good enough at that size. Othewise, you just trade "vector ugliness" (spikes, irregular jagged, or inaccurately shaped paths) for "raster ugliness" (pixelated undersampling). The resolution-independence advantage of vector graphics stems from the vector paths having been well-drawn to describe the meaning of the shapes they represent.

     

    So if you really do need the resolution independence advantages of vector graphics, then you need a vector graphic intentionally drawn for that purpose. You either draw it or buy it.

     

    You might try BigStockPhoto.com. Key "vector monkey" into the search. You'll likely find something suitable there for just  a few dollars. Then you'll be using it appropriately, and there will be no question about legality. (You're really not supposed to just grab images from websites and use them without permission.)

     

    JET

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points