Export as vector makes sense?

[raphaelbolius]

Hi everybody,
I am using affinity photo (desktop) and just now I am working on a couple of very simple illustrations. It would be best if these illustrations can be exported as vectors, because they might be used in very different sizes. I know: Usually you would suggest affinity designer for such a task. But just for some test-images I do not want to learn and buy a new programm. Therefore my question:

I saw, that I can export as SVG from affinity photo. that is good. But Is there any difference in quality or size of the documents whether I use photo or designer?  I will upload a sample-image so you can see which kind of illsutration I am talking about.

And; If it is recommended to use designer for that kind of works: How difficult it might be to learn it? I am quite good in photo and have 10 years of experiance in photoshop (Mostly photography). But I never tried any vectorprogramms.

Thanks!
Raphael

Edited June 1, 2019 by raphaelbolius

[Wosven]

Hi,

You can export to SVG, but that's not a file format you can import in all programs.
You can also export to PDF, without rasterization. The interesting part is that you can export at a larger size if needed.

It would be easier if you tell us how you want to use thos files later (in which applications).
For example, I export as JPG or PNG or PDF if I want to import those files in inDesign later.

[Helge Skogh]

I have but one piece of advice: Buy Affinity Designer and export as .eps! It is VERY easy to learn! You will love it! But, you can export to .eps in Photo as well. AND .svg. Also, get the Affinity Publisher beta and you will be a very lucky person. 

[raphaelbolius]

Thank you for the answers,
i will try to answer the questions:

Whatfore:
a) I will use the images on websites. As they are supereasy and SVG is much smaller than JPG, I would like to use SVG on the website,  due to loading-time. I am webdesigner and I would generally like to use SVG more often. SVG is that much smaller than JPG and sites with many SVG instead of JPGs are much faster.
b) Additionally it might be possible to print the designs on t-shirts or other concrete stuff like cups or lighters. Therefore vectors might be necaissairy. (In case of t-shirt design: The designs might be combined with texts!)
c) Maybe the designs will also be used for printing on paper. In that case they might be imported to Indesign. But that is no problem in affinity photo, as I can export it to .jpg

@ Affinity Designer: Yes, I consider that. But if affinity photo offers the same possibilities for such easy designs, maybe I do not need it. That is why I ask.

Another question:
.eps is a vector based image? I never used it.

Than you!
Raphael

 

 

[v_kyr]

Well such simpler drawings can also be done with the limited APh vector tools (pen, shapes, nodes tool) and exported as SVG, EPS, PDF, if that was the question. 

EPS (Encapsulated Postscript) can contain object (vector), raster graphics and separation data (fonts can also be embedded) and is lossless. Note however, that the file format EPS is considered obsolete, as it has been largely replaced by the PDF format. This is also because it does not differentiate between bitmap and vector and thus can not be uniquely assigned to an application due to its magic byte identifier. JPEG, TIFF or PSD files are mostly used to replace bitmap EPS files. For vector EPS files, the file format Adobe Illustrator .ai or the PDF format is suitable.

Other than that SVG is pretty fine too, since usually every web browser can deal with it nowadays and as a web developer you should know and make use of it either way.

[gdenby]

As v_kyr mentions, APh does simple vector work quite well. But AD has loads of features. Little things like the corner tool can come in extremely handy. The "vector brush" allows one to attach a brush stroke image to a vector, which can then be reshaped and colored as one might like. Symbols allow the construction of multiple items whose attributes can be changed simultaneously when a single one is modified. At present, fine detail drawing is easier in Designer than Photo. Photo, being at core a bit-map processor, rasterizes vectors as they are drawn, whereas Designer displays them cleanly at all levels of zoom. Etc.

If you have the time, d-load the trial.

[raphaelbolius]

1 hour ago, gdenby said:

Photo, being at core a bit-map processor, rasterizes vectors as they are drawn, whereas Designer displays them cleanly at all levels of zoom. Etc. 

OK, that is very interesting. So to make it short: If I just want to do one or two images, APh might be OK. But even if it is OK, it is second choice, cause it starts from a basis of bit-map and the result is not REALLY a vector but something that was later adapted to behave like a vector. For regular use AD is the tool of choice.

Thanks!
Raphael

[Fixx]

25 minutes ago, raphaelbolius said:

the result is not REALLY a vector

It is really REALLY true vector if you have made it with pen or text tool or shapes (and often gradients work too!) and export to vector formats. Not sure how printing works but I assume vector data goes to RIP, not pixels.

[gdenby]

What I was trying to describe is that being a bit-map manipulator, APh does a screen rendering that shows as a bit map. AD, in "draw" personna" displays everything at top resolution, no matter what zoom level.

Attached, 4 screen grabs. One of a pen drawn vertex at a 1000% zoom in Photo. The same file, at the same resolution in Designer. The third is in "outline" view, and shows a vertex getting an adjacent node .017 .pt above. A similar vertex, saved as .svg, and displayed in Chrome at 400%. This allows quite fine web displays magnification, well above what one might commonly do.

[raphaelbolius]

OK, I see. My questions and your answers produce more question...   Lets try to fix the new questions: And by the way, thanks for the answers!

1) I can use Photo in order to produce true vectors.
2) If I want to do so, I will have to use either pen, text tool or shapes.
3) If I  do so and export it to a vector-based file such as SVG or PDF it will have no pixels - even with stong magnification. (2nd example of gdnby, in the post above.)
4) About printing you do not know exactly, but if there are any priniting-problems I will always have the possibility of buying Designer, save it in a better way.
---
5) Anyway buying designer will be the best solution: 100% bulletproof.   AND: If I bought Designer it would be much more easy to work with SVGs or PDFs that I receive from third parties.   (That is a minor problem, but now i often receive vectors from grafic-designers to implement in websites. They mostly work in Adobe Illustrator and now I have to send these images back if there are minor modifications to be done, cause I do not have a vector based programm. If I had Designer I could do these modifications on my own and would have a better workflow. )

Am I more or less right? Hope so, cause to be honest: It looks muchlike buying Designer.

[v_kyr]

Those are questions? - If so then ...

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. Should be the same since they use shared internal technology and libs for that. Further as every Affinity app can deal with the others file format they also should handle import/export/printing in the same fashion.
5. Yes and No, 100% bulletproof is all very relative to what you do/use and whome you ask, overall here in terms of vector related features and handling etc. But yes in terms of that Designer offers much more vector based editing capabilities than Photo does. - Note however that Designer isn't fully bulletproofed in handling (importing) Adobe Illustrator based Ai files and also doesn't support all what the SVG format offers. In other words it too has the one or other problem with certain exchange formats like SVG, PDF, or partly also TIFF.

 

[gdenby]

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) The fx routines produce raster painting, which can be inserted into either .svg or .pdf. This is an issue that shows up often, because the fx  may not scale smoothly enough. SVG files will handle gradients and transparencies, so some fx, like drop shadows, can be made entirely from code, w. no stored bitmaps. If no fx are used, the image should scale w/o problems.

4) I print very few things anymore. The issues mention here are the same as I've experienced for years. Files made in RGB don't translate well too the smaller gamut of CMYK inks, monitors must use calibration for approximate accuracy, so moving an image onto paper or fabric may not look quite right w/o tweaking.

5) I haven't worked w. Illustrator for 6 - 7 years. Perhaps someone who is using both AI and AD might comment on any issues moving files between the apps.

[raphaelbolius]

2 hours ago, gdenby said:

5) I haven't worked w. Illustrator for 6 - 7 years. Perhaps someone who is using both AI and AD might comment on any issues moving files between the apps.

I quit Photoshop when they started to rent the software instead of selling it. ( I think that many of us are here because of that.) Nevertheless. Adobe is still standard in design industries. (Unfortunately) Maybe I open another thread on that topic. It might be very important.

Betweeen Photo and Photoshop I could not realize any major problems of exchanging files.

[Fixx]

5) Opening AI would be ideal but it does not happen. Opening PDF is no problem with Designer, only problem is having right fonts installed as Designer cannot interpret embedded fonts. But you can also open PDF with Photo – I have not checked if there are any problems but Photo should have about the same abilities in displaying a PDF as Designer. Photo's tools should be enough for making minor alterations to PDF (if fonts is no issue).

[firstdefence]

Download Affinity Designer Trial and run through a workflow to see if it suits your workflow.

[Wosven]

10 hours ago, raphaelbolius said:

They mostly work in Adobe Illustrator and now I have to send these images back if there are minor modifications to be done, cause I do not have a vector based programm. If I had Designer I could do these modifications on my own and would have a better workflow.

Like with AP, AD will only open the PDF preview of an AI file, that's not the same as opening the file, but for few modifications it can help.
But if you don't have the fonts of those files, you'll have a problem.

It's easier with PDF, if you don't have the fonts but having the text as curves is not a problem, you can use Inkscape to open PDF and convert text to curves. (AP or AD can't open a PDF and have the file converted to a raster image like Photoshop).