The very first thread

[Availor]

And so this day will be remembered by the fact that I am the first one to post in this forum (except from Antony, but that doesn't count)

[sallybode]

Yes, welcome to the forum and we do hope while you are here you can join in discussions throughout the forum, see what other artist are doing. It is lots of fun. So I am number two, I have heard that you have to try harder when you are number two. Gee, I really do need to check that this post is smelling pretty, being number two and all. (Just kidding.... they do let you do that here, don't they???)

[Availor]

Yes well Now I can Integrate those Illustrator animations with Flash.
I just Love the 3D effect of the software.

[sallybode]

It is hard for me to talk about it, it just leaves me searching for words. And I rarely have that problem.

[Availor]

Hey sally, Illustrator is not that complicated you'll find the words, This'll get you started

http://www.livepencil.com/images/birthday_05.gif
http://www.livepencil.com/images/rap_2.gif

[sallybode]

Hey, I learned Illustrator before Xara, before CorelDRAW, and I fell in love with Xara from day 1, DRAW took some warming up to.

I enjoy drawing and I do well with a pencil, paint brush, palette knife, any media, however, I think in terms of using the natural tools and when I am doing that, the first thing I want to do is to draw it, not go to my computer screen and enter a dialog box.

Direct editing of gradients on the object at hand is just better. Being able to control tranparency and directly and get it done faster, is a benefit because the creative epiphany doesn't last a long time and when it becomes work, it is just as much fun as any other job. And I really wasn't cut out for other types of work. I am too much left brain (as in I left my brain at home).

Xara to Illustrator is like the quickness of water colors vs. the more studied approach of oils on canvas, it isn't you can't get the same effects, you just aren't ready for a lobotomy when you are done. Tough when working under a deadline. I have an idea in my head, and then figure how to use the tools to achieve that and still meet the deadline.

Thanks for the animation, Availor, did you do it in Illustrator?

At work, I open Illustrator to check files done in Illustrator, and to correct problems with the customer files, to do impositions. It is acutally easier to bring the work into DRAW and do the imposition than to do it in AI.

Xara's tools are very similar, and it is easier to do the setup there too.

I am just curious with Adobe being as it is the most expensive drawing tool except for CAD, why it isn't more user friendly.

CAD has reasons for its interface, and once you understand how it works, it makes a great deal of sence. It leaves a lot on screen all the time to help you with your drawing.

Floating pallets... well InDesign caught on to a better workspace, collapsable docking pallets.

To me the best tool in DRAW that nothing else has something to compare to is the Mesh tool. However, when using other drawing tools, it is easier to achieve a similar result using other tools.

It all boils down to how much time can you work on a project.

It is a universally recognized format, and if you do a drawing in something else, it will correct your color space for you. But making a .pdf will do that also if you have it do that. But you can work in your program of choice and then save to .ai anyway.

In comparison to Photoshop, which is merging more and more vector capability into itself, the uniqueness of the product and the need to spend, spend, spend for very pricey software is in question.

Considering how much gaseoline costs, I need my software to be worth buying. With the other software that is out there, for the price, it is hard for me to find a reason why I would want to invest any more in Illustrator.

I have CS, not CS2 at work, and other versions, it was an easy thing to save down for compatiblity on a computer which hadn't upgraded. Shouldn't software become easier to use and not more difficult?

There is a point that a graphic artist should certainly be intelligent, but Adobe 's logic is unfathomable at times.

Thanks for the animation, did you do it in Illustrator, Availor?

[Availor]

Hey Sally,

The animation is not mine, I just provided a link. I like it over the boring emoticons that are inside the palette options you have.

I have one major problem, which is: I can't actualy sit and do anything unless I need to. I know Illustrator, Xara, Corel Draw, Indesign, Freehand, Photoshop and now I'm learning actionscript and advanced flash.

All the software are the same, therefore, if you know one you can get the other in no-time. Maybe it is hard to believe but usually it is so.

I also play a sax and can compare to that: When a player learns to play an instrument, for example a saxophone it's a hard task. But after he's accomplished the learning playing a different sax, clarinet, recorder, low whistle and anything alike is a matter of several weeks if not days. It has same notes, and fingering method. Same applies for software.

If you learn HTML css will be easy. If you know Javascript, Actionscript will be easy as well.

Personaly, I like Illustrator because I'm lazy. That means I like to use it's ready-made components and symbols. I like the brushes and the 3D effect of the new CS2.

Maybe that's my problem. When you are doing something for fun it's a one thing. But when you have to do something then I just want to do it and get rid of it, so I do not enjoy making stuff. Xara provides the tools. I want to create an interface... I've got an exam in few days, heck I don't want to waste time planning I just want to get done with it, so I start Illustrator... for me it's a bit easier to make simple designs with it. Or with Freehand.

Indesign is not so user friendly, regarding the advanced stuff. Sure you can make a nice layout, but creating a 400 page math book can really get you some hair pulling. That was my main work actually, to design and edit math books. It's much harder than people think. Working with graphics gives you the ability to use colors, graphics... creating a math book with equations - really requires thinking about what space to make between the letters so it's more readable, how to make notes, spaces, put the diagrams. It's a lot of grey work and a lot of typing. Boring

Thats why I left the job almost completely. Now I concentrate on flash site building and actionscript.

Illustrator is something I use mainly for some animations (with brushes mainly) to use with flash or just for it's meshes or 3D effects.

[Availor]

Oh and by the way, one thing is that I can't draw I never learned to draw and all I know is how to trace a photo. So that also takes the will out of me doing something.

[RedWombat]

I don't think its as easy as jumping from the Sax to the clarinet.

I started out in the Arts then went into Graphic Design and Publishing, then on to Web Design and Development. Along the way I've learned all the apps you mention.

I've been a DRAW user since ver 2, Freehand since it was owned by Aldus - Boy that dates back - And learned Illustrator at ver 7.

Illustrator was by far the most illogical of the three. Simple things I took for granted in DRAW were hard to figure out the first time in Illustrator. I had a much easier time with Freehand, although I don't use it much anymore.

A language analogy would work better for me. Knowing one language helps to find the answers in another, i.e. a Line or Stroke, Node or Anchor Point. But it doesn't keep me from pulling my hair out trying to figure out the way those objects behave in each program. Another simple example is the Line again. In DRAW it's really simple put the line behind the fill - In Xtreme, yikes, what a pain. Then Flash is another story. It's very simple to work with vectors and such, but it behaves so differently from the others, that you almost can't put it in the same box.

With that said, it has been extremely handy to know each of those programs. Many times I have had to work in each or several to get a project done. A client might have a legacy Illustrator design or a PageMaker file with linked graphics. I feel for designers that go through that initial hair pulling trying to translate an apps features to figure out what another can and can't do for them.

I don't dislike Illustrator, it has some nice features and as I said I do use it frequently. Maybe it's a Right Brain struggle, but I do have to agree with Sally, Adobe 's logic is unfathomable at times.

[sallybode]

Availor, I think you misunderstood what I said. I learned Illustrator at version 8, once they brought in transparency with 9, the stability was not there, it was easier to use 8 and simulate transparency.

I can draw very well in Illustrator. I have done some really fine work, and as far as one person or another using a program, I am probably faster than most users at the program, however, it is, because of its interface, slower to use. The length of time spent in a dialogue box added to the adjustments that you have to do to the drawing itself such as with the gradient tool is one example and irregardless of the number of years that Adobe has known this, they ignore it, because "Illustrator is program of choice for the Industry". If you need conical gradients, you use blends, and that is done in a dialogue box as well. Using blends is much slower than using a gradient.

Photoshop has lots of different gradients, so Adobe knows that these gradients exist, they just haven't seen to it that Illustrator has them. In both cases the means of applying the gradient, is trial and error.

Transparency is another point, it isn't very easy unless it is flat transparency. And the use of masks is supposed to be superior. If you had graduated transparency, the need of a mask is superfluous. It can take fifteen minutes or more setting up a linear transparency in a mask whereas the competitors, have drawn the same thing inside of one minute and have moved on to drawing other things.

So the consequences is this when under a deadline: you can do the same design in various programs, but the Illustrator design will be the simplest, more basic, relying on design and not effects. Just because you draw with another drawing program doesn't mean that you don't have a good design, but now if you want to pull in other elements, you have time to do it. Now you can look polished, you can gleem, shine, etc. Or you can look like rounded tinker toys. Now which would you choose? One of our clients, an Illustrator user, designed a marketing scheme in Illustrator based on stick figures. How exciting! I am glad I didn't have to put a stick figure with a sash on the front of their beauty pageant booklet. Everyone who is involved with this project hates it. True, not everyone who is a graphic designer can draw, but what a pity when there are so many who are out there who can draw and paint and the job goes to the one with the most retro design. Life is more than the symbols on restroom doors.

Illustrator does have nice brushes, and I do use them at times, but when I am racing the clock, I use Illustrator for what it is good for and go back to DRAW or Xara and complete my artwork.

As far as 3D, it is nothing in comparison to what can be achieved in Xara 3D. And then the cost involved is still more with Illustrator.

InDesign is rather built to be frustrating, but in comparison to using Quark, it is an improvement. I haven't used the new Quark which is supposed to be worlds better. InDesign has drawing tools which work just like Illustrator. One thing I like is that text wrap is based on object transparency and a clipping path does not need to be present. So you can get some cool effects with imported bitmaps with softer edges over clipping paths. The support of spot color is really good, however, don't make a mistake with spot color because it can live to haunt you. You can get it off your palette, you can make your .pdf, and it shows up irregardless. CS did this and it is still happening in CS2. The main trouble is that people can find the exact color they want with the Pantone swatches and don't change it to the CMYK equivalents, so now the spot channel is there, zeroed out and it fails preflight for CMYK. Of course there is no additional plate, but it will now cost you more or more time to furnish a new .pdf which has been remade. Part of my job is making plates, and I don't have to run plates that I know are blank, it is just a way to charge more money.

The added expense means that it is harder to afford the expensive and frequent upgrades. For the price, you think you'd get at least as much as what the competitors are offering for decidedly less money.

With gaseoline predicted to push past $4.00 a gallon in the U.S., these added expenses make it much harder on businesses to make a profit. Software is only one of the expenses of a print business.

Yes, if you learn one software, it makes it easier to learn the next. I have played violin, except for reading music, it didn't help whatsoever with the fingering on the flute, although flute helped with learning saxophone and oboe and even clarinet, and learning the piano was differnt from all of the above, except for the upper clef. So it gives greater music appreciation. And no, just as instruments are different, it doesn't make you as good at all instruments. A person with a wider spread of fingers has more of an advantage at playing some pieces. Yours is a comparison of apples and oranges, all software is not indeed created equally, they do not function the same.

With the high price of upgrade on Adobe products, there are a lot of people not waiting to chomp at the bit for the next upgrade. And that price is no where near the legal price of the full version, heaven help you if you don't purchase it with a student discount.