Skip to main content
AZP Photos
AZP Photos
Inspiring
April 17, 2013
Answered

Illustrator vs. Photoshop

  • April 17, 2013
  • 3 replies
  • 87424 views

I am familiar with the difference between vector and pixel graphics, but I wonder why someone would choose to do something in illustrator vs. photoshop.  It seems there are things you can do in both applications that for the use you may be creating something like a business card, I wonder why someone would choose to use illustrator vs. photoshop or vice versa.  Can someone shine some light on this for me.  I am creating my first business card and I have a rough idea of what I want the graphic to look like on the card and then the rest is just simple lines and text.  It seems I could literally get the same result regardless which application I would choose to use for this particular project.

Thanks

      This topic has been closed for replies.
      Correct answer JETalmage

      It's not just a matter of one being primarily for creating vector based graphics and the other being primarily for creating raster images (although that certainly matters). It's also a matter of one being an "object based" program and the other not.

      A whole-document project file is not just one image or one vector path. It's a stacked and arranged collection of raster objects, vector objects, and text objects. Some of those objects may be printers marks, die cut paths, spot color separations for varnishes, and on and on. Object-based replication just makes sense. In a typical business card press-sheet, for example, you may have a gang-up of 10 instances of the same card, with trim marks for all. Programmatically replicating one instance in a variable way makes more sense than actually stepping/repeating an array of pixels.

      You should also bear in mind that much of Photoshop's "vector" capability is smoke-and-mirrors. Shape Layers ar actually selections of pixels for painting the pixels they enclose. The result is just colored pixels, not printer commands for grads, etc. A Photoshop Layer is a very different construct from an Illustrator Layer. Consider, for example, creating in Photoshop a stack of  individual vector objects which have multiple stroke and fill attributes and which look like a single illustration when viewed together, but which are still independently selectable and draggable as objects, not as layers. Select two objects from Layer 1 and three objects from Layer 3 and transform them at the same time. A Layer in Photoshop is really another whole raster image, just as large as the whole Photoshop document.

      Still don't believe it? Create a "vector" Shape Layer in Photoshop. Position that "object" in the upper left corner of your layout. Create another one and position it in the lower right corner of your layout. What's the PPI resolution of your document? I'll bet it's the conventional-wisdom 300, right? Okay. Give the "object" in the lower right a drop shadow. Now, bear in mind, there's absolutely no reason that drop shadow needs to be sampled at 300 PPI. 150 PPI is a gracious plenty. So give just that drop shadow a PPI of 150. Can you do that?

      And what of all that "empty" space between the two "objects"? Is it really empty? Really? No, it's filled with thousands of absolutely useless white pixels (or grayscale pixels in an alpha channel).

      Generally speaking, if you are assembling a whole document, you are working in an object-oriented "assembly program" in which you combine the assets from vector programs, the assets from raster programs, and native text assets. Conventional wisdom calls that "assembly program" a "page-layout" program. So conventional wisdom supposes the need for a raster (painting) program, a vector (drawing) program, and an assembly program. The fact is, a drawing program comes much closer to being suitable as a "page-layout" program than does a raster imaging program. Vector drawing programs and page-layout programs share the same kind of object-based nature. The significant differences between them is that the features of a page-layout program are more geared for semi-automation of repetitive layouts (master pages, etc.), high page counts, and long threaded text handling. As long as you are not talking about long "bookish" documents, a drawing program works perfectly fine as an assembly program for short-page-count whole-document projects (usually even better, truth be told). The same is just not true for a raster imaging program, because when it comes down to it, a raster imaging program is still all about creating one raster image.

      JET

      3 replies

      Kris Hunt
      Kris Hunt
      Legend
      October 3, 2015

      Ideally, you would lay out your business card in InDesign. Use Photoshop for editing raster images and use Illustrator for editing vector images. Yes, it's possible to use all three to lay out a business card, but it's also possible to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. It's just not the best choice.

      T
      Trains1985
      Inspiring
      October 4, 2015

      This is part of an image that I used Illustrator to create. It is part of a tracing of a photograph. No, it was not by using LiveTrace. A computer could not even begin to trace a photo, looking so "clean" and have as anywhere near as many colors as I have incorporated in a work, like this one. I have found that to use this medium and make a rendering of a photograph, you have to hand-trace it into hundreds, if not thousands, of Paths, to give it the pristine look. I have made a number of images, using this technique. I have spent tens, if not over 100 hours alone, to recreate an image! One work, a picture of the Great Falls Tavern, next to the C&O Canal and the Great Falls of the Potomac River, just outside of Washington D.C. in the fall, led me to be an internationally-known artist.

      Not that you should submerge yourself into doing this level of Illustrator, but to simply show you what Illustrator can do.

      MFJ

        M
        meaganf8405706
        Participant
        November 14, 2015

        I know nothing of what you're talking about. Let alone what I am talking about when it comes to this stuff half of the time. I think that will be apparent after my questioning. I am a pencil to the paper; paint on the canvas girl. I love digital art. I know it's out of my league and over my head based on my readings. I'm still just too curious. Are you telling me you took an image, traced it in Illustrator, and turned it into that? I know there is much more to it but you did all of it in Illustrator? Basically, I keep having the desire to take some of my drawings and give them more of comic book/cartoon look. Keep in mind, I am a complete newb to this. This is only a hobby/interest for me. Could I do all that in Illustrator? Granted I would have to learn A LOT more about it but could that be done? Last question. As a person new to all of this is Illustrator too hard to start out with in the beginning or just takes time but do-able?

        JETalmage
        JETalmageCorrect answer
        Inspiring
        April 17, 2013

        It's not just a matter of one being primarily for creating vector based graphics and the other being primarily for creating raster images (although that certainly matters). It's also a matter of one being an "object based" program and the other not.

        A whole-document project file is not just one image or one vector path. It's a stacked and arranged collection of raster objects, vector objects, and text objects. Some of those objects may be printers marks, die cut paths, spot color separations for varnishes, and on and on. Object-based replication just makes sense. In a typical business card press-sheet, for example, you may have a gang-up of 10 instances of the same card, with trim marks for all. Programmatically replicating one instance in a variable way makes more sense than actually stepping/repeating an array of pixels.

        You should also bear in mind that much of Photoshop's "vector" capability is smoke-and-mirrors. Shape Layers ar actually selections of pixels for painting the pixels they enclose. The result is just colored pixels, not printer commands for grads, etc. A Photoshop Layer is a very different construct from an Illustrator Layer. Consider, for example, creating in Photoshop a stack of  individual vector objects which have multiple stroke and fill attributes and which look like a single illustration when viewed together, but which are still independently selectable and draggable as objects, not as layers. Select two objects from Layer 1 and three objects from Layer 3 and transform them at the same time. A Layer in Photoshop is really another whole raster image, just as large as the whole Photoshop document.

        Still don't believe it? Create a "vector" Shape Layer in Photoshop. Position that "object" in the upper left corner of your layout. Create another one and position it in the lower right corner of your layout. What's the PPI resolution of your document? I'll bet it's the conventional-wisdom 300, right? Okay. Give the "object" in the lower right a drop shadow. Now, bear in mind, there's absolutely no reason that drop shadow needs to be sampled at 300 PPI. 150 PPI is a gracious plenty. So give just that drop shadow a PPI of 150. Can you do that?

        And what of all that "empty" space between the two "objects"? Is it really empty? Really? No, it's filled with thousands of absolutely useless white pixels (or grayscale pixels in an alpha channel).

        Generally speaking, if you are assembling a whole document, you are working in an object-oriented "assembly program" in which you combine the assets from vector programs, the assets from raster programs, and native text assets. Conventional wisdom calls that "assembly program" a "page-layout" program. So conventional wisdom supposes the need for a raster (painting) program, a vector (drawing) program, and an assembly program. The fact is, a drawing program comes much closer to being suitable as a "page-layout" program than does a raster imaging program. Vector drawing programs and page-layout programs share the same kind of object-based nature. The significant differences between them is that the features of a page-layout program are more geared for semi-automation of repetitive layouts (master pages, etc.), high page counts, and long threaded text handling. As long as you are not talking about long "bookish" documents, a drawing program works perfectly fine as an assembly program for short-page-count whole-document projects (usually even better, truth be told). The same is just not true for a raster imaging program, because when it comes down to it, a raster imaging program is still all about creating one raster image.

        JET

          AZP Photos
          AZP PhotosAuthor
          Inspiring
          April 17, 2013

          JET

          Thanks for you knowledge.  I am a very inexperience Adobe User.  I really have about 1 year of self taught knowledge and only understand very basic information.  While most of what you said is over my head a bit.  I think I understand what you mean by its not just the difference between vector and pixel.  Thanks so much for your post.

          Jacob Bugge
          Community Expert
          Jacob BuggeCommunity Expert
          Community Expert
          April 17, 2013

          Huskerfan,

          As you know, the long answer is Illy for vector and PS for raster.

          You can do much more in vector with Illy, and much more in raster with PS.

          For some tasks, it is appropriate to use both.

          AZP Photos
          AZP PhotosAuthor
          Inspiring
          April 17, 2013

          Well then I guess the next question is why would I decide to create a business card design with vector vs. raster?

          Steve Fairbairn
          Steve Fairbairn
          Inspiring
          April 17, 2013

          Depends on your business card!

          Start off with vector then maybe Photoshop if there’s a photographic image or something like that.

          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices