Raster erstellen in Illustrator?

Guten Tag,
ich habe eine Frage. Und zwar würde ich gerne ein Bild erstellen (a3) in Form von Pixeln.
Als Vorlage dachte ich an den neuen Geldschein der Norwegischen Zentralbank:
Neue Geldscheine: Norwegen setzt auf Pixelsalat - N24.de
Ich bin Anfänger noch im Bereich Illustrator und muss für ein Uni-Projekt ein Bild in A3 erstellen und hatte die Idee,
es so aussehen zu lassen wie auf dem oben genannten Link.
Also wie kann ich ein "Pixelraster" erstellen?
Kann man dann für jedes Pixel selber auch die Hintergrundfarbe auswählen?
Ich bedanke mich für die kommenden Antworten!
Chris

Na, dann hast es in den nächsten zwei Minuten fertig, aber nur, wenn der Computer langsam ist und deine Hände gelähmt sind, sonst geht es schneller:
Bild in Illustrator öffnen oder platzieren.
Objekt > Objektmosaik erstellen…
Werte eingeben.
Fertig

Similar Messages

Raster image in Illustrator

I am currently using Illustrator CS4 on Windowd XP.
I am reasonably new to Illustrator having been a Corel user for the last 10 years, so I apologise if this is a simple request.
I have imported a raster image into illustrator and I would like to know the properties of it (ie dpi)
Is there a way of doing this in Illustrator (ie properties box that exists in Corel)
Thanks

Hi Larry,
Many thanks for such a prompt reply.
Much appreciated..
Regards
Eddie Frankel
Technical Officer
Department of Primary Industries
55 Collins Street
Melbourne
GPO Box 4440
Melbourne
Vic. 3001
Phone: 03 9 658 4539
Fax: 03 9 658 4555
Email: [email protected]
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
confidential, legally
privileged and/or copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any
use, disclosure
distribution or reliance on the information contained in this e-mail is
unauthorised.
You should only re-transmit or distribute the information if you are
authorised to do so.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Department of
Primary Industries
by return e-mail and destroy all copies printed or held on any computer.
DPI does not warranty that this e-mail and any attachments are free of
viruses.
"Larry G. Schneider" <[email protected]>
01/04/2010 07:48 AM
Please respond to
[email protected]
To
eddie frankel <[email protected]>
cc
Subject
Raster image in Illustrator
Open the Document Info panel from Window>Document Info. Select the raster
image. From the flyout menu (upper right) select Embedded (or Linked)
images from the dropdown. This will list all the info on size, type and
ppi of the raster image.

How do I USE the slices I generate in Illustrator from "Save for Web"?

I am having trouble understanding slices. I want to save a raster graphic from Illustrator that takes advantage of "slices" to put hyperlinks to certain labels. I am working on a map with about 20 links to a website describing recreation sites shown on the map.
I am able to do this by bringing my map as a graphic into InDesign, and setting up links to text or picture boxes there. I can export an interactive PDF of the map, and the PDF has live links.
but the client's web host can't post the PDF with active links. (client would have to link from a static image to a copy of the PDF on a separate website). We may do this as an interim measure.
So I'd like to go back and figure out how to use slices in Illustrator to do the same thing. I've seen web pages that have a series of sliced-up graphics; I wouldn't wish that on anyone but it's the solution I want to get to.
Illustrator tutorials and help describe how to set up slices, how to type in links in the "slice options" dialogue box (in objects/slices... pulldown menu). And describe how to "save for web" to generate JPEGs or GIFs of the individual slices.
My available options in AI CC 2014 (I checked in CS6 too) are to save the slices as images. (Helpful articles which say to save as HTML and Images...aren't helpful if I don't have that option).
I get a folder called images, that contains about 74 sliced JPEGs of various sizes and shapes. I don't see, nor see an option where I can ask to make...a file that pulls all these together into a single image, with clickable links. There's no HTML file (or way to create one that I can see).
What am I missing? What application would I use to toss this folder's contents together. Or how would I create the HTML or envelope file within Illustrator?
I have entered URLs for links in three or four different places but haven't found a way to export them in such a way that they are actually useful.
Thanks for your help.
Ben PEase

Thanks, I am a print guy, mostly. I've almost figured out CSS for my did-it-myself website, so buttons, actions, slices, etc. are new angles for me. I am hip to the general concept that Adobe likes certain applications to do certain things. It was certainly easier to set up links from InDesign.
In what application would you suggest I DO foolishly create my interactions (raster graphic with multiple links? Does it work any better in Photoshop? The client's web host does the web design (some sort of template thing) so I don't believe I have the option of drawing hot-spots like is (was?) possible in Dreamweaver.
(That may be a question for the web host).
One of the problems with "discontinuing this functionality" is there are about half a dozen how-to guides online that suggest it is still possible to kluge a solution in AI (sometimes in older versions) and it's hard to tell well-executed funtionality from abandoned functionality since Adobe hides instructions in multiple, random dialogue boxes, and left so many of the pieces strewn about the current versions of AI.... How would we really know? But I am not all that surprised they did.

Illustrator document comes in pixelated, before even placing in a comp

I'm stumped on this one, folks:
I created this graphic in illustrator, made up of a pattern of wavy lines. Looks clean and normal in Illustrator, zoomed in at 400%:
However, when imported into After Effects, pulling it up in the footage panel, it looks pixelated at 100% magnification:
(Closer view):
I've tried a number of possible solutions I've seen suggested here and on Creative Cow:
Made sure that the "document raster effects setting" in illustrator is turned way up (currently at 800 ppi)
Turned on anti-alias under "document raster effects setting" in illustrator (makes no difference whether this is on or off)
Made sure that pixel aspect correction isn't enabled in AE
Played with "interpret footage" settings in AE
Tried changing save options in illustrator -- create PDF compatible file/Use compression... neither make a difference
I'm all out of ideas. Is it possible that the illustrator file is TOO COMPLEX for AE to rasterize correctly? It is a very large document, necessary to make it work within my AE comp. (Here it is at 25% zoom in AE for reference):
Any ideas? Note that this is before I even put it into a comp, so "rasterize continuously" is not the source of the problem. Any help would be appreciated!

I can tell from your original post that there is a basic misunderstanding of how vectors are rasterized and interpreted in any video application including Motion, Final Cut, Premiere Pro, Avid... and After Effects.
"I've tried a number of possible solutions I've seen suggested here and on Creative Cow:
Made sure that the "document raster effects setting" in illustrator is turned way up (currently at 800 ppi)
Turned on anti-alias under "document raster effects setting" in illustrator (makes no difference whether this is on or off)
Made sure that pixel aspect correction isn't enabled in AE
Played with "interpret footage" settings in AE
Tried changing save options in illustrator -- create PDF compatible file/Use compression... neither make a difference
I'm all out of ideas. Is it possible that the illustrator file is TOO COMPLEX for AE to handle correctly? "
Let's start with point 1... Document Raster settings in Illustrator set to 800PPI...
Well, there are no inches in video so the PPI will only effect raster effects and raster effects will not continuously rasterize because they are interpreted as pixels. For video work 72 is plenty, 800 will not gain you anything unless you have completely setup your Illustrator project incorrectly for video.
Document Raster effects settings in Illustrator make no difference as I do not see any raster effects in your sample. Raster effects are things like Drop Shadow. It looks like you just have a bunch of wavy lines. If you have a rastor effect applied you do not have a vector image any more.
Too complex is also a misunderstanding of how AE handles vector images. Your paths, though numerous, are simple... no chance the number of paths is causing the problem. So what is?
The lines are too thin... Simple as that. You must be concerned with the stroke width in your illustrator files. It looks like the stroke is set to 1 point. That means 1 pixel. One pixel lines MUST be exactly lined up with the pixel grid to rasterize properly. There's no way around that limitation. NONE. Change your document settings in Illustrator to pixels instead of points and you'll see what I mean. Your lines don't look ailiased or blocky to me, they look like 1 piel width lines not following the pixel grid perfectly. The behavior is completely normal.
Here's how you should set up an Illustrator file for video work.
In illustrator, document setup should be in pixels not points, or inches or anything else.
Artboard size should be set to be big enough to include every element you wish to include in an AE comp. IOW, if you want to push in in AE to 1/4 of your illustration then the artboard should be 4X the size of the comp.
Strokes must be at least 2 pixels wide. This will guarantee that when your illustration is viewed at 100% scale AE will have a chance of antialiasing any curved lines. 1 pixel wide curved or diagonal lines cannot be rastorized into a smooth line.
If you plan to scale down your image then you must compensate in your design so that the lines will scale down without problems. This thicker strokes. Scale to 50% and your stroke needs to be 4 pixels or 4 points to work well.
You should have snap to pixels on, do pixel previews in Illustrator, and accurately position your vector lines precisely in Illustrator to minimize problems.
Inside AE you should select your AI layers in the project panel and then go to Interpret Footage, More Options, and set antaliasing to more accurate.
I hope this helps you.
The wavy line pattern is going to cause all kinds of moray and interference problems when you move it across the screen because of the changes in aliasing as the lines move across the pixel grid and are interpreted as pixels. This is also a guaranteed problem with the design. It can be mitigated by fattening up the stroke and by using an expression to make sure all movement is exactly on an even pixel.
You still have to worry about retinal retention, stroboscopic effects due to frame rate and pixel motion, and moray patterns caused by the human eye and brain combination. Read this article from this forum's FAQ for more information on that. Our brains don't like to look at moving repetitive patterns. Try slowly moving your eyes across the red checkered table cloth the next time you eat in an Italian restaurant and you'll see what I mean.

Illustrator vs. InDesign for a VERY early starter

Hello, I'm a highschooler and I am just starting to get into some Graphic Design. I've always done lots of drawing and other art, but I'm just starting on graphic design. Up to this point, I've only used some freeware online like SumoPaint and a program from Aviary if you are familiar with those. I do have a Bamboo tablet that I am starting to use but I need some advice. I'm a little confused as to what software I should get to begin with. I always thought that Illustrator is like the must have program, but I'm now hearing about InDesign and I'm kind of confused now. I want a program that I can use for logo design along with having some realistic pressure sensitive brushes to start to get into some portrait drawing. I don't know if that is a little off the wall or not, but that is what I do with my drawing now, so I would like to try it on a computer.
I really just need someone to explain the very basics for me. What software I need to start out, and where I should go from there with my hobby. I would really appreciate any help you can give me, and feel free to ask any more questions about what I want in a program, etc. THANK YOU!

If I do maybe want to get into logo design and stuff like that, would not having vector graphics in photoshop be a problem?
Yes. In most cases, commercial indentity graphics (corporate and product logos) are almost always vector graphics, because such keystone graphics especially require the resolution-independance (scaleability) and repurpose-versatility and accuracy (mathematical definition) of vector graphics.
Also, how easy is it to transfer images between Photoshop and Illustrator?
Depend on the specifics. The how-to of "transfering" elements between raster and vector programs is not difficult. That's not the issue. The issue is knowing when and why it is appropriate to do so. You don't generally do alot of repetitive back-and-forth between raster and vector programs within a project. You typically take a few elements from one and use it in the other.
Raster Elements In A Vector Environment
A vector drawing program is much like a page-layout program in that it "assembles" a graphic as a stack of individual, independent objects. Those objects can be text objects, raster objects, or vector paths (but are usually mostly a stack of vector paths). So generally speaking, you might include raster images as some of the individual objects in a vector illustration, much as you would include a raster graphic in a page-layout program.
Vector Elements In A Raster Environment
Despite a few areas of overlap for convenience, a raster imaging program is still ultimately all about ending up with one raster image (bitmap). It is often expedient and more accurate to draw shapes as vector paths in a full-blown vector drawing program, then transfer those paths to a raster program to incorporate them into the rest of a raster image, than to draw the paths in the raster program. But the salient point is, those vector paths almost always become rasterized as part of the single, "flattened" final raster image that you export from the raster program.
If I wanted to do part of a logo in vector graphics and then touch up some parts in photoshop, is this easy to do?
Inappropriate. You don't "touch up" vector paths in Photoshop, and have them remain vector paths. You often bring vector paths into Photoshop as part of a workflow, the end result of which is going to be a raster image.
In other words, in the context of your question, the vector paths you may bring into Photoshop are technically going to be used to serve as temporary selections of pixels in the raster environment. The "touch up" modifications you would perform in Photoshop are actually just "repainting" of the raster pixels that were selected by the vector paths.
Bottom line
You need to consider it equally important to become fully proficient with both raster and vector graphics. If you know only one or the other, you will be at a debilitating disadvantage as an illustrator.
Regarding page layout programs (like InDesign): Think of these as "assembly" programs, in which you combine raster images, vector illustrations, and text into final print-ready whole-document layouts. This is key: Because of their both being more object-based than raster imaging programs, it is far more practical to use a vector drawing program for whole-document page-layout tasks than a raster program.
So regarding page-layout, the difference between vector illustration programs and so-called page-layout programs is mostly a matter of project scope. Page layout programs assume significantly high page count, large amounts of text, and repetitive design layouts. So they focus heavily on automation of text-heavy content, "master"-based layout features, and linking to many external files.
But the vast majority of projects for the vast majority of freelance illustrators/designers (even for those who haven't really thought about it) are not of the high-page-count, repetitive-layout, external-links-dependent nature. The vast majority of whole-document projects (as opposed to individual graphics) handled by freelancers are single-sheet fliers, folded brochures, etc. Those projects are just as practical--in fact, usually more practical--to complete in the vector drawing program than in the conventional-wisdom "page-layout" program.
So avoid the common falacy of thinking in terms of "Do I need Photoshop or Illustrator?" You need both. Instead, think in terms of "Do I need Illustrator and InDesign?" If you're primarily focussed on illustration and do not anticipate working on relatively high-page-count, text-intensive document assembly, you probably don't need InDesign. You will still be able to produce whole-document designs such as fliers, brochures, small booklets, trade show graphics packages, and much more, but will have a full set (well, as "full" as one is inclined to call Illustrator) of vector illustration tools.
JET

Logo created in cs6 and I need to either clone it or export it to illustrator...

So I have created a logo in CS6...
I would like to use the logo on a letterhead but when the letter is saved as a pdf the letterhead is pixelated. The logo is text only with effects on the lettering.
I need be able to either export the logo into illustrator and convert it to a vector image or recreate it.
My issue #1
I would prefer to export the .psd file to illustrator but when I do it is very pixelated...
My issue #2
I am not very familiar with illustrator and I cant seem to recreate the file...
Does anyone have any ideas?

John Mensinger wrote:
My issue #1
I would prefer to export the .psd file to illustrator but when I do it is very pixelated...
That indicates the size and resolution of the original are inadequate. Besides, just putting a raster image in Illustrator doesn't make it vector art, so even if it was of adequate size and resolution, you'd still have an obstacle to overcome.
I am not very familiar with illustrator and I cant seem to recreate the file...
The bevel/emboss effect you applied to the X isn't (effectively) available in the vector realm, and, the drop shadow on the rest would be a raster effect, even if the text was vector.
I would have to assume you are pursuing a vector conversion because you've been advised that one or another output method requires vector artwork. So consider that the process which demands vector art is incompatible with raster effects too, (not just full raster images), so you may have to give them up for this particular application.
So there's no way to actually get that bevel/emboss effect as a vector?

Resolution of 600 DPI and Illustrator

Someone would like a small 1 inch by 1 inch logo for invoices at 600 DPI. However I understand that illustrator doesnt work in DPI or PPI since it's vector. Would I have to transfer the small image over to photoshop. I did try and save a 1 inch by 1 inch logo at 600 PPI, however when I saved the image it was no longer 1 inch by 1 inch. It had increased significantly in size regardless of what file format I saved the image as.
I would really appreciate help in this matter as Im unsure how to proceed.
Thanks

Its confusing to say the least!
Here's a universal truth that will help aleviate the confusion:
Think about this term: Pixels Per Inch.
Per Inch. You have some things (pixels). A given number of them occupy a given distance (an inch).
How do you do that? By scaling the things (pixels) so that a desired number of them fit within a given distance (inch).
Per Inch is just a scaling value. Understand and remember that universal truth, and it will clear up alot of the confusion.
Once a raster image is saved, it contains a fixed number of pixels. In order to draw a given number of the image's pixels within a measured distance, the raster image has to be scaled. Change the scale of the image, and you change the number of its pixels which occupy a measured distance.
Now be aware of these universal truths (aka facts):
Raster image file formats are different. Some formats record in the file the intended scaling value (if one is provided) that is in effect when the file is saved. Others don't.
Programs which export raster images are different. Some programs write the scaling value into the raster image file (if the raster image format supports that). Others don't.
Programs which import raster images are different. Some programs pay attention to the stored scaling value (if any). Others ignore it.
Someone would like a small 1 inch by 1 inch logo...
First issue: Is the logo square? Is the design's height equal to its width?
...for invoices...
This suggests that "someone" intends to import the raster image into some program used for invoices. That could be any of a kazillion different programs, from Word to Excel, to FileMaker Pro, to QuickBooks, to....you name it (but you didn't). You always need to know your customers' intended usage and be at least somewhat familiar with the target software's capabilities regarding importing artwork.
...at 600 DPI....
This suggests that "someone" wants a raster image with a color depth of 1-bit. That means a raster image in which each pixel can be either black or white, and nothing else. This is suggested because that is a commonly-used scale factor for 1-bit raster images that are intended for use in common programs like office applications which have very limited graphics import capability, and because it is the most common hardware resolution of most office laser printers. In other words, 1-bit raster images scaled to 600 PPI is a kind of "lowest common denominator" for commonplace office environments.
But the above suggestion is based on the assumption that "someone" knows what he/she is talking about, which is never a safe assumption. If the image is of any color depth higher than 1-bit, then 600 PPI is ridiculous. In other words, if the image file contains any pixels of any color at all, then 600 PPI is absurd for use as an invoice imprint. This is because any higher color-depth image will have to be halftone screened by the printer in order to render it with any decent-looking fidelity. That means rendering the image as a grid of variable-size dots. But the printer cannot actually print variable-size dots. It only prints fixed-size printer spots. To render variable-size halftone dots, it "fakes it" by "building them up" out of its fixed-size printer spots.
Moreover, even if the logo (the actual design) contains nothing but black and white, but you save the raster image file at a higher color-depth anyway, then 600 PPI is still just as ridiculous. Grayscale, RGB, and CMYK raster images are saved with a color depth of 8 bits per pixel per channel. When the printing device receives an 8-bit image, it is going to try to screen it (print it as halftone dots). That means that the printer will not use one printer spot for each pixel, but several. So there is no reason to provide as many image pixels as printer spots that the printing device can physically print in one inch--unless the image is not going to be rendered by halftone (or stochastic) screening (i.e.; a 1-bit image).
However I understand that illustrator doesnt work in DPI or PPI since it's vector.
But Illustrator's raster export filters do indeed work in PPI, because they are exporting raster images, which are nothing but pixels. In order to export a raster-based rendering of the vector-based artwork (which is all a raster image is), Illustrator has to write some number of pixels into the raster image file.
Your vector-based path is a mathematical description of a curve. In order to render it as a raster image file, or even to print it on a printer, or even to display it on your computer monitor as you work in Illustrator, it has to be rendered as pixels. In effect, your vector-based paths are "overlaid" onto a grid of pixels. The pixels which land inside the path are turned on. The pixels ouside the path are turned off. This is basically what occurs when a vector path is printed, when a vector path is exported to a raster image, or even on-the-fly while you view your vector paths on your monitor.
That's what vector-based paths are: Mathematical instructions to determine which squares of a raster grid to turn on.
In other words, all vector-based artwork is eventually rasterized; it's just a question of when. The scaleability advantage of vector graphics does not derive from the myth that it does not involve raster-based imaging; it derives from the fact that the rasterization is postponed until output time.
In still other words, all your vector-based artwork is going to be overlaid onto a raster grid, the squares of that grid will be colored accordingly, and that finished raster image is all anyone is ever going to see of your vector-based formulae. It's just that which grid is to be overlaid is left undetermined until the "overlay" is performed.
So when you export your vector-based artwork to a rastter-based image format, that's what you're doing: You're telling Illustrator to overlay the vector paths onto a particular raster-based grid (so many rows, so many columns of pixels, at some scale).
That's the difference between vector-based artwork and raster-based artwork: A raster image is a pre-determined rectangular grid of a fixed number of color values. A vector graphic is a set of mathematically-described shapes which can be overlaid onto any rectangular grid, so that the number of color values is dependent upon the particular grid used, be it the grid of your monitor's pixels, the grid of a printer's spots, or the grid of a raster image file that you export.
Would I have to transfer the small image over to photoshop.
No, you can export directly from Illustrator to any of several common raster formats.
I did try and save a 1 inch by 1 inch logo at 600 PPI, however when I saved the image it was no longer 1 inch by 1 inch. It had increased significantly in size regardless of what file format I saved the image as.
It "had significantly increased in size" where? When viewed in what program?
When this occurs, the raster image is simply not being scaled so that its pixels measure 1/600th of an inch. As explained above, some raster image formats do not record the scaling value. Even if the raster image file does record the intended scaling value, some programs into which you import the raster image will ignore it.
So since you can't really control whether the scaling factor is going to be ignored, to meet the stated requirements (600 PPI when scaled to 1 inch), you simply need to concern yourself with providing the correct number of pixels and it's up to the recipient's software to scale them to the desired measure.
For example, if your vector-based artwork measures 1 inch according to Illustrator's rulers, then export the raster image at 600 PPI. If your vector-baed artwork measures 2 inches according to Illustrator's rulers, then export a raster image at 300 PPI, and you'll be exporting the same number of pixels. You can either do the math, or you can simply export a raster image by specifying the desired number of pixels directly.
But do not forget to consider the question of color-depth. 600 PPI at final rendering scale is not necessary for anything other than a 1-bit image.
If the logo in question consists of nothing but a single solid color:
In Illustrator, scale it to 1 inch.
Do not color it. Use only solid black and white fills and strokes. No grayscale. No graduated fills, strokes.
Export it to a raster image format at 600 pixels (in the measured direction), with a color depth of 1-bit. You can do this by either specifying the nubmer of pixels, or by specifying the scale factor, 600 PPI. Understand, this means using a raster image format which supports 1-bit (for example, TIFF) and which the recipient's program can import. (Most common office productivity programs can import TIFF.)
When the recipient imports it into his invoice program, if it appears enlarged, it just means his program is ignoring the embedded scale factor. He can just scale it to 1" and it will then be 600 PPI.
The above scenario is common. A typical 600 SPI (printer Spots Per Inch) laser printer will turn on one of its printer spots for each black pixel in the image, thereby rendering the image as accurately as it can.
But even if the logo contains no graduated tones, and you apply some color to it (the recipient's logo spec color, for example), then you'll have to export it to a higher color depth in order to include that color. Even if you export it as grayscale, you will still be exporting 8-bit color values for each pixel. In that case, it may look fine on the recipient's monitor, but when he prints it, the printer will have to screen the image in order to render it using halftone dots which, again, are larger than actual printer spots.
The same applies, even if you use only solid black in the design but still export it to a higher color depth (grayscale, RGB, or CMYK) raster image. The recipient's printer is going to recognize the incoming raster image as 8-bits of data per pixel and assume that it has to halftone it; so again, it will not be printing one printer spot for each image pixel.
All this is why Illustrator's so-called "Save For Microsoft Office" feature is really nothing but another interface for its PNG export filter. Many AI users (mostly beginners) want to do the impossible: export their Illustrator drawings to something that ordinary office programs can import, display, and print with fidelity.
But that's really a pipe-dream. Office applications don't understand the kind of vector-based curve math which Illustrator (and all similar programs) generate. So the Save For Office interface resorts to a raster image export.
Office users don't understand the caveats and limitations of CMYK color mode, lossy JPEG compression, or color depth and don't want to have to muck with them. They just want something that they can plop into their word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation programs and have it "look good" on screen and when printed on their low-resolution office inkjets and laser printers.
Too many Illustrator users also don't want to have to think about color depth.
So the Save For Office interface defaults to RGB PNG, turns off transparency (even though PNG supports it) because some specific Microsoft Office apps before a particular version have a problem with it, and does not present the user with much in the way of other PNG-capable options (such as 1-bit grayscale).
Why am I bringing this up? To point out that Adobe's own default and explicit "recommended" export for office-type programs is an 8-bit RGB format which, again, obviates the appropriateness of 600 PPI. In RGB, 300 ppi provides more than enough pixels for the office-using recipient to scale the image to 400% without evident pixelation because even 150 PPI is higher than the screen ruling of most office printers.
So 600 PPI at the actual final on-page scale is sensible for simple office uses like ploping a black logo onto a form like an invoice that is goingto be printed in one ink (or toner) assuming 1-bit color depth; but not otherwise.
JET

Getting lines between colors in Illustrator

Hi,
I have a problem and I'm looking for some advice. I dropped a raster image into Illustrator (AI) and with Live Trace, turned it into a vector image that looks excellent on my monitor. However, when I load the vector file into a PDF and then open the PDF, I see small, light gray hairlines between the colors.
I'm making a product label for a client. He wants a particular photograph (JPEG) for the background. The printing house wants vector images in CMYK.
I'm fairly new to AI and probably not using "approved methods" although I took what I thought were logic steps to achieve my desired end.
I took the RGB JPEG, converted it to a .tiff in CMYK. I also tried converting the JPEG to .bmp and .esp - all in CMYK, before moving to AI. I Also tried placing the JPEG directly into AI.
I dropped those images into Illustrator separately and did Live Traces on each. At this stage, each attempt gave me excellent vector images in CMYK, but went wonky when I transfer to PDF.
Oddly, when I make a hard copy of that PDF on a hi rez digital printer (2400 dpi), the lines do not appear. However, I am still very concerned about those lines, because I will be sending a job off to be done on four-color offset printing. I'm sure the printer will freak out if he sees those lines and I am even more concerned that those lines may show up in the four-colour print process.
A local graphics person I spoke with suggested I would find my solution in Pathfinder, but I tinkered with that feature quite a bit and could not resolve the problem. Although, I wonder yet if that may be where I might find the solution, because when I hit Expand the blue path lines seem to correspond with the troublesome gray lines.
Someone else told me to hit Expand and then turn off Stroke. I believe I did that correctly, but there was no difference. I also saw no difference when I applied the maximum value for the Stroke. Other attempts at finding a remedy included Resample deselected, then Resample with a resolution of 300,
This project is driving me nuts and I'm hoping I can find some help.
Matt

@ Gustavo
I did not attempt going back to Photoshop with the PDF, but when I loaded that PDF into AI, the lines were not there.....strange!
As you will note from the above comments, I have found a solution to my problem, but I am posting an enlarged screenshot of part of an image showing these lines, just so you'll see the snag ran into.
Now, if anyone else asks about this, you'll be able to help them avoid the frustration I encountered.
Matt

Illustrator files soft?

Hello Forum
I'm learning my way around after effects and Illustrator CS4.
Why is it that when I import .ai files into After Effects, the vectors appear soft? somwhere along the lines the vectors seem to be converted to bitmap. I remember back in After Effects 5 there was a vector button in the timeline that one could enable to sharpen the vector lines. I can't find it anymore in CS4...
I'm importing outlines, no fonts.
Any insight is appreciated.
Thank you.
sk

In the Switches column in the timeline, the second switch from the left, you'll find the continuously rasterize icon. It looks like a little sun. Turn it on, and providing that the composition window is set to Full resolution and Pixel Aspect Ratio Correction is turned off for non square PAR comps, your vector layers will look sharp in the Comp window and render just fine.
Some effects applied to Illustrator objects force rasterization of these layers in After Effects. In this case you can change the document raster settings in Illustrator and re-save the file to make them behave better, or you can remove the layer effects that are causing the problems and duplicate the effect in AE. There are no layer effects that force rasterization that cannot be duplicated inside AE.

Why do vector objects copied from illustrator cc don't stay the same dimensions when pasted into pho

I think the problem started with the last updates. The normal work flow of copy and paste no longer functions correctly.
Photshop is changing the dimensions of vector artwork copied from illustrator, and pasted to photoshop.
If I start with a 6in x 6in vector shape in illustrator, and select copy, I should be able to go into photoshop, select file and then new,
and the document should automaticly get the dimensions from the clipboard. For some reason that 6in x 6in opens a 0.6in x 0.6in document.
Even if i manually change the document to 6in x 6in, anything else I copy from illustrator larger than 6in x 6in gets its dimensions changed to fit inside the document. I cant copy and paste a 10in x 2in vector into the 6in x 6in document without photoshop changing the dimensions
so it fits inside the document. Any ideas on how to fix? Thanks.

illustrator has no dpi, that info wont copy to the clip board. There are setting within illustrator you can set so when you do raster something in illustrator, you can pick what dpi it will raster it to. But even if you raster something in illustrator, the dpi info doesn't copy to the clipboard.
The Photoshop: File, New, opens a window with the default set to pixels and 72ppi. When you have something stored on the clipboard, First you change the pixels to inches, cm, mm, anything but pixels, the dimensions stay locked in and Then you can change the ppi to anything you want.
The issue once the file is opened, and you try to copy and paste in something larger than the canvas still needs corrected. I have found a quick work around. After you paste it, before you select ok or hit enter, look at the info where it displays the % of the size of what's being placed.
It shows it at less than 100%, so change it to 100% (and constrain) and its back to original size.

Photoshop into Illustrator

Hi all,
I have saved an image as a EPS file from Photoshop CS3, I open Illustrator with my background image I have made. I then load up the EPS file in Illustrator CS3 go to Edit>Copy. But when I paste it over the the background image I get the image and the artbaord.
So how do I just paste the image into Illustrator without any artboards?
Thankyou josel

It's not a good idea to open raster images using Illustrator. beter to link. If the image has layers in Photoshop, save as PDF. If not, then save as TIF. In a new Illustrator file, go to File > Place and place the file that way. You probably would be better off linking to the PSD or TIF in Illustrator instead of embedding, so turn on Link in the Place dialogue.

Illustrator-photoshop pixel scale integration

If I export to a jpg file an Illustrator created object that measures via the ruler 5 pixels (appx.) length and then open that file in Photoshop, the object is 50 pixels (appx.) in length. Then if I try to compensate by reducing the scale of the Photoshop object by 1/10, the object fuzzes out and loses its features. Anyone know how to sustain the scale of an Illustrator created object opened in Photoshop? I'm not interested in the kluge solution of beginning with an Illustrator object 50 pixels in length.

Scott has answered your question. I'll give this all-too-frequent confusion another shot:
First, think Photoshop:
All Photoshop does is arrange a bunch of color values in rows and columns. Each "cell" in this array is a color value; nothing more.
A pixel is NOT a measure. It's just a color value. It has no intrinsic size. A pixel can be scaled to any measure you want it to be. That's what you are doing when you resize (not resample) an image in Photoshop; you are telling Photoshop to scale each pixel in the image to a new size, in the form of so-many-pixels-per-actual-unit-of-measure (most commonly, PPI; Pixels Per Inch).
Do you see that?
Pixels per Inch.
Pixels per Inch.
"Pixel" is just a color square. "Inch" is an actual measure. A pixel has no measure whatsoever until you scale it to an actual unit of measure. Without the "per whatever" the pixels in your image have no size.
When it all comes down, a Photoshop file contains one raster image. All the pixels in that image are scaled to the same measure. You can't grab a subset of the pixels and scale them to a different measure. Hold on...yes, I know Photoshop's interface lets you pretend to do that, but trust me, you can't. When you select a bunch of pixels and "scale" them, as soon as you commit the change, the actual pixels in the image are just recolored.
Because all the pixels in a Photoshop document are scaled the same, when the ruler is set to "Pixels," the ruler can be thought of as counting pixels.
Now, think Illustrator:
Illustrator individually arranges, scales, rotates, and distorts any number of entirely separate objects. Those individual objects can be text objects, path objects, or raster objects. Again, they can be individually scaled. So you can place a raster image in Illustrator and scale it so that its pixels measure 1/100th of an inch (100 PPI). You can place that same raster image again in the same Illustrator file and scale it so that its pixels measure 1/300th of an inch (300 PPI). Both instances of that image still have the same number of pixels. But they will not "measure" the same, even if you set Illustrator's rulers to "Pixels."
Because each raster image in an Illustrator file can be independently scaled to any size, when the ruler is set to "Pixels," the ruler cannot legitimately be thought of as counting pixels.
The rulers in Illustrator always represent real-world, physical measure for whatever eventual output method/environment the file is intended. Because "pixel" is not an actual measure, the use of "Pixels" as a supposed "unit of measure" is completely bogus. It's just an ill-conceived "convenience" for those who want the rulers to represent how many pixels the file will be rasterized to, if and when the whole thing is exported as a single raster image.
All too often--especially in Illustrator--supposed "convenience" features become time-wasting "confusion" features. The assumption of this particular "convenience" is that the user already understands all of the above. As is painfully evidenced by the frequency of recurrance of this very same topic in this forum, that assumption is as bogus as pretending that "pixel" is a unit of measure.
In other words, the people who are the target of this "intuitive convenience" (newcomers to vector programs dragging along some comfort-level in raster programs) are the very ones most likely to be confused by it, and the net result is anything but intuitive.
Since "pixel" is absolutely not a unit of measure, and since Illustrator's rulers always represent an actual measure, what is the actual measure being represented when one sets Illustrator's rulers to "Pixels"? The actual unit of measure is the typographer's point. A [modern] point measures 1/72 of an inch. When you set Illustrator's rulers to "Pixels," you are really setting them to Points.
I don't know which program actually started this particular interface idiocy, but Illustrator is far from the only vector drawing program that commits it. They should all be burned at the stake.
JET

Creating illustrations for large sizes, which software to use?

Hello everybody,
I'm an amateur, its my first discussion here,
My team from work will start a big project, we will build a space for visitors to an event. We will need several illustrations plots for the walls, the drawings has sizes like 6, 7 meters (width), with vectors and photos (jpeg, eps files). I have some experience with Ilustrator, but theres no way to create files larger than 577.95. Before I start, I want to hear your opinion about the best Adobe software to create these large size illustrations.

I second that. Setup your Illustrator File at 25%. Your Photoshop files will be 600ppi @ 25%; so their final ppi will be 150 @ 100%; suitable for large format digital printing. Raster/Document settings ( illustrator ) should be set for high res or custom where any raster effects will retain their appearance when scaled 400%. You might be able to prep your files @ 50%; if so, just adjust resolutions.

What to learn? Illustrator, InDesign, or something else more appropriate?

Hello All,
I couldn't find an appropriate place to post this discussion, but I thought I would start here as I saw a similar discussion in this forum.
I have been a musician for a long time, running my own ensemble, but recently I have decided to pursue a path in arts administration, a sector in which I have moderate experience.
Still going to keep my music and ensemble going, but to bolster my resume as well as my skills to help my own ensemble, I've decided to take classes and pursue certification in web/graphic design at a local Art/Design college.
These days arts administration job postings seem to be looking for candidates that also have some digital media skills.
I'm starting off with a basic web design classes to become familiar with Dreamweaver, HTML, CSS.
This Art/Design College also offers courses in Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop. I will probably next take Photoshop, but wondering whether to take Illustrator or InDesign, or something else?
I think I understand what the two do, but would appreciate real world advice. I could take both, but I am wondering if I would spread myself too thin?
These arts admin jobs are probably looking for someone that can update/maintain websites, prepare images/videos/audio for websites; but also probably someone who can create simple flyers and brochures if needed. That is when I thought of InDesign. I also assume that InDesign also helps in preparation of pdf/documents for websites?
But I am also interested in Illustrator because for my ensemble, we occasionally create moderate-sized banners as stage design elements, and as lobby displays. I often hired a designer to create some new artwork, do the layout, and prepare the files for printing on a large format printer. It would be nice to have a little more control in the whole process, so I thought I might learn Illustrator, but it seems like InDesign covers some of these tasks... ??
I don't know if I am very much off the mark in the functionality of these two. Both seem very interesting, and both probably useful in both my marketability in the job market and my personal work. But I would probably feel more comfortable become very proficient in one rather than a novice in both. I would take both if many people here find good reason to do so.
Any guidance would be appreciated...

There are basically two different kinds of computer graphics: raster-based (arrays of pixels) and vector-based (stacks of mathematically-defined paths).
Web-centric work is overwhelmingly more dependent upon simple raster images.
Several technologies enable the web to deliver vector-based artwork. Websites which do that are generally more sophisticated.
Photoshop (and programs like it) is for creating/editing raster images.
Illustrator (and programs like it) is for creating/editing vector-based graphics.
( By the way, you seem to have overlooked video, which is becoming as ubiquitous a content type as the other two.)
Then, there are programs dedicated to "page assembly"; the work of combining raster artwork, vector artwork, and text into finished whole documents.
InDesign (and programs like it) is primarily for page assembly of documents destined for commercial print.
Dreamweaver is primarily for "page assembly" of web pages.
However:
Programs like InDesign and programs like Illustrator are far more similar than you'll commonly hear from conventional-wisdom. Both so-called "page layout" programs and "vector drawing" programs are what I try to explain as "object based" (not to be confused with the term 'object oriented programming', which is another thing entirely). That is, they both create documents containing stacks and arrangements of individual and independent objects. Those objects can be any combination of text objects, raster objects, and vector objects.
The difference in that regard is this:
Programs like InDesign are almost entirely geared toward assembly of moderate-to-high page-count "bookish" print documents containing long threaded text stories, and repetitive page layouts.
Programs like Illustrator are ostensibly geared toward creation of vector-based artwork. But the truth of the matter is, they are really just as much intended for (and just as frequently used for) whole page design as for standalone illustration.
The vast majority of "page layout" projects are more graphics-intensive than text-intensive, involve low-page count, and less-repetitive page-to-page design. In other words, placement ads, fliers, mailers, brochures, business cards, stationery, etc., etc. The typical freelance illustrator/designer produces far more of these types of projects in a year than the kinds of "bookish" projects which programs like InDesign expedite. And the "dirty little secret" is: It's actually more efficient to build these kinds of common whole-document design projects in a decent so-called "vector drawing" program than in a conventional-wisdom "page layout" program.
Here's The Thing:
The fact is, all of Adobe's core applications (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign) had their beginnings in the days of the desktop-publishing "revolution" of the mid-80s. They are all highly print-oriented. They have all gradually acquired over the intervening decades more "me, too" web-centric features. But the truth is, no one seriously uses Illustrator or InDesign for generating finished web pages. These programs are still primarily rooted in content creation for print. It's just that once you've created a graphic for print, it's a simple thing to dumb it down to re-purpose it for web.
And that's actually a good thing, because…
Here's The Other Thing:
The vast majority of commerical enterprises which buy graphics and design do not only market themselves on the web. Despite decades-old buzzword claims to the contrary, print is very, very far from "dead." And the ugly truth is, when you are creating graphics for a both print and web delivery, it makes far, far more sense to develop for print first, web second. Understand; I said graphics.
Here's The Other Other Thing:
Anyone seriously involved in computer graphics in general (whether for web or print) needs to be at least well-versed and intelligently conversant in all three functions: Raster imaging, vector graphics, and page assemby, and how they relate.
Beyond that, anyone seriously involved in print publishing also needs to be at least conversant in print-centric technicalities. Color separation. Halftoning. Process color versus spot color. Ink on paper. Color correction versus color calibration. The vast majority of print-centric content creation is done in programs like Adobe's core applications. But courses which merely teach how to use a specific graphics software, typically merely touch upon those other very important related technical subjects.
Beyond that, anyone seriously involved in web publishing also needs to be at least conversant in web-centric technologies. Nowadays, basic HTML and CSS is not enough. It's big-yawn, archaic kid-stuff. The days of the dumb, standalone web page are numbered. Nowadays there's client-side scripting (Javascript), server-side scripting (PHP), and database back-ends (SQL) and all of these are becoming ubiquitous, even for fairly modest websites.
Back To The Three Basics
So the "big three" fundamental functions (raster images, vector graphics, page assembly) are just that—fundamental. For the vast majority of basic web use, creation of raster and vector graphics is much less technically demanding than for print. They are really rather mundane, and can be done with programs far less expensive and requiring far less time to learn. There exists a plethora of raster imaging and vector drawing programs. Some good and widely-used ones can be had for free (GIMP, InkScape).
As for web page assembly, Dreamweaver is sort of "last of the dying breed" of WYSIWYG web page layout applications. These factors are at play:
As mentioned above, even modest websites nowadays need data-driven functionality. Making a page clean and attractive is just basic design principles. Meanwhile, let's face it: There's only so many arrangements within the rectangle of a web browser window that make good sense for clean, clear, intuitive, and efficient navigation.
Meanwhile, the average-joe web developer just doesn't have time to continually re-invent the drop-down menu wheel. There won't be anything special or innovative about it anyway (and even if it were, it would be more annoying to users than anything else). He's too busy figuring out the schema of delivering the content. 'I need this kind of data to be organized and accesible by this kind of visitor. I need this particular story to be editable by this particular in-house staffer, who knows nothing about HTML code. My customer needs to be able to routinely upload data refreshes, and he doesn't have time to know web code either.'
Also meanwhile, people have grown weary of continually "upgrading" their WYSIWYG web editor to get a few piecemeal proprietary features, each with its own proprietary interface and learning curve.
So the simple "practicality vaccuum" of it all has given rise to open source server-side WYSIWYG website assembly tool (Joomla, WordPress, etc.) which provide robust SQL data-driven functionality, and do it for free. These kinds of solutions are quickly supplanting the position of traditional web editors like Dreamweaver.
Bottom line:
If I were in your shoes, and really did intend to focus entirely on direction of web-centric advertising, marketing, and graphics, I really woudn't be all that concerned with specifically-Adobe apps anyway. There are scads of web developers out there who never touch a WYSIWYG web page editor. And creating a graphic in GIMP or InkScape is small-potatoes no-brainer. There's no reason to become immersed in Photoshop and Illustrator esoterica for creating individual web images; you can do it with most anything. I'd be focusing on web-centric technology and delivery schema. I'd also want to be conversant in database fundamentals.
On the other hand, if I were in your shoes and intended to focus on art direction of all aspects (web and print) of a company's advertising, marketing, graphics, and information delivery, I would consider it a necessity to be converant (maybe even working-proficient) in programs like Photoshop and Illustrator. InDesign would be somewhat less important unless the business is publishing "bookish" or "magazine-like" documents.
JET

Is there a fix for grainy photos in Illustrator?

I don't have Photoshop so I'm left to try and solve this problem with Illustrator. Are there any tricks with this software to help disguise grainy photos? They seem to have gotten worse once I imported them into AI and even worse after that once I reduce their size. I found that adding a crosshatch filter effect actually doesnt do a bad job, but does anyone know of any better tricks for this? Or is it only Photoshop that does the job...

You cannot edit pixel images in Illustrator.
That's rather overstated. You can apply Photoshop Effects in Illustrator, rasterize ojects, and create raster-based effects; all of which is, in fact, editing pixel images in Illustrator.
Are there any tricks with this software to help disguise grainy photos?
Generally speaking, reducing grain is a matter of blurring (averaging color values). Smart Blur is one of the Photoshop filters installed with Illustrator. Disguising grain would be a matter of special effects, and there are dozens of Photoshop filters included with Illustrator for that. You've already tried one: Crosshatch. But beyond just telling you to try them, no one can advise you without seeing the image.
They seem to have gotten worse once I imported them into AI and even worse after that once I reduce their size.
Simply importing a raster image into Illustrator does not degrade it. The on-screen display of the image is poorer than in a proper image editing program when not zoomed/scaled to 1:1. But that doesn't reflect the actual quality of the image. And that's partly why the various raster filter dialogs provide their own previews.
Or is it only Photoshop that does the job...
If you're going to do much at all with raster images, you need at least a basic raster imaging program. Illustrator can't even properly crop a raster image. But Photoshop is certainly not the only program that "does the job." Corel PhotoPaint is a quite capable alternative to Photoshop, and Corel Graphics Studio (Draw, PhotoPaint, more) can be had as a competitive side-grade for much less than Adobe's bundles. Xara Designer Pro is a very versatile illustration program that can do much more image editing than Illustrator, and can be had for significantly less than the price of Illustrator alone. And as someone has already pointed out, there are even open-source image editors that you can download for free.
JET

Raster erstellen in Illustrator?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for