SIDENOTE: First of all, I can't believe just how miserable and nasty and hateful people get in Adobe forums. I have been in this industry for more than 20 years and consistently the people posting to these forums are just intolerant, and rude.
To wit, the comments you have made, JB, are really uncalled for. Especially when you consider the fact that you have taken the context out of the discussion and reinforced it with haughty arrogance in a childish and laughable, "I'll let you have the last word, because I am better than you" attitude. Are you proud of yourself? You missed the point completely and your intolerance says more about your ignorance than it does your 16 years of experience.
The point of the matter is that nomis has a valid point regarding the focus of Illustrator: it is a vector based illustration program first. Where his argument went astray was his assertion that it's primary USE is for print illustration. While that may be his primary use and while it may be his opinion that it is best for said use, that is not the issue and your beligerence simply took the conversation in the wrong direction.
So, not in anyone's defense, I would like to clarify that the issue is not what Illustrator should be used for, but rather what the focus of the program should be and whether the default settings should remain consistent with Illustrator's previous core functionality.
Ironically, in the first paragraph of Smashing Magazine's article about Illustrator (which you used as a supporting reference in your argument) you will find:
| [people] use Illustrator to create vector-based graphics which — contrary to raster-based editors such as Adobe Photoshop |
Pixel-based graphics are raster-based. Vector graphics, according to one of your own sources, are by definition not pixel or raster based.
According to Wikipedia's article on Vector Graphics:
| Vector graphics formats are complementary to raster graphics, which is the representation of images as an array of pixels, as is typically used for the representation of photographic images |
The entire concept of vector-based graphics was to create an image that was NOT dependent on pixel resolution. This gives you the advantage of scaling a vector-based image to almost any size while maintaining it's appearance. It could be said that by definition, vector-based artwork is non-pixel depth dependent. This makes it completely counter-intuitive to have a pixel-snapping feature be the default setting for a program whose primary focus has historically been and should remain the production of non-resolution or non-pixel based illustration.
The notion that it is bad to add raster effects and pixel-grid alignment to an otherwise purely vector-based illustration program is not even being questioned here. It's whether the default settings for a vector-based illustration program should be based on resolution-dependent, media-dependent, pixel-based graphics or should the default settings maintain allegiance to the very prinicipal of vector-based illustration?
Also, I would like to point out that your first link, though showing an outstanding use of vector-based illustration to create photo-realistic images without the use of raster effects, does more to damage your argument than support it as well. The reflections and textures created by the featured artist (who has been using illustrator since it's creation) show how to use solid outlines, not raster effects and not pixel-aligned grids to create photorealism.
Even your example at Tutorial9.net lacks any support for the notion that grid-based, resolution dependent graphics should be the defaults for illustrator. In fact not a single example of the 39 presented were created using illustrator alone. Every single example of 3D Typography used a raster-based illustration program or rasterizing renderer. None of that has anything to do with whether or not your graphics are aligned to a pixel grid or not*. And considering the dates of most of those images, they were undoubtedly done without the added functionality of pixel-grid alignment.
So, BJ, I have to say that I am shocked and amazed at your response. Not only are you completely off-base by attacking another user during a time of frustration and taking one small aspect of their argument to represent the entirety of the topic at hand, not only do you claim that the other user lacks support for his argument and that your experience makes you more qualified to have an opinion, but also your nasty demeanor, your arrogance, your lack of understanding and compassion are completely overshadowed by the fact that every reference you provided to support your argument was in fact a glowing example of why Illustrator is, has been, and should remain focused on vector-based Illustration--no matter for what you should choose to use it.
Sorry to be so easily baited by such simple trolling, but I am frustrated with Illustrator CS5's loss of focus as well. If I wanted pixel-based alignment, I'd have used Fireworks or Photoshop. In fact, I still do my work in Illustrator and import it into another program (usually photoshop) to produce non-scalable resolution dependent graphics--where the pixel-grid alignment just gets in the way. In fact, the only time I have found any benefit to pixel-grid alignment has been when using importing into Flash...but since HTML5's canvas handles the majority of what I used Flash for, I don't use it any more.
btw, my align functions still do not work, even with all the pixel-alignment garbage disabled-rough.
Jase
*okay, this is a little hyperbolic, but the intent justifies the exaggeration.
1 Correct answer
35
Replies
AdChoices