0

I've never done prints before, but I've worked with AI for vectoring logos for laser cutting, so I'm familiar with the concept of raster images vs vector images. I know that for a simple image (like a logo) with clean edges and few colors is easy to vectorize and will turn out nicely for a large print. Obviously photographs are a different story, trying to vectorize a photo simply wouldn't work, you'd just end up losing detail, colors, and distorting the image.

I want to print this artwork, but at the given resolution and desired print size, there wouldn't be enough PPI. I did play around with vectorizing the image and it turned out surprisingly satisfactory. So even though I'm not recovering or adding any additional detail to the image, would printing a vector image versus a raster image let me be able to "cheat" some extra quality- i.e. print at a higher PPI without blurring the image or seeing big ugly individual pixels? I've attached the image below along with a comparison of the vector image vs the raster image. enter image description here enter image description here

  • 1
    You're saying one of these images you posted is vector? They all look like the same image to me making it difficult to believe one of them is vector. – Scott Jul 28 '17 at 2:53
  • @Metis a screenshot of the vector in Adobe Illustrator. If you zoom in, you can see individual pixels in one and not the other. – Ryan Jul 28 '17 at 2:54
  • Ahh okay. I see, the top one is a trace. Pretty good trace overall. – Scott Jul 28 '17 at 2:58
1

If you can achieve a sufficiently detailed tracing in Illustrator, then yes. The vector tracing would absolutely allow you to enlarge the artwork a great deal more. Edges in the tracing aren't going to change or become "pixelated" unlike the raster artwork.

Viewing distance may be a factor, though. As you can see zooming in... the tracing starts to show "chunks" of color rather than smooth transitions. The same color separation/edges will remain when you merely enlarge the tracing. That may be fine. It can convey more of a stylistic feel. And from a distance these "chunks" wouldn't really be that visible.

The reason this works for this particular image is that it's already stylistic and not photo-real. So the sharp color changes are not seen as unnatural or aberrant when looking at the overall image. Artwork tends to have a bit more leeway with tracing than photographic content.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.