Preserving vector shapes from Illustrator when going to Photoshop

[Ziplinski]

Is there a trick to having your vector shapes from illustrator import into Photoshop as (vector) shape layers?

I swear I used to be able to do it, but now it's not working. If I remember correctly, you had to keep your layers very simple (with now special Appearance settings, etc) but you could then Export from inside Illustrator to a PSD file (with Preserve editability checked) and when you opened the file in Photoshop you had all your vector shapes from Illustrator as Photoshop vector shape layers.  What I get now is all the shapes on separate layers, but they are all rasterized.

FWIW, I know that I can copy and paste paths via the clipboard into Photoshop and then choose to bring them in as Shape Layers, Smart Objects or raster images -- but I'm looking for something simple where I can convert and entire document at once.

Thanks

[emil_emil]

To be honest I don't reed the manual a lot too. I can't learn and remember manuals by reading from cover to cover without working on a specific job. I learn better when I need to do something and feel it could be done easier then I refer to manuals and web input. I learned about the compound shapes probably long after they were introduced and probably read the manual (can't remember) but learned better about compound shapes by just playing around.

The major reason I would prefer compound shapes over compound paths is flexibility and the reason choosing compound paths is simplicity (less items clutter). The left side is a compound shape and on the right compound path - on the bottom you can see what happens if I decide later to change the shape.

[dissidently]

Compound shapes are a massively important aspect of vector illustration.

Seeminlgly a perfect example, also, of the mixed paradigms and archaic manners of Illustrator. 

Perhaps Rhino has more different ways of combining objects, but still manages to do it more intuitively than Illustrator.  And yet it's in 3D, and got NURBS to deal with.  Other than that I can't think of any software i've used that makes such a mess of putting objects together.

It's up to you, dear readers, to figure out what they were thinking when they left three different ways to compound objects... and use obscured shortcut keys to make it happen. 

I'm guessing Emil Emil is right, partly.  Combine his approach with a bunch of time for experimentation and it might be possible to divine how compound shapes, paths and Pathfinder effects work.  Maybe.

[dissidently]

This is slightly disingenuous because you're using a different combining method in the bottom example, right?  You could, with compound shapes, achieve exactly the same result in the bottom row, right? 

[emil_emil]

dissidently wrote:

This is slightly disingenuous because you're using a different combining method in the bottom example, right? 

No, here's exactly how to reproduce what I did:

Create a circle and a smaller circle inside it. Select all and make a copy next to it. Select the original two circles and apply Minus Front while holding Alt. Select the circles of the copy and apply Minus Front without holding Alt. Select all and make a copy of them at the bottom. Deselect all. From the bottom select the two inner circles by clicking on each with the white arrow, holding Alt, and Shift. Then move them so they are partially outside the encompassing circle. This shows a possible difference of this example between applying a compound shape or path to the same set of objects.

Here's a couple of more examples that may help you with understanding these things better.

On top is the original combination of objects and at the bottom are two copies of it after applying Minus Front and holding Alt on the left one and without Alt on the right one. The left one becomes a compound shape giving you the flexibility to adjust each of the original objects while the left one becomes simply one path.

If the smaller circle was inside the larger one like the example in my previous message then the right one becomes a compound path which is the method used for vector objects with holes  - they are technically one object but they contain more than one path and each path can be selected and transformed independently which is similar to what can be done to a compound shape but is still not the same thing in regards to what is possible.

In the next example on top is the original combination of objects. the smaller black shape is a rectangle with a round corners effect applied to it which allows you to change the roundness of the corners at any time later. At the bottom are two copies of this after applying Minus Front and holding Alt on the left one and without Alt on the right one.

You can see that the Compound shape retains the flexibility to transform the two object independently and the roundness of the corners that can still be changed while the shape on the right loses the round corners and becomes a simple path. To retain the round corners on that one, you have to expand the appearance (the effect) before applying Minus Front. I think they should have programmed this to happen automatically because that's what I think most would expect but this is what you get at least in my version.

hope this helps

dissidently wrote:

I really do want to know WHY each individual idiosyncracy is the way it is.....

Oh, don't worry too much about such things. There is so many idiosyncrasies everywhere you will never be in peace. Everyone is different and it is very hard to find things that fit perfectly to your intuition. Intuition is your previous experience used unconsciously and thus without new efforts but there are so many tools, software, devices, interfaces, and what not in the world which makes it impossible to make these things easy for everyone. More you use something more you will get used to its idiosyncrasies If you don't like something and  you are not the only one your feature request can eventually make a difference and that's all you can do when it comes to things like software.

[Monika Gause]

dissidently wrote:

So, what I'm gathering is that Compound Paths ONLY have Subtract, and its permanent...

No, that's not the case. Maybe you should read about compound paths as well.

Compound paths are a basic principle of vector graphic software and work the same in about all of them. If you don't like the Illustrator manual, read any other manual or documentation, there's plenty of them. The principle of compound paths is about 20 (?) years old ... older than the web for sure.

Compound paths relate to the fill rules (there's also plenty documentation on that one available). Those fill rules enable you to do more than just subtract.

[dissidently]

I'm referring to Illustrator.  What they do in Illustrator.  Compound Paths.  In Illustrator.  In which, yes, they've been around, I'm sure, a very long time.

So break it down.  What else can they do, IN ILLUSTRATOR?

THey are different in Illustrator to the way they operate in Corel Draw and 3ds Max and Rhino, I can assure you of that.  They have some very strange unexpected behaviours, for me.  

Perhaps, since they respond the way you expect them to, you could explain what that manner is?

Shouldn't be hard... because, as far as I see, there's only subtract, and a recognition of the "compounding" of non-overlapping "paths".  Again, this is where Illustrator is a little unique.  It calls somethings Paths, with a capital P, and somethings that are shapes it treats as paths with a little p when compounding them, but they're now Paths, once compounded.  Right?

[dissidently]

For pure comedic value, make a minus compound shape from two shapes, then hit the Expand button in the Pathfinder panel. 

Anyone expect that reaction from a button that says EXPAND????

[Monika Gause]

dissidently wrote:

because, as far as I see, there's only subtract,

Take a look at "fill rules".

And please: explain the "unexpected behaviours" you experience.

For explaining the basics there's the manual. If you have problems applying functions to a specific project, please show the example that doesn't work for you.

[dissidently]

Monika... where is the Manual?

So far as I'm aware there is no manual for Adobe products, across the board.  Just a mess of tutorials and help files and some scattered reference docs.  All of which rely on the user having learned the paradigms and terminology somewhere else so that they can then apply the correct lexicon to google searches within the domains of those chaotic "help files".

That wouldn't be funny if it was a technical company making a technical product.

But this is design software.  So the very least you'd expect from a company making design software is that they cohesively design their UI's, and design well layed out (you know... well designed) help files, manuals, tutorial snd reference documentation.  Rather than leaning on their community of users in here and google out there.

See, that's ironic... right?

[Guest]

Dearest dissidently,

Allow me to answer all the questions and provocations you've posted to date and all the ones you will post:

Illustrator is a hopeless piece of software. Partly it's hopeless because of its machinations, inconveniences, and mysteries. Partly it's hopeless because it hasn't come with a manual in some time. Partly it's hopeless because it's so dominant in the marketplace that dissident voices can be ignored. Partly it's hopeless because asking, "Why does this work this way?" as you so often do, is like asking your mommy, "Why is the sky blue?" There are answers, but your mommy probably doesn't have them.

Now that that's settled – now that you know the answers to your questions before you ask them – there are some smart moves to be made:

1) Change your software. JET and others have pointed out that other software exists which will make evident why the sky is blue. It's important not to say you "can't" change software because of this or that external pressure. If you do, you'll be just like Adobe, justifying why things don't change because of this or that external pressure.

2) Change your screen name. This could help enormously. It won't reduce the imperfections you uncover, but it might imbue you with a more joyous outlook.

3) Change nothing. I for one understand the pleasures of pointing out flaws under cover of asking questions. It's great sport and really easy in the case of Illustrator. And as you've discovered, sometimes unsuspecting forum members will give you accurate and useful answers.

I hope you don't find this post snooty. I have more sympathy than you may realize. But if you feel I've misunderstood your intent, by all means find a way to ask your questions such that so many of us don't get the nagging feeling the question is subordinate to the pleasures of the assault… right? I mean you clearly have the intelligence and the experience to do that.

[dissidently]

I really do want to know WHY each individual idiosyncracy is the way it is.  To see if there is some underlying method to the madness.  Or hitherto unseen benefits available from the methodologies and paradigms and approaches used.  Sometimes there are.  THERE MUST BE.

It can't possibly be all this bad.

Can it?

In more specific replies.

1. Yes. I'm now using Corel Designer some of the time for the more fiddly work, and I'm slowly pushing more and more to it.  It's a bit of a process.  So until that's complete I still find more joys in using Illustrator.

2. My screen name won't change my views.  And believe me, I'm enjoying myself.

3. It's not actually about pointing out the flaws for the pleasure or sport it might bring me.  I'm hoping I leave some kind of a roadmap for any others suffering through this same experience.  But yes, it is nice when I get a real answer.  And this might come as a surpirse to you, I really am looking for the best possible answers.

No, don't find it at all snotty.  A little misintentioned.  But then so am I.  But it really isn't an assault on Adobe.  I leave that to experts like JET.  He's got every right to have a good solid crack at Adobe... he got involved enough to be scripting feature additions and cleanup "on their behalf".  That would be maddening in the extreme.

[Guest]

Fair enough. I most certainly do believe you're enjoying yourself. Never really doubted that, even through all the moaning… maybe because of it.

So have at it, friend.

[Kurt Gold]

Now I understand. You are looking for a dedicated chapter "What exactly is the difference between compound shapes and compound paths".

You may need a coach.

And perhaps you may forget about your snooty "Perhaps you're all going to need some help" statement.

[dissidently]

You're being snooty.

The point is simply this:

Any given document reads in two different ways.

1. The way it may be read by someone that already understands what it is saying.

2. How it reads to someone new to the matter.

You are NOT new to the subject.  So, not at all snootily, I'm pointing out JUST ONE of the many contradictions/absences in logic that might be applied to actually expressing knowledge for those new to it.

After all, this is the point of documentation... right?

Or are you so high and mighty, self involved and utterly belligerent that you're happy being the only one able to discern the knowledge you already know?

Or... you know, you could be helpful and fill in some of the blanks.  There's only about 10 that I can discern, that would take it from an utterly chaotic mess and turn it into a useful document.  You could do that, right?

Probably not.

Better to be a condescending twat, right?

Go for it.

[Kurt Gold]

Finished.

[Kurt Gold]

Ziplinski,

when asking for a sample file I meant a "real" file, not something based on the suggestions about compound shapes.

If you indeed only have compound paths in your files and if you're going to convert them to compound shapes, it should suffice to use the Make Compound Shape command in the Pathfinder palette menu.

[Ziplinski]

Kurt,

That worked. Thanks!

(FYI, I sent you that file becuase I had isolated the problem down to what was in there. Just trying to be respectful of your time.)

[samsungSW]

I found this very useful

Ilustrator to photshop without rasterizing

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/05/how-to-move-from-illustrator-to-photoshop-without-rasterizin...