Graphic Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Graphic Design professionals, students, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Why do so many people struggle with the shift from a pixel editor to a vector editor? Or do they, is there some research done on the subject? Especially, it seems, in that direction. Seem like the opposite direction (vector to image editor) is not nearly as painful.
Are there any known, possibly researched, methods to facilitate the migration? How do you make the transition as painless as possible? Is there something one commonly needs to unlearn to be successful?
I had this problem. Back when I was a student and recent graduate, I hated working with vectors and would do essentially all my creative work in Photoshop, reluctantly switching to Illustrator to "vectorise" my completed, signed off design to create the final artwork. Getting a job where I had to produce data-driven graphics at short notice where working in raster was never an option cured me of my bad habit and made me face my problems with vector - and I now use vector for almost everything except photo editing.
For me, it boiled down to:
Gradients and effects feel like an incredibly blunt tool when you're used to the complete freedom of fuzzy-edged selections and brushes in raster applications.
For me, learning to use gradient meshes and blends helped, mostly because discovering that I could make any type of near-photo-realistic elegant blend effect helped me realise that 99% of the time I didn't need to, and was feeling handicapped and limited from doing something I actually seldom needed to do.
Closely related to both the above. In Photoshop, working felt fluid and natural, like drawing or painting. In Illustrator, it felt like I was having to strategically plan a series of operations then clunk-clunk-clunk my way through them.
Part of this was just less experience, but a few things that helped included:
q, the lasso selection tool. Every designer I've worked with recently has barely used it before, then started using it regularly after a few weeks working with me. Drawing a sweeping lasso around the points in the section of artwork you want to work on then manipulating them is much faster, and feels much more fluid, than clunk-clunk-clicking on many tiny points.I'd got used to the pixel grid as a simple absolute everything could be kept precise against. I found it hard to adjust to Illustrator where everything could be off by near-infinitely tiny amounts.
Working intensively with the Align window (particularly realising it can be used with points, not just objects) and getting used to toggling smart align on and off from the keyboard without thinking about it, and understanding Illustrator's (invisible, object specific) pixel grid, made me appreciate that vector's lack of limits is purely a good thing and that I didn't need some fixed, arbitrary, inflexible ultimate grid.
Like learning to swim and moving to the deep end of the pool where your feet can't touch the bottom, you need to learn there are other things you can do - you don't need that crutch.
I cant reference hard studies. Just some subjective thoughts that become too long for a comment.
I recently started learning/playing with ink dip pens. Quite a different experience, I'm much more comfortable with a brush or pencil in my hand. I think going from ink to paint or paint to ink you have a similar learning barrier. The ink & pen even makes familiar paper feel different.
Pixel format is very natural for any graphic artist. It has a canvas with width & height, I can set it to the dimensions of my paper if I like. I can have layers, which are like layers of paper. I draw a line, pixels get coloured. I smudge a line, pixels get smudged or feathered.
Vector format, its in the name, it uses vector points. Artist goes: "oh yeah vector, I know, those things my math teacher was talking about while I drew a donkey". To achieve a line, I need two vector points, that are unified, with a stroke turned on and fill off. Want a curvy line, easy, the vector points get turned into bezier control points. "I need a layer", yep just group them, that makes a layer, the whole asset is a series of nested groups/layers...
My point is, conceptually pencil and paper is a lot closer to pixels on canvas, than vectors in relative space.
Personally I found illustrator more exciting, being able to create simplified outlines, that'll be sharp on any device, printed at any size. Perhaps if you're teaching people who are more interested in concept art they'll find illustrator dull. Which is fair enough.
This is just an asumption.
Why would anyone think it is the "same" in the first place?
Regardless they are both Graphic Design related, the "two" have a diferent logic.
And there are diferent concepts of Pixel editors. Photo retouching, painting, one click "effects box". Of course it is easier to use a one click effect box than to draw a precision technical drawing or a vector ilustration, but personally I find quite challenging on how to use Painter with my wacom.
But let us think that it is the case. That pixel programs are easier to learn, probably becouse painting and free drawing is more natural. Kids do that all the time.
My two cents to learn on how to use a vector program is: Make small significant exercises with an objetive in mind.
Trace a logo. Good.
Now give them "effects" shadows, gradients.
Now transform that into a wallpaper.
If you make significant steps with the objetive in mind to have a product you can be proud off, you will feel the program as a tool, not as a challenge or a pain.
The same is true for a 3D program, or riding a bike.
