missing pixels after image trace

[PG in LA]

Hi. After a high fidelity photo image trace, I have quite a few missing pixels, or maybe they are white artifacts.

Any ideas? These are not on the original tiff document.

I don't use illustrator often; any suggestions how to clean these up? Is there an equivalent to photoshop's rubber stamp?

Thanks.

Screenshot attached.

[Monika Gause]

You're probably tracing an image that's too big.

You're probably trying to get too many shapes and colors and fidelity.

[PG in LA]

Thank you both!

The original tiff image was around 50 MB. I will experiment with a lower resolution.

Does the resolution of the original file have a big impact on the accuracy of Image Trace?

I want this to be as close to a photo as possible and still be scalable.

Thanks for the direct selection tip.

[PG in LA]

Well, I tried reducing the photo from 300 ppi to 150 ppi, and the white spots were just as bad but the image was worse.

I increased the noise setting to 100 (from  50) and saw no change in the spots (they do appear in different places each time, so it's definitely not something in the photo).

I reduced colors to 75 from 85, and tried "abutting" mode instead of "overlapping", which was worse.

The paths are pretty crazy, I can't really tell where the spots are.

And since the white spots aren't actually "fill", I can't figure out how to select them (and if I could, is there a way to fill them back in with the surrounding color?)

Illustrator is not made for photographer brains!

Thanks for any suggestions.

[John Mensinger]

By autotracing it, you don't make a photo "scalable". It will look terrible when enlarged. Only a different kind of terrible.

Monika's assertion there is an unfortunate and inescapable truth. If the objective is to print a photograph at a large size, you need a large photographic image. Automatic image tracing is not a solution to this. You'll get a better result up-sampling the raster image.

[PG in LA]

Thanks, but I like the stylized, silk-screen-looking effect and like to use it once in a while.

If you have any suggestions about why I'm getting these white spaces and how to avoid them (or clean them up), that would be great.

[Myra Ferguson]

if you're more comfortable as a photographer in Photoshop, you might want to check out tutorials for making pop art there, too. Here's one of many I found https://design.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-make-a-warhol-pop-art-effect-in-photoshop--cms-31060

[PG in LA]

Thanks. I like those Tuts tutorials.

[John Mensinger]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/PG+in+LA  wrote

If you have any suggestions about why I'm getting these white spaces and how to avoid them (or clean them up), that would be great.

It would be, but I'm sorry, I don't. Auto Trace has no credible place in my workflow, so my experience with it is limited.

I like the stylized, silk-screen-looking effect and like to use it once in a while.

Just my opinion of course, but the posterization imposed by tracing a photo is horribly disjointed and broken up (which gave rise to your original post, btw), compared to the much finer control of the effect offered by Photoshop's Cutout filter.

[PG in LA]

Credibility aside, I do kind of like it.

Though I agree, I should probably always look to Photoshop solutions first.

Thanks.

[Monika Gause]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/PG+in+LA  schrieb

I want this to be as close to a photo as possible and still be scalable.

By autotracing it, you don't make a photo "scalable". It will look terrible when enlarged. Only a different kind of terrible.

[marliton]

As Monica says, you just need play with the options of Image Trace. If you want remove those artifacts, you can select them with the Direct select tool and delete them. Or you can use the Erase tool.

[Monika Gause]

marliton  schrieb

Or you can use the Erase tool.

Most probably not.

This will get you some rather big holes into the design

[marliton]

You're right. I did not see the image.