# The GIMP vs Adobe Illustrator



## Starburst (Jun 5, 2007)

What are the pros and cons of each?  I'm trying to decide which program I should use to do my art in.  I scan and ink, usually, and I've been using the GIMP, but I've heard Illustrator is excellent.

So, what's good, bad, or ugly about each one?  Which one is better?


----------



## WolfeByte (Jun 6, 2007)

Illustrator uses vectors - mathematical equations to specify what goes where in an image - while Gimp used mostly rasters - the usual pixel-based processing.  They're not really comparable in any direct way.  

Vectors are smoother in all ways, because everything is (and must be) mathematically perfect.  Perfect curves, perfect angles, perfectly flat colour or perfectly transitioned gradients from one tone to another.  That's it.  

Rasters are what your used to - the only limit is on a per-pixel basis.  One pixel is one colour, and that's it, but you can  have a dozen pixels right beside each other, all completely different colours, which gives the larger image (in general) great opportunity for a lot of variation, texture, etc.  Alas, as anyone who's used MSPaint knows, it can also be clumsy, prone to many flaws, and almost impossible to get every pixel to the colour you want it to be, if you happen to change your mind a few times.  

If you scan line art into Illustrator, it'll be simply treated as an 'object'  - a mathematically defined shape that happens to have your not-very-mathematical image on it.  You won't be able to apply colour directly to it, or change it in any useful way, other than distorting it, resizing it, or cutting chunks of it away.  Most people get around this fact by simply scanning sketches, and then inking them, with vectors, inside Illustrator, or simply using the scanned sketch as a guideline to layer and arrange the objects/vectors that will compose the final image.  For a good example of this kinda art, and perhaps a link to a tutorial about using it, look up Pegantherus on the VCL/Google.  

There's also programs (Adobe Streamline, comes to mind) that convert Raster images to Vectors, and you could use that to convert your scanned line art, and then use Illustrator to do your colouring, but the progs are fickle at best, and annoying beyond belief at worst.  

As for rasters, well...  99% of all the art in FA and the net in general, are raster images, and the methods and what not of working with them are well known and rather easily discovered.  Type in 'computer art tutorial' in google and you'll find a few million, most likely.  

Whether or not you want to use vectors (or which one is 'better') depends entirely on your intent, and personal aesthetic.  If you like the flawlessly smooth, somewhat flat look of vector art a lot, you'll likely grow to appreciate it.  If you want to take your 8" by 10" image of *whatever* and one day print it out as a huge 2'  by 2.5' poster, then vectors are almost the only practical way to go (as vectors are math, so scale means almost nothing - same equations, bigger numbers).  

But if your ridiculously in love with random, haphazard elements in art (like I am) you might find vectors a bit too pristine, a bit too flat (though I believe i have stumbled onto a method of making art that is both infinitely scalable via vector, while retianing a lot of the random elements I appreciate...  that's another post entirely tho'.)


----------



## Starburst (Jun 6, 2007)

Well, I like smooth lines, a friend showed me an example of one of my inked drawings put through vectorizing, and it looked like the effect I wanted, but I couldn't get because I'm using a mouse.

I guess I'll stick with the GIMP, because I'm used to it, and when you save a vector image as .png, it would just become raster, right?


----------



## WolfeByte (Jun 6, 2007)

Starburst said:
			
		

> ...and when you save a vector image as .png, it would just become raster, right?



Yup.  Most 'normal' file types are raster.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 6, 2007)

Well as far as vector programs it just depends on how you use it. Most people do the pristine for graphic design, but I've stumbled upon ones that look like paintings.

http://www.xara.com/gallery/

John Kim used Xara too (which is the equivalent to illustrator by the way)

http://pendako.syste.ms/archive/chun_4b.jpg

It's just how you use it is what you get out of it.


----------



## Tachyon (Jun 13, 2007)

Photoshop is to Gimp as Illustrator is to Inkscape. Not commenting on the relative functionality/usability of any of them, though, as I've never actually used any of the Adobe stuff. Hey, you can't argue with free. :wink:


----------

