Photoshop vs Illustrator

[leroyyy]

Don't panic. This isn't a 'what's the difference between Photoshop and Illustrator'.

I'm interested in views on a theoretical brief.

Say you had to create a super large format print (e.g. something on a building about 20m wide) with text, photography, some shadow effects achievable by each programme and some additional gradient / transparency.

Do you:

1. Use Illustrator as base package and send to print as PDF (as vectors with raster at appropriate resolution), but risk losing some control in the rendering of it?
2. Use Photoshop as base package, ensure pixel perfect output by sending totally rasterised TIFF (or similar) at appropriate resolution?
3. Do something else.

I grew up with more comfort in Illustrator and so my preference has always been #1, but recently as I've switched my style to being less typography-based I'm beginning to question this.

Any views?

 

[rachpid]

I would actually use InDesign, and create it at a percentage of the size. If the design was purely vector and text based then I might consider Illustrator but with photos involved as well then definitely InDesign. And then send to print as PDF, or as an Indesign package (I've found some large format companies prefer this as they can then use their own export settings). I wouldn't ever consider Photoshop for any layout based artwork.

 

[paulryp]

Small documents always use illustrator as base. Larger jobs use indesign as base. I prefer illustrator for everything as its much more creative freeform than indesign which is little stilted in workflow. Cutter management and creation in illustrator for example. You can work straight into Photoshop and supply the document to whoever but you will need to brief the printer accoringly and they will need to put those into there prepress system.

So create document at size in Illustrator and use Photoshop for actual Bitmap content.

saving out print ready pdfs from illustrator is really easy (pass4press or print ready PDFs). Just got to overprint cutters and spec them as specials so they don't knock out and stay on there own registered plates.. Make sure you talk to someone who is confident in workflow or it could be costly.

 

[dwig]

#3, though it would depend massively on the exact details of the contents of the piece.

I would likely start in Ai using no shadows, gradients or transparency effects, but using layers to keep objects & text separate. After working with the design in Ai and reaching a near final design, I would then move the doc to Ps where I would rasterize it to an appropriate size/ppi, maintaining layers, and then insert the photographic components and finally any gradients, shadows and transparency.

 

[rachpid]

#3, though it would depend massively on the exact details of the contents of the piece.

I would likely start in Ai using no shadows, gradients or transparency effects, but using layers to keep objects & text separate. After working with the design in Ai and reaching a near final design, I would then move the doc to Ps where I would rasterize it to an appropriate size/ppi, maintaining layers, and then insert the photographic components and finally any gradients, shadows and transparency.

Forgive me my ignorance as I mainly work in Illustrator and InDesign and use Photoshop for image manipulation, but can you add bleed within Photoshop? If not how would you prepare it to send to a printer that way?

 

[superscape]

Another vote here for Illustrator.

I certainly wouldn't use InDesign – I'd only recommend it for pages based publications e.g. magazines, brochures, booklets, possibly ePubs etc.

I think the key is to speak to whoever is going to be printing the design and ask how they want you to supply your artwork. They will have experience of what works well and what fails miserably. Odds are they will accept PDF and may well be able to send you a PDF preset (.joboptions) you can use to make sure it meets their requirements. If they have oddball requirements then it's better to find out early on!

 

[leroyyy]

Thanks guys - very interesting to hear. Unsurprisingly the conclusion is each to their own!

I suppose my main thinking was that if you have a quite complex PDF, you're slightly at the mercy of the prepress guys to make sure it is rendered properly. That's usually okay if you're using a diligent printer, but sometimes that's not the case.

I recently had an issue with a client printing inhouse on a semi-commercial large format HP printer which wasn't rendering drop shadow properly, not to mention a few PDF 'artefacts' appearing. I think that's what led me to wonder if Photoshop is preferable to produce a 'pixel perfect' output for complex renderings rather than a PDF whose algorithm is open to (minor) interpretation.

A few comments:

• Indesign - I actually use a lot for multi-page layout work, but hadn't considered for single pieces of artwork. I must admit its PDF outputs do seem to be excellent, so I might try that next time
• Photoshop - re bleed I guess you set the artwork at the non-cropped size, add guides if you want to show it and then liaise with prepress to make sure it's interpreted properly

Thanks for your thoughts so far guys!

 

[chrfr]

Thanks guys - very interesting to hear. Unsurprisingly the conclusion is each to their own!

I suppose my main thinking was that if you have a quite complex PDF, you're slightly at the mercy of the prepress guys to make sure it is rendered properly. That's usually okay if you're using a diligent printer, but sometimes that's not the case.

I recently had an issue with a client printing inhouse on a semi-commercial large format HP printer which wasn't rendering drop shadow properly, not to mention a few PDF 'artefacts' appearing.

PDF is the underlying native file format for Illustrator documents. Any complex print job is at the mercy of the prepress staff to ensure it's done correctly; file formats don't change that fact at all. As someone above mentioned, the key to success in printing is to communicate with your print supplier to be sure that they can do, and that they understand, what you want, and that you are supplying them with the type of files they need to accomplish the job the right way.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

I certainly wouldn't use InDesign – I'd only recommend it for pages based publications e.g. magazines, brochures, booklets, possibly ePubs etc.

I must say, I'm quite taken aback. Can you tell me more? Do you just know Illustrator a lot better and thus would lean heavily that way? Do you know something I don't about either program? InDesign seems purpose designed for documents combining good amounts of text, illustrations, and photographs.

 

[superscape]

I must say, I'm quite taken aback. Can you tell me more? Do you just know Illustrator a lot better and thus would lean heavily that way? Do you know something I don't about either program? InDesign seems purpose designed for documents combining good amounts of text, illustrations, and photographs.

I've used both Illustrator and InDesign quite extensively. Illustrator since the early 90s and InDesign since it came out (PageMaker before it - remember that?). So I guess I have even experience of both.

You get more fine control over vector objects in Illustrator, but less fancy text based tools like you get in InDesign. In the olden days, you'd create vector graphics in Illustrator, edit your photos in Photoshop and bring it all together with your typography in InDesign/QuarkExpress/PageMaker(back in the day).

Nowadays the line is a little more blurred with some duplication of functionality between apps. In my opinion, that can make things confusing. Sure, you *can* create a leaflet in Photoshop, but I'd argue that you shouldn't. You *can* design a piece of packaging in InDesign but you probably shouldn't. In the same way that you *can* put a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but you probably shouldn't. It's a question of choosing the right tool for the job.

If I want to edit photos: Photoshop
If I want to create vector artwork (logos, packaging, signs): Illustrator
If I want to create a publication (books, leaflets etc): InDesign

At the end of the day though, if you can produce a PDF to the specification required and it looks OK when it's printed then that's what counts.

 

[VintageDude]

I've used both Illustrator and InDesign quite extensively. Illustrator since the early 90s and InDesign since it came out (PageMaker before it - remember that?). So I guess I have even experience of both.

You get more fine control over vector objects in Illustrator, but less fancy text based tools like you get in InDesign. In the olden days, you'd create vector graphics in Illustrator, edit your photos in Photoshop and bring it all together with your typography in InDesign/QuarkExpress/PageMaker(back in the day).

Nowadays the line is a little more blurred with some duplication of functionality between apps. In my opinion, that can make things confusing. Sure, you *can* create a leaflet in Photoshop, but I'd argue that you shouldn't. You *can* design a piece of packaging in InDesign but you probably shouldn't. In the same way that you *can* put a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but you probably shouldn't. It's a question of choosing the right tool for the job.

If I want to edit photos: Photoshop
If I want to create vector artwork (logos, packaging, signs): Illustrator
If I want to create a publication (books, leaflets etc): InDesign

At the end of the day though, if you can produce a PDF to the specification required and it looks OK when it's printed then that's what counts.

I tend to agree with superscape but the line between Illustrator and InDesign has blurred considerably. While I used to always use Illustrator for single page jobs like business cards, adverts, posters, banners, signs etc, I now find InDesign is actually quicker and produces smaller pdfs. It is really just a matter of what you feel more comfortable with.

 

[torana355]

I work in prepress for a Wide format printer so I have alot of experience on this subject. Personally I would use Illustrator and place any images into the document and save as a Hi-Res pdf to send to the printer with the specs that particular printer requires in regards to bleed ect. Also make sure you set the Raster Effects Settings in Illustrator to high (300dpi) As others have mentioned you would need to create it at a percentage of the final size as there is a limit to sizes in the pdf format of 5000mm from memory. Indesign is more suited to page layout applications like books and magazines however you could also use that if you wanted to.

 

[dwig]

Forgive me my ignorance as I mainly work in Illustrator and InDesign and use Photoshop for image manipulation, but can you add bleed within Photoshop? If not how would you prepare it to send to a printer that way?

Ps does not produce "documents" so the concept of bleed doesn't exist. Ps produces "images". The only partial exception is when you Save as... a "Photoshop PDF". While this does contain a page size spec, it is really more akin to an EPS than a true "document".

Since Ps image files (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, ...) don't contain page size specs it is a simple matter to effect a "bleed" by making the Ps file larger by the "bleed" amount. The 12x11" print that I just sent to my large format printer is actually 12.25x11.25" to allow for "bleed" and contains crop marks.

 

[citizenzen]

I would actually use InDesign, and create it at a percentage of the size. If the design was purely vector and text based then I might consider Illustrator but with photos involved as well then definitely InDesign. And then send to print as PDF, or as an Indesign package (I've found some large format companies prefer this as they can then use their own export settings). I wouldn't ever consider Photoshop for any layout based artwork.

I'm all InDesign. The only thing I use Illustrator for is tracing or initial vector work on a logo. Once I have that initial work done, I copy the vector to InDesign and finish it there. Then it's Export > PDF.
[doublepost=1509144095][/doublepost]

... I think the key is to speak to whoever is going to be printing the design and ask how they want you to supply your artwork. They will have experience of what works well and what fails miserably. ...

That is always the key.
[doublepost=1509144320][/doublepost]

I've used both Illustrator and InDesign quite extensively. Illustrator since the early 90s and InDesign since it came out (PageMaker before it - remember that?). So I guess I have even experience of both. ...

Likewise, I've been using these products since ~1990.

 

[covisio]

For a single page piece like you're describing, I would probably use Illustrator, depending upon how much text is actually in the design.
I started off in packaging artwork and prepress, and Illustrator was was always the default for a single piece of artwork (although Freehand was an excellent product in the pre-transparency days).
Multi-page....always InDesign. InDesign is also very strong at output stage. It creates PDF very well and very cleanly. It handles separations beautifully. Yes you can do all that in Illustrator, it's just not quite as optimised.
I wouldn't use Photoshop as my "program of origin" for any piece of artwork (unless it was entirely raster-based in the first place), it's just not the done thing, old chap.

 

[MacGizmo]

For print-related work:
In 99.999% of any work I do, it starts and ends with InDesign.

Photoshop is for editing photos and composing complex images—no text (unless it is somehow stylistically integrated with the image) is ever done in Photoshop.

Illustrator is for logos and artwork that needs to stay sharp and appear at various sizes. Again, very little text done in Illustrator. It's probably the least used app of the bunch (but certainly not the least important).

For web/multi-media work, it's a different story. Probably 75% is done in Photoshop, 20% in Illustrator and 5% in InDesign.

But you know, there's an awful lot of right ways to do things, and only a few wrong ways. In some respects, it's about the destination, not the journey.

 

[canucksfan88]

I would use either Illustrator or InDesign for this!

 

[brenard]

I like using Photoshop for image manipulation.

 

[colorexperts]

To get the best printable and distortion free image that should to be enlarged at any sizes, then Adobe Illustrator is the best tool. Photoshop is also capable of doing so, but it produces raster graphics that are not distortion free and zoomable. Other image editing tools cannot create so quality image as AI can. So, I think, using of Illustrator is the best decision for creating images for print media.

 

[nieks]

All vector based images and shapes: create them in Illustrator.
All pixel based images: use Photoshop.
Creating the large format print: use InDesign. This is one of the many things for which InDesign is built. In the file you create, you import/place the images and shapes you made or edited in Illustrator and Photoshop.

 

[MacGizmo]

To get the best printable and distortion free image that should to be enlarged at any sizes, then Adobe Illustrator is the best tool. Photoshop is also capable of doing so, but it produces raster graphics that are not distortion free and zoomable. Other image editing tools cannot create so quality image as AI can. So, I think, using of Illustrator is the best decision for creating images for print media.

Your lack of knowledge of Photoshop and its capabilities is showing. Photoshop CAN save vector-based info in its file. And that vector info IS scalable just like Illustrator. You just have to know what you're doing when saving the file.

 

[clippingpathasia]

Adobe Photoshop and Adobe illustrator two different thing. If you need image clipping path then you can use adobe Photoshop software.

 

[nieks]

Adobe Photoshop and Adobe illustrator two different thing. If you need image clipping path then you can use adobe Photoshop software.

this can be done in Illustrator as well, mr ClippingPath.
To add to that, your post is not an answer to the opening post or this discussion.

 

[clippingpathasia]

How? You mean Adobe Photoshop and Adobe illustrator are same

 

[leroyyy]

Thanks all - some interesting replies.

As I said in the opening post, my interest was more complex than a vector vs raster question.

From what I can see here, it seems that most people are happy to trust complex renderings (e.g. transparency, gradients etc) in vector.

I had wondered if there was a view that it was safer to ‘lock them down’ in raster, but seems this isn’t a consensus shared. Think I will stick to my Illustrator / InDesign preference!