it's the correct way of "photoshopping" :Dasterixvader said:
well, that's what i do, lines. then i go "stroke paths" and there, i got the lineart, working at high resolution so it won't need to be enlarged. then i paint the picture...
if that's not the correct way of vectoring, it's ok. i'm not too into it.
If you use shape layers (as opposed to paths), you don't need to fill/stroke anything and they can be upscaled without losing information. It's perfectly possible to vector in Photoshop.MDGeist said:
youre doing it wrong, the only thing photoshop can vector are simple lines/strokes. As soon as you fill some color you´ll have a bitmap graphic which will look like shit when enlarged/shrinkd/reenlarged
Photoshop is the only program i use to vector and I do promise you, it does do a pretty job of it.
In before, decide what format will you use to upload your vector works.
If it's O.K. to converting them into PNG at the final format, you can rely on SAI.
If it's O.K. to converting them into PNG at the final format, you can rely on SAI.
and how to export it to svg or similar ?Velen said:
If you use shape layers (as opposed to paths), you don't need to fill/stroke anything and they can be upscaled without losing information. It's perfectly possible to vector in Photoshop.
edit : just tested, lol no you cant! i see pixels everywhere
PS IS NOT VECTOR, ITS PIXEL BASED! Once color = game over!
photoshop vectors are all a fixed resolution, as you can only export paths to illus.
if you only do paths to begin with, why not use illustrator to begin with? its way better to use illustrator for vectorting as it is adobes program for vectors, ps vec support is only for basic stuff.
ps is good for making wallpapers of anime screenshots and shit, but not to vector a scan/screenshot to make it "pillow printable"!
I'm sorry, I apologize if I came off as ill-mannered to you; it was not my intention whatsoever.
From what you said, it sounds like you were either zooming in or still using paths instead of shape layers. Shape layers do indeed upscale (as in, resizing an image that's 1280x720 to 1920x1080) without loss of information because they are vectors, not pixels. Trust me, I upscale shape layers all the time. If you zoom in, however, it will appear pixelated even though it truly is not.
Photoshop obviously isn't a vector based program like Illustrator or Inkscape, so it has its blatant drawbacks, but it does indeed have basic vectoring capabilities that are relatively simple and easy to use. I do use Illustrator as well (albeit infrequently) and I personally find Photoshop much more pleasant to deal with when vectoring scans or screencaps. I've seen many vectors done in Illustrator that don't look right to me, so I would hazard an opinion that it matters less what program you use and more about your own skill level.
As for exporting svg from Photoshop, I really don't know. Since svg is not generally well supported, (moe, danbooru and most image boards don't accept it) I don't use it. Sorry I can't help.
From what you said, it sounds like you were either zooming in or still using paths instead of shape layers. Shape layers do indeed upscale (as in, resizing an image that's 1280x720 to 1920x1080) without loss of information because they are vectors, not pixels. Trust me, I upscale shape layers all the time. If you zoom in, however, it will appear pixelated even though it truly is not.
Photoshop obviously isn't a vector based program like Illustrator or Inkscape, so it has its blatant drawbacks, but it does indeed have basic vectoring capabilities that are relatively simple and easy to use. I do use Illustrator as well (albeit infrequently) and I personally find Photoshop much more pleasant to deal with when vectoring scans or screencaps. I've seen many vectors done in Illustrator that don't look right to me, so I would hazard an opinion that it matters less what program you use and more about your own skill level.
As for exporting svg from Photoshop, I really don't know. Since svg is not generally well supported, (moe, danbooru and most image boards don't accept it) I don't use it. Sorry I can't help.
The shape can be resized without loss. But thats it. The color in there not... It doesnt make much sense making shapes and not fill them with color.If you zoom in, however, it will appear pixelated even though it truly is not.
I havent seen a shapelayer without color yet though.
Just because imageboard dont use certain imageformat, it doesnt mean the format isnt well supported elsewhere.
Firefox and Operas vector support should be pretty good by now. IE is a different matter though.
like what ? not looking right ? maybe it was just done bad, like so many photoshop "ones" too, lolI've seen many vectors done in Illustrator that don't look right to me
It's easy, use shape layers for both the lines and the colors. Like I said before, you don't have to fill anything. :)
Precisely my point. There are both good and bad vectors made in both programs. Even though Illustrator has more options, it does not necessarily mean it can create nice vectors. It depends more on the individual. That's all.like what ? not looking right ? maybe it was just done bad, like so many photoshop "ones" too, lol
how ?It's easy, use shape layers for both the lines and the colors.
doesnt work for me.
cant create a shape layer without color
Not sure what you mean. The coloring process is very similar to how you do lines; pick out a color, make sure the layer is underneath the layer with your lines and place anchor points appropriately.
You can change the color later by double clicking on the colored square on the layer, next to the vector mask thumbnail.
You can change the color later by double clicking on the colored square on the layer, next to the vector mask thumbnail.
still dont know how to make the upper one look like the lower one
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=psvsinkscape.png
zoomlevel the same (400% ish)
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=psvsinkscape.png
zoomlevel the same (400% ish)
how to make it look like the one on the bottom:
use a way higher resolution!!
use a way higher resolution!!
Like I said, if you zoom in on shape layers, they appear pixelated. It's one of the blatant drawbacks of using Photoshop, a raster graphic editing program, for vectors. It does have vectoring capabilities, but not all the features that Illustrator and Inkscape do. To get the top one to look like the bottom, you have to resize it up instead of zooming in.
More like vector capabilities, I would consider that re-trace capabilities. Photoshop itself goes against the definition of vector graphicsVelen said:
Like I said, if you zoom in on shape layers, they appear pixelated. It's one of the blatant drawbacks of using Photoshop, a raster graphic editing program, for vectors. It does have vectoring capabilities, but not all the features that Illustrator and Inkscape do. To get the top one to look like the bottom, you have to resize it up instead of zooming in.
Raster-based image editors, such as Photoshop and GIMP, revolve around editing pixels, unlike vector-based image editors, such as CorelDRAW, Adobe Illustrator, or Inkscape, which revolve around editing lines and shapes (vectors).
hey, select your art which you wanna create first :D
post #66431 (vector draw + raster paint)
post #66475 (maybe full vector?)
resolution? or quality?
post #66431 (vector draw + raster paint)
post #66475 (maybe full vector?)
resolution? or quality?
Okay, lemme try this a bit differently. I fear I have been gravely misunderstood.
This is how Wikipedia defines "vector graphics":
The whole point of vectoring, as I always thought, was to create scalable graphics. Photoshop has this capability. If you want to use the pen tool+paths and stroke/fill your lines, that's totally different and all raster based, but that isn't what I'm talking about.
I haven't said Photoshop is the best program for vectoring, nor have I even said Photoshop is a vector-based program ('cause it isn't), but it DOES (unless Adobe is lying) possess BASIC (key word here) vectoring capabilities.
For example, Winamp is mostly thought of as an audio player, but that doesn't mean it can't be used for playing video. It doesn't have a screencap option (to the best of my knowledge), and its original purpose wasn't designed specifically for video playback, but that doesn't mean it can't play video at all.
This is how Wikipedia defines "vector graphics":
This is how Adobe (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSFC1ADF5B-7FC2-472c-A823-8696008CECA8a.html) defines "Vector shapes" for use in Photoshop:Vector graphics is the use of geometrical primitives such as points, lines, curves, and shapes or polygon(s), which are all based upon mathematical equations, to represent images in computer graphics.
If you use the pen tool+shape layers to draw something in Photoshop, it will not create pixels, it will create a shape layer that is "resolution-independent" using "points and curves". If you rasterize this shape layer, it becomes like any other layer in Photoshop. It is no longer resolution-independent; it cannot be scaled down or up because it is no longer a vector. As long as the shape layer is not rasterized, it remains resolution-independent and is defined as a "vector."Vector shapes are lines and curves you draw using the shape or pen tools. Vector shapes are resolution-independent—they maintain crisp edges when resized, printed to a PostScript printer, saved in a PDF file, or imported into a vector-based graphics application. You can create libraries of custom shapes and edit a shape’s outline (called a path) and attributes (such as stroke, fill color, and style). ... The mode you choose to draw in determines whether you create a vector shape on its own layer, a work path on an existing layer, or a rasterized shape on an existing layer.
The whole point of vectoring, as I always thought, was to create scalable graphics. Photoshop has this capability. If you want to use the pen tool+paths and stroke/fill your lines, that's totally different and all raster based, but that isn't what I'm talking about.
I haven't said Photoshop is the best program for vectoring, nor have I even said Photoshop is a vector-based program ('cause it isn't), but it DOES (unless Adobe is lying) possess BASIC (key word here) vectoring capabilities.
For example, Winamp is mostly thought of as an audio player, but that doesn't mean it can't be used for playing video. It doesn't have a screencap option (to the best of my knowledge), and its original purpose wasn't designed specifically for video playback, but that doesn't mean it can't play video at all.
bottom line : photoshop sucks for any serious vector attempt other than wallpaper-shit !
How to draw a vector? Easy, be patient, that's all.
For beginner, I recommand use PhotoShop, it's simple and easy to use.
For who have some skills, I recommand they use Illustrator, it's much powerful than PhotoShop.
Some people says PhotoShop sucks for vector, but hey, PhotoShop is a image process software, not a drawing software like others, isn't it? : )
If you wanna see full vector pics, you can serch the tag "Dancing_Blade_Kattenimomotenshi" or "Momohime", thats what I done vector drawing by using PhotoShop.
For beginner, I recommand use PhotoShop, it's simple and easy to use.
For who have some skills, I recommand they use Illustrator, it's much powerful than PhotoShop.
Some people says PhotoShop sucks for vector, but hey, PhotoShop is a image process software, not a drawing software like others, isn't it? : )
If you wanna see full vector pics, you can serch the tag "Dancing_Blade_Kattenimomotenshi" or "Momohime", thats what I done vector drawing by using PhotoShop.
asterixvader
if that's not the correct way of vectoring, it's ok. i'm not too into it.