I wrote this piece because I personally get sick of defending and explaining vector, but I really want people to know the facts.

// What does "vector" mean? //

Vector Art is a technique, not a style. Perhaps a better term for the category would be "vector-based art," meaning art created in a vector-based program. Vector art consists of creating paths and points in a program such as illustrator or freehand. The program keeps track of the relationships between these points and paths. Everytime the image is scaled, the paths are regenerated... this creates images that are infinitely scalable without degradation. Great for illustrations, logos and things that need to be sharp. So vector art is anything that's created in illustrator, freehand, corel draw, flash or other & quot; vector" illustration programs. (vector programs: Illustrator, Freehand, Flash, Corel Draw...)

The other side of the coin is raster art. Raster art consists of pixel information, where every pixel is assigned a RGB or CMYK value. This can create smoother and more detailed images for photos and paintings, but if the image is scaled, the program has to create new information resulting in that crappy look too massively scaled gifs and jpegs. (Raster programs: Photoshop, Painter, Fireworks, MS Paint, Gimp, etc.)

// What isn't a vector? //

Just because something is "cell shaded" or "flat colored" does NOT MAKE IT A VECTOR. The CUTOUT filter creates a raster-based image and thus is disqualified from ever being considered a vector image. Only a vector program such as Illustrator or Freehand or Flash can create a vector image... a true vector takes time to create. The artist makes decisions on how much or how little detail to include. The artist makes decisions on colors to use. These are the same decisions one makes before sitting down with conte crayons, pastels or oil paint.

I understand that these days there is some program overlap. Yeah, Photoshop has some vector tools and Illustrator has some raster tools. But, if you use the lasso and the paint bucket, you are NOT CREATING VECTOR-BASED ARTWORK. If you run a filter, it is NOT A VECTOR. Adobe created two programs for a reason. Photoshop is a raster-based program. Illustrator is a vector-based one.

// What does vector-art look like? //

Long story short... Vector is not a " style" like anime, but a "medium" like charcoal. Asking what vector-art looks like is like asking what an oil painting looks like. It could look like Rembrandt, Picasso or a 5th grader. (A very talented 5th grader!)

Look at nyctopterus or pods or novenarik or chiggah714 for an idea of what really good vector looks like... no filters here! Each artist has their OWN STYLE and technique... but each is considered vector art because of the tools used in creation. [ Shameless plug: Hey while you're at it check out my [gallery].]

Vector doesn't automatically mean flat shaded, just like "painting" doesn't mean high detail. Vector-based programs include tools for use with gradients and meshes, and thusly can be used to create high detail illustrations.

// Isn't vector just tracing? //

It can be. Just like a color-pencil drawing of your favorite anime character could be a tracing. Or just like that photo-manip you just +fav'd could contain copyrighted work. Just like any other artist could use a photo as a reference.

There are those who would do things like tracing, but if they weren't tracing in illustrator, they'd be tracing on paper.

Granted, I don't personally believe that there's anything wrong with tracing if used in the right context. For example, if I trace this picture of Gambit, leave it as is and run around saying I drew it. THen you would be justified in stoning me. However, if I'm working on a package for a company and I need to trace their crappy bitmapped logo to sharpen it up.. it's cool. Or if you trace something, then modify it for your own needs. Many professionals use tracing. Just don't fake the funk, We will find out. If you traced something, say you traced it. It's like using stock photography on a photo-manip. Quote the source, you'll thank yourself in the morning.

// But I can't afford PS and Illustrator... //

Do you think that anyone cares what you can or can't afford?!?!? Just kiding. Check this out: [sodipodi]


*Photoshop 6+ ONLY (I think)

I may be nit picking, but let's say you create an image in PS, using only the pen tool, type tool and shape layers. Never do you rasterize a layer and when you are done, you have a bunch of editable vector layers... now let's say that you delete the background layer and are left only with the shape layers. At this point, you have what I call a "pseudo-vector-based" image. If you go to the image size menu, you can scale to your heart's desire without degradation or too drastic a filesize increase. You can even use layer styles to create effects, but if it ever asks you to rasterize a layer, say no and try another way.

My [2004 Honda Civic Si] piece was created in this manner. The image was drawn at about 1200 pixels wide, but when I was done, I was able to scale it to 20" wide at 300 dpi with no degradation. That's almost a 500% enlargement. Not one trace of pixelization. File size was about 1/6th of what it would have been if the image were rasterized and flattened. My deviation [Layers for my Civic] is a screenie of what my layers palette looked like when I was done.

I'm not saying that this is the right way, it's actually a really hard and roundabout way. I just wanted to prove that it could be done. In this manner, you'll also be familiarizing yourself with the damn pen tool, if you like it, then you'll transition to illustrator more smoothly when you can make the jump.

[Right vs. Wrong]

This is to illustrate the wrong vs the right way to use a photo reference for vector work... The first is the photo that I used as reference... the second is using the cutout filter or the posterization... the third is the usage of the pen tool. This way I can control the proportion to beautify the model, enhance her finer parts and downplay things that will be distracting to the compostion. I'm not saying that my style is the best style, but the filter is definitely the wrong way to create any work on DA. If anything, it's a poor photo-manip.

As you can see, I used the photo as a reference. Although I traced the image for initial proportion, I control the amount of detail visible and was also able to correct for the distortion of the facial features. (The picture was shot with a wide angle lens from close range, distorting the face in the photo.) Thus creating a more beautiful piece than the filter could ever, It's my art... not the program's.

// Rant //

Whenever someone criticizes the medium I've chosen as my own, it hurts me. Whenever some wise-ass decides to open his/her mouth and say that vector art isn't original, I want to point to the dozens of macro shots of eyeballs up close, or cliche indy-art photo montages and ask, "Where's the originality here?"

That's not the way it's supposed to be. DA is a community of artistic growth. Truth be told, I like kitchy photo-montages and glassy eyed anime drawings. One of my best friends on DA is a furry artist and I love her work. Some may say that I'm negative, but whenever I comment on someone's work, I try to help them make it better. Constructive criticism may not be what we want to hear, but in the end it will make us better artists.

But this is art. There are few hard & fast facts, but many opinions. This is just mine.

In the meantime, be kind to yourself... and each other.

Have fun!