Your logo will have some limitations:
1.) Because it is a bitmap image, the size of the logo will be limted and will, in most cases, be limted to 300ppi at actual size ( 100% final size ). This could lead to fairly large file sizes, depending on the final size of the image.
2.) You will always need to print in CMYK, unless you develop a grayscale version of the logo. Illustrator files are resolution independent, so you can size them without losing quality ( going back to point #1 ). Logos are usually prepared in combinations of 1, 2, and/or 3 spot colors which allows for some control in branding.
Your artwork is a nice attempt, but as far as logos are concerned, perhaps a bit too complex. On the other hand, to achieve what you have done in vector will be a challenge.
Your question is much like asking, "What can I do with a boat that I can't do with a car? After all, I can travel in both."
The obvious answer is, yes, you can travel in both. But you can't travel by water in a car, and you can't travel by land on a boat.
Well, computer graphics are much the same way. For all practical intents and purposes, the graphics "world" consists of two fundamentally different kinds of graphics, like water and earth. What you can't do with a program designed primarily for one is the "other half" of the graphics world.
If you only feel up to exploring half the world, then suit yourself and leave the other half alone. But don't assume that by exploring your half, you know anything about the other.
Any well-rounded graphics practitioner should be well-versed in both halves of the graphics world. That's not to say you can't specialize in one and go through life wearing blinders regarding the other. But in doing so, don't assume the other is unnecssary, or that you can do everything in your chosen half that can be done in the other.
Just thinking if it is one less thing I have to learn, the better. I am sure it has its purpose; just to me it seems alot of the same things I can do in Ps.
The real answer and this not going to get into the differences between the two programs is that some things you can do in Illustrator can be done often in seconds where as it might take hours in Photoshop. Where as somethings in Photoshop might be impossible or simply not worth doing or trying in Illustrator.
As far as this particular logo you might actually do better in Illustrator suing similar effects and subtle uses of vector shapes, for the reason john suggested bout the advantages of scalability also it would afford you a more rational way of simplifying the design for use in smaller sizes and perhaps in less number of colors. All of this can probably be done in Photoshop but at a cost of time that would probably then make you want to scrap the design as John has also suggested for its complicated approach. This leads to another reason why learning Illustrator or another vector program would be helpful.
Since logos have to be scaled to varying sizes it is almost always wiser to make them vector, so when working in vector program you have the advantage of not be able to do things you can easily do in a Raster Image Editing application this limits the design somewhat, not really but for practical purposes it does, so you will have to make a design that is more rational for print and web production and I guess video as well.
Now you will have a design that the client will be happy with because they can apply it to any media at any scale and you have completed your professional services like a pro.
So that is the real reason you need a vector program and you do not necessarily need Illustrator which is not the easiest program to learn to be quite honest thugh Iprefer it to other vector programs.
If you decide to seek out a vector art program I would look around at what is available and select the one that best suits you.
If you are on windows and want to work similar to this I think you might look at Corel Draw or Paint.
The above is certainly not a logo, is it? It's one heck-of-a-big file, though. Looks like a large format banner. You can get away with only Photoshop for that type of file, eventhough I would use Illustrator for the text and Photoshop for the image. Look into doing an internship at a print shop or take a desktop publishing course somewhere around where you live.
"I would use Illustrator for the text and Photoshop for the image"
My point exactly. Read my post again: Illustrator for the text ( which will be the file going to the RIP ), Photoshop for the image. The "image" would be "Placed" and "Linked" in Illustrator. No need to build the entire file in Photoshop ( sorry for the confusion ). I was just saying, that if he insists on using only Photoshop, the banner would be such a file, not a logo.
Here is my question better defined.
I am learning all the programs. I have Photoshop down decently. I am wondering if I can "get by" using Ps for alot of the same needs. I want to learn them all but trying to learn the most critical one first. Make any sense?
On top of that, I am trying to pick up AutoCad 2010 for my dad. Not easy either.
I am wondering if I can "get by" using Ps for alot of the same needs. I want to learn them all but trying to learn the most critical one first. Make any sense?
You can "get by" using a vector program for things appropriate for vector artwork.
You can "get by" using a raster program for things appropriate for raster work.
As explained, Photoshop does not obviate the need for and purpose of Illustrator. Illustrator does not obviate the need for and purpose of Photoshop. There are some small areas of functional overlap. For example, Photoshop has a vector path tool to ease some of the limitations of selecting pixels; Illustrator is replete with raster effects to ease some of the tedium of program-jumping to add soft-edge effects.
But they are still fundamentally different kinds of programs, corresponding to the two primary ways of creating computer graphics: By raster images or by vector paths. A well-rounded graphics person needs to have working knowledge of both. You may not wish to be a "well rounded" graphics person. You may be perfectly happy limiting yourself to what you can do in one program or the other. But that still does not mean one program can do everything the other can.
So to answer your question of whether you can "get by with" one program in lieu of another the answer is NO, unless you intend in every instance to fully describe what exactly you intend to do.
Think of it like this: If you choose to, you can sometimes "get by" driving a tractor trailer rig for routine trips to the local convenience store. You can sometimes "get by" pulling stumps from your yard with the family luxury car. The two vehicles have some areas of functional overlap.
But you can't "get by" with the tractor rig if you need to get decent gas mileage or park it in the house garage. You can't "get by" with the family sedan if you need to tow eight tons. (The areas of functional overlap cover a small range of the intended use of the other vehicle.)
Again, if you're content to just drive the family sedan for all your transportation and hauling needs, fine. But don't think that family sedans obviate the need for tractor trailer rigs.
On top of that, I am trying to pick up AutoCad 2010 for my dad. Not easy either.
Well, to repeat a familiar phrase, nobody said this was going to be easy. ;-)
So why do you not try to apply the same rationale to your drafting needs? Why aren't you asking yourself and others "Can I get by using Illustrator instead of AutoCad?" For many practical purposes, you could. Moreover, since you seem to want to think that Illustrator is unnececessary in the presence of Photoshop, why don't you do your drafting in Photoshop? After all, you conceivably could.
I learned both at the same time because I participated in a desktop publishing certificate program where Illustrator, Photoshop, Acrobat, Dreamweaver, InDesign ( and Quark XPress ) were taught in a structured environment. If I had to choose, I'd learn Illustrator first, mainly for the "Paths" learning curve and typography, which can be transferred to Photoshop. There are other things like masks, pathfinder tools, color management, and calibrating that come in handy later. File management is probably something you should learn ASAP as well.
the answer to your question put bluntly is NO unless you only intend to design only Raster "pixel based images" image format. i think your problem lies in not know the diffrence between Raster and Vector "mathamatical based images" otherwise you might not have ask this question.
Photoshop - is designed for Photo manipulation "but miss used for web design" Adobe have plans to change this". PPI dont even come into this programe it's a pixel based programe.
Illustrator - is a Vetor programe designed for use in print so if your desiging posters or other art that will need to go to print you need to learn.
Fireworks - is a pixel based and vector and raster programe all in one "the best thing about firework IMO" u can also control the PPI when creating a new file in resolution settings so as long as you know the required ppi settings for your project you could say you can do it all in fireworks "
so to your question "Do i really need illustrator" IMO yes!. you are walking the wrong path learning photoshop if you wish not to learn illustrator, you need to learn Fireworks. but even then you will need a more advanced vector programe at some point so would be foolish not to learn illustrator (as i am having to do so now). the only thing that lets Fireworks down against Ai and PS is it's 3D features they are very limited and you need either Ai or PS to perform these tasks. all the advise i have given is advice drummed into me by Lynda.com/Adobe Tutors hope it helps you!. Fireworks is the future !!!.
if i'd been you i'd have started to learn DW and PS first then you would see why it's important to learn a vector based programe, see you have started out learning with a photography based programe for graphics and web design "probable because everyone told you how cool PS was Personally i hait the programe for web and graphics design and prefer not to open it unless working on photos even then i always go back and work on photos in Fireworks", you'll notice when you start to make wireframes in DW it's prefered "and adobes" hence being befault editing programe from properties panel is Fireworks" i think your confused on what are the correct tools to use for wed and graphics design/development.
photoshop was created for special effects on star wars and photographs and was never intended for Web Designing at all, it just produced nicer looking images than fireworks did in it's infant years, before Adobe took over macromedia. i've even heard rumors that Adobe are changing course and you cant be Adobe certified unless you use Fireworks.
perhaps you should put Photoshop away for a while and start learning DW and FW.
This reminds me of that long thread form the Illustrator PC forum a few years ago (back when they had separate Mac and PC forum). The one where this self-important blowhard with amateurish art kept insisitng that he could do everything in Photoshop and that Illustrator was unnecessary.
No matter how many people tried to tell him he was wrong, he refused to admit it.
I think his name was Tommo, or something like that. Boy, that was one entertaining thread.