Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 19th Nov 2008 10:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 337742
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 19th Nov 2008 20:06
in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
Why would you take something that is vectorized and then rasterize it only to add color? Can't illustrator do color? I am unfamiliar with photoshop and even more so with illustrator (GIMP and Inkscape for me). I know Inkscape can color that stuff in...and then its still vectorized.
I haven't used any versions of Illustrator newer than 10, but colouring was always pretty finicky in it (E.g., the "Gradient Mesh" tool).
And newer versions of Photoshop can work with vector objects, so the image may not have needed to be rasterized at all.
RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by Eugenia on Wed 19th Nov 2008 21:00
in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
And newer versions of Photoshop can work with vector objects, so the image may not have needed to be rasterized at all.
I've personally wondered why they still keep Illustrator around. Why not just add the illustrator tools to photoshop? I don't know any artist who works purely in illustrator, every single one of them starts in illustrator and finish their drawing in photoshop, because illustrator lacks certain features or those features are too much of a pain to use. So why not just get rid of illustrator.







Member since:
2006-07-26
Why would you take something that is vectorized and then rasterize it only to add color? Can't illustrator do color? I am unfamiliar with photoshop and even more so with illustrator (GIMP and Inkscape for me). I know Inkscape can color that stuff in...and then its still vectorized.