• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
1

Illustrator vs. Photoshop

Participant ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am familiar with the difference between vector and pixel graphics, but I wonder why someone would choose to do something in illustrator vs. photoshop.  It seems there are things you can do in both applications that for the use you may be creating something like a business card, I wonder why someone would choose to use illustrator vs. photoshop or vice versa.  Can someone shine some light on this for me.  I am creating my first business card and I have a rough idea of what I want the graphic to look like on the card and then the rest is just simple lines and text.  It seems I could literally get the same result regardless which application I would choose to use for this particular project.

Thanks

Views

85.5K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

LEGEND , Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

It's not just a matter of one being primarily for creating vector based graphics and the other being primarily for creating raster images (although that certainly matters). It's also a matter of one being an "object based" program and the other not.

A whole-document project file is not just one image or one vector path. It's a stacked and arranged collection of raster objects, vector objects, and text objects. Some of those objects may be printers marks, die cut paths, spot color separations for

...

Votes

Translate

Translate
Adobe
Community Expert ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Huskerfan,

As you know, the long answer is Illy for vector and PS for raster.

You can do much more in vector with Illy, and much more in raster with PS.

For some tasks, it is appropriate to use both.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Well then I guess the next question is why would I decide to create a business card design with vector vs. raster?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Depends on your business card!

Start off with vector then maybe Photoshop if there’s a photographic image or something like that.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Huskerfan,

Vector is inherently more clean and versatile, not least in connexion with logos and their uses.

And what Steve said.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's not just a matter of one being primarily for creating vector based graphics and the other being primarily for creating raster images (although that certainly matters). It's also a matter of one being an "object based" program and the other not.

A whole-document project file is not just one image or one vector path. It's a stacked and arranged collection of raster objects, vector objects, and text objects. Some of those objects may be printers marks, die cut paths, spot color separations for varnishes, and on and on. Object-based replication just makes sense. In a typical business card press-sheet, for example, you may have a gang-up of 10 instances of the same card, with trim marks for all. Programmatically replicating one instance in a variable way makes more sense than actually stepping/repeating an array of pixels.

You should also bear in mind that much of Photoshop's "vector" capability is smoke-and-mirrors. Shape Layers ar actually selections of pixels for painting the pixels they enclose. The result is just colored pixels, not printer commands for grads, etc. A Photoshop Layer is a very different construct from an Illustrator Layer. Consider, for example, creating in Photoshop a stack of  individual vector objects which have multiple stroke and fill attributes and which look like a single illustration when viewed together, but which are still independently selectable and draggable as objects, not as layers. Select two objects from Layer 1 and three objects from Layer 3 and transform them at the same time. A Layer in Photoshop is really another whole raster image, just as large as the whole Photoshop document.

Still don't believe it? Create a "vector" Shape Layer in Photoshop. Position that "object" in the upper left corner of your layout. Create another one and position it in the lower right corner of your layout. What's the PPI resolution of your document? I'll bet it's the conventional-wisdom 300, right? Okay. Give the "object" in the lower right a drop shadow. Now, bear in mind, there's absolutely no reason that drop shadow needs to be sampled at 300 PPI. 150 PPI is a gracious plenty. So give just that drop shadow a PPI of 150. Can you do that?

And what of all that "empty" space between the two "objects"? Is it really empty? Really? No, it's filled with thousands of absolutely useless white pixels (or grayscale pixels in an alpha channel).

Generally speaking, if you are assembling a whole document, you are working in an object-oriented "assembly program" in which you combine the assets from vector programs, the assets from raster programs, and native text assets. Conventional wisdom calls that "assembly program" a "page-layout" program. So conventional wisdom supposes the need for a raster (painting) program, a vector (drawing) program, and an assembly program. The fact is, a drawing program comes much closer to being suitable as a "page-layout" program than does a raster imaging program. Vector drawing programs and page-layout programs share the same kind of object-based nature. The significant differences between them is that the features of a page-layout program are more geared for semi-automation of repetitive layouts (master pages, etc.), high page counts, and long threaded text handling. As long as you are not talking about long "bookish" documents, a drawing program works perfectly fine as an assembly program for short-page-count whole-document projects (usually even better, truth be told). The same is just not true for a raster imaging program, because when it comes down to it, a raster imaging program is still all about creating one raster image.

JET

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 17, 2013 Apr 17, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JET

Thanks for you knowledge.  I am a very inexperience Adobe User.  I really have about 1 year of self taught knowledge and only understand very basic information.  While most of what you said is over my head a bit.  I think I understand what you mean by its not just the difference between vector and pixel.  Thanks so much for your post.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 18, 2014 Mar 18, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I understand the difference of what the raster and vector image is. Thanks to you I also understand how the layers and objects work in those programs, but as I am not a highly trained professional (and by the way international without native english knowledge) I would want you to recap what you said.

Your answer is very concise,  but I lost the idea while reading through your comment... Do I understand you right, that you say that Illustrator is better to choose for the design development than Photoshop? Just to make it clear? So everything can be done in Illustrator (in case we are not talking about multi-page document).

But what is the Photoshop for in this case? I assume that you mean that it is only worth of photo editing, as the name implies? And if I understand you right, than design made in Photoshop is not going to be as good as in Illustrator?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Mar 19, 2014 Mar 19, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I wouldn't presume to answer for JET, but prehaps I can lend some additional clarity or confusion.

Try not to think of one application as "better than" or "not as good as" another. They are simply differing tools or environments for constructing and editing documents and the text and graphics they contain.

A Photoshop canvas is inescapably a grid of pixels, subject to a singular resolution and color space. Even "empty area" within that grid is pixel data. No matter what you call it, or how it was constructed, a Photoshop file is an image file. Photoshop is used to make or manipulate an image.

In Illustrator, as JET said, the  environment is "object based." Text objects (vector), drawn objects (vector), and images (raster objects), can be arranged, stacked, positioned, transformed and intermingled, separately and in multiples; but each is an independent object with its own construct, color specifications, and resolution, where applicable. This added flexibility makes the environment more versatile and capable of birthing much more than an image.

MarionIden wrote:

...design made in Photoshop is not going to be as good as in Illustrator?

Depending on the content and ouput intent, a "design" may function perfectly adequately as a Photohop image. But it is much more likely that the real-world application of a "design" is better served when that design is competently assembled with each of its elements in appropriate format, as is supported with an object-based tool.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Mar 19, 2014 Mar 19, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you for your answer!

By real world application and content intent you mean a print versus online use, if I understand it right?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
May 02, 2015 May 02, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

By real world application and content intent you mean a print versus online use, if I understand it right?

No.

Don't confuse what has been explained by viewing it as a 'print versus web' matter. The same principle applies:

Yeah, you could create an entire web page--including photos, drawings, and body text--as nothing other than pixels contained in a single raster image in Photoshop. Save that image in a web-displayable format and it can be displayed by a web browser, and viewers can see the images and graphics and read the text. But would you really do that that? Of course not. That would be even worse than doing the equivalent for print.

Why do you suppose programs exist for building web pages? Because they serve as the "page layout programs" for the web. They are where you assemble and arrange individual raster images (PNG, JPG, etc.), vector graphics (SVG, Flash animations, Javascript Canvas), live text, interactive links and programming code.

Just as vector-based drawing programs make perfectly suitable design and assembly programs (like so-called page-layout programs) for low page-count, non-repetitive whole documents, many (other than Illustrator, due to its absence of features and awkward interface) are commonly used and quite suitable for assembling whole web pages for design-intensive but low page-count web sites. (Xara Designer Pro is a good example.) Again, such suitability stems from a drawing program's fundamental nature as an assembly environment for individual and independent objects.

JET

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Oct 02, 2015 Oct 02, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

1. So let's say I am designing specific elements for the web like buttons. If I would take as a default that I don't want to buy any new programs and want to chose between Photoshop and Illustrator, which would I choose? Let's say I am proficient with both.

2. I also noticed that any picture design with text (which I rasterize in the end and there is no vector elements except for the font outlines anyway) looks better if it was assembled in Illustrator than if the text was added in the Photoshop? (Even though assembling a raster image in Illustrator seems like too much trouble) Am I lying to myself or is it really so?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Oct 02, 2015 Oct 02, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

1. So let's say I am designing specific elements for the web like buttons. If I would take as a default that I don't want to buy any new programs and want to chose between Photoshop and Illustrator, which would I choose? Let's say I am proficient with both.

Understand: Now you're talking about creating an individual graphic object, not assembling a bunch of objects into a layout as was the original question. So it depends. Is the button going to simply be a single raster image? Or is it going to be scalable or resizable so you can, for example, use the same basic artwork to quickly make multiple button images with different labels and therefore of different widths? Have you considered using vector-based button graphics with live interactivity?

2. I also noticed that any picture design with text (which I rasterize in the end and there is no vector elements except for the font outlines anyway) looks better if it was assembled in Illustrator than if the text was added in the Photoshop? (Even though assembling a raster image in Illustrator seems like too much trouble) Am I lying to myself or is it really so?

Are you still talking about use for web here? If so, then assuming you are rasterizing the text to screen resolution at the size you want it to display on the web page and to the same file format, the results should be just as good whether you use a raster program or a vector program. There may be differences in the rasterization algorithm between two different programs, and some of that is controlled by options in the various Save As... or Export dialogs. But that's very subtle differences. Users often don't realize that they are re-rasterizing an image by the operations they perform in Photoshop when in fact they are. Each time you re-rasterize a raster image, sharpness is lost. So as long as you realize what you are doing as you work, you should be able to rasterize text (once, to final use resolution) whether using a raster imaging program or a vector drawing program.

Consider: Everything you see on your monitor is a raster image. Even in a vector drawing program, the program is "printing" the image as you work to your monitor. Excluding the need for transparent pixels, many objects intended for the web or for any other fixed-size onscreen final use can be quickly created by simply taking a screen shot. I see users all the time jump through unnecessary hoops when they could simply zoom a vector image in or out, or zoom a raster image out (less than 1:1 pixel display) and take a screenshot. A good screenshot utility (SnagIt, etc.) is a great time-saver.

JET

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Mentor ,
Oct 03, 2015 Oct 03, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ideally, you would lay out your business card in InDesign. Use Photoshop for editing raster images and use Illustrator for editing vector images. Yes, it's possible to use all three to lay out a business card, but it's also possible to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. It's just not the best choice.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Oct 04, 2015 Oct 04, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Adobe.Weverton.JPG

This is part of an image that I used Illustrator to create. It is part of a tracing of a photograph. No, it was not by using LiveTrace. A computer could not even begin to trace a photo, looking so "clean" and have as anywhere near as many colors as I have incorporated in a work, like this one. I have found that to use this medium and make a rendering of a photograph, you have to hand-trace it into hundreds, if not thousands, of Paths, to give it the pristine look. I have made a number of images, using this technique. I have spent tens, if not over 100 hours alone, to recreate an image! One work, a picture of the Great Falls Tavern, next to the C&O Canal and the Great Falls of the Potomac River, just outside of Washington D.C. in the fall, led me to be an internationally-known artist.

Not that you should submerge yourself into doing this level of Illustrator, but to simply show you what Illustrator can do.

MFJ

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Nov 14, 2015 Nov 14, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I know nothing of what you're talking about. Let alone what I am talking about when it comes to this stuff half of the time. I think that will be apparent after my questioning. I am a pencil to the paper; paint on the canvas girl. I love digital art. I know it's out of my league and over my head based on my readings. I'm still just too curious. Are you telling me you took an image, traced it in Illustrator, and turned it into that? I know there is much more to it but you did all of it in Illustrator? Basically, I keep having the desire to take some of my drawings and give them more of comic book/cartoon look. Keep in mind, I am a complete newb to this. This is only a hobby/interest for me. Could I do all that in Illustrator? Granted I would have to learn A LOT more about it but could that be done? Last question. As a person new to all of this is Illustrator too hard to start out with in the beginning or just takes time but do-able?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Nov 14, 2015 Nov 14, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

oh... and I know you said that was just part of an image you created but it's awesome. Props.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines