You CAN create true vector art in Photoshop!, the myth revealed. o: Options

[crazeegirl411]

http://www.deviantart.com/view/8818843/

This explains everything...but it's long and repetitive, so I'll outline it.

First of all, photoshop not making VECTORS are not true. True vectors are supposed to enlarge any size, and still not change any shape or form. They should not pixelize. So some people say that photoshop is a raster program, therefore the images that it makes (like vectoring in photoshop) makes it not a true vector, because it supposedly pixelizes. That, however, is invalid. I will explain why in better form from another site later.

Second of all, photoshop is still a raster program, no matter if it creates vectors or vexels. So if you enlarge something...ALL the pictures would come out pixelated, not just the vectors. If you go to Photoshop, Edit>Image Size, and instead of PIXELS, you change the percentage to let's say...800, then the results would be a larger image of a vector that is NOT pixelated.

In fact, go to Illustrator, zoom in the vector you did in PHOTOSHOP, and you will not see something pixelated.

Even in photoshop, if you save the file as .EPS, you will have an option as "Include Vector Data." If you cannot vector in photoshop, then why does it have that? It's as simple as it can be. You can vector in PS.

In Short:

http://siftw.pinnacle-elite.com/vtut/

In here, a part of it explains why photoshop does this, and why it is able to vector at the same time. It's easier to comprehend.

" Now, I will note one more thing. I called Adobe myself on this subject because I got into a heated debate with another artist. Can Photoshop produce true vectors? Well, first we need to know what vectors truly are. In a simple form, vectors are graphics that operate by mathematical equations. That is the technical definition of a vector. I am using a raster program (Photoshop), which is a program that does not use mathematical formulas to calculate an image, but rather just fills pixel data by implementation of the user (i.e. a picture). Now, since I am using a raster program, this must mean that I am not creating a vector, right? This is incorrect. Adobe Photoshop has the basic formulas to create vector paths. (That's why they are resizable to any percentage.) One also will note that fonts in many programs use point based formulas to calculate size. However, these are vector formulas, but Photoshop can not read a complex vector formula, thus vectors imported from the .AI file type must be rasterized. So, the next time you say that Photoshop can't do vectors because it doesn't use formulas, you need to rethink your hypothesis. "

The myth is finally revealed!! You can now call your photoshop creations VECTORS, people!

[Heathasm]

emmaliev A_a what is up with your spammage lately? I keep noticing it more and more

Wow I didn't even realize this topic was brought up before, don't I feel dumb... it didn't even come up in the search. shifty.gif It didn't look like it reached many people on the topic though, so maybe I'll make a mini tutorial on how to create real vector art in photoshop but what honestly confuses me is that people continue to use the word "vexel" when in the end everything eventually becomes a vexel and vectors created in photoshop are actual vectors until you save them as jpg, gif, bmp, etc and the same with Illustrator so what's up with that? Vexel isn't even a vaild word. :P

using the search takes practice lol every time i type in more than one word it says i have too many, so you have to only search with ONE word and it has to be more than a certain amount of letters and blah blah

[kana-p]

emmaliev A_a what is up with your spammage lately? I keep noticing it more and more
using the search takes practice lol every time i type in more than one word it says i  have too many, so you have to only search with ONE word and it has to be more than a certain amount of letters and blah blah

I've searched up to five words before and it was okay. It took me just about an hour one time to find this old old topic that I wanted to look back on. I think in the end I ended up finding it another way. ~_~; Well the point is, at least I tried. :P