Looking at them on monitor, especially at 1:1 or closer, will indeed always look this way.
How they print is more important. Note that unless output to PostScript printer, though, print quality still dependent on ppi, just as if they were already rasterized.
Mac
Hola Mac
I have a total training video, and it show a custom shape figure that looks like Illustrator’s vectors or paths. How can he do this?
Or are this people using another program?
thanks for your help
Uly7
Press shift+U to toggle to the custom shape feature. There are a lot of tutorials on using custom shapes and bezier tools in Photoshop. Google should help.
Gary
Dan – even though vectors are resolution independent – the screen preview is not.
It will only preview in whatever resolution the file is in. So if the file is low (72ppi) resolution, that’s what the screen will show.
How it will print as vectors is a different story.
I’m sorry Jason, but that is totally misleading "info".
The ppi of the image has absolutely nothing to do with this matter.
Monitors don’t know ppi, only pixel dimensions.
A given file, let’s say 1200 x 800 pixels, displays exactly same size on your screen at 100% whether saved at 72ppi or 7200ppi.
Also, normal vector programs do indeed print "resolution independent – sharp at any size" output. But not Photoshop/Elements. This is only available for PostScript output. Otherwise, print quality still dependent on image pixel resolution.
Mac
Dan,
How about including a screenshot? I understand what you’re saying but PSCS is working just fine here.
"The ppi of the image has absolutely nothing to do with this matter."
It does in terms of SCREEN PREVIEW.
Dont believe me? Create a new file at 2PPI (way way low).
Now create some VECTOR elements. Now print those VECTOR elements. I’m not talking about paths – I’m talking about vector elements that use paths.
What you get on screen is NOT what you get in print.
Unless you have PostScript printer, the vector elements will print like crap at 2 ppi of course. They will print better from 72ppi, but still bad. On up to 200ppi and above you’ll start to get somewhere.
On PostScript printer, even the 2ppi image will print sharp (as long as is still vector). Same with text, of course.
Real vector apps, even PowerPoint, print vector data sharp at any size to any printer, PostScript or not.
Point about screen viewing that you seem to miss, same pixel size image appears exactly same size at 100% onscreen, regardless of ppi setting. Same as in web browser. 800×600 pixel image is exactly same size in web brower regardless of its ppi setting, as monitors ignore ppi, ppi has no meaning to them, monitors know pixel dimensions only.
If you are going to try to view at "print size", which Elements/Photoshop will approximate, of course lower rez images will look worse, because you are now enlarging images way past 100% pixel size. In this case, the 2ppi image would tend to look about as bad as it would print. However, if you were outputting this terrible looking image to PostScript printer, it would print razor sharp.
Mac
Hola
Listen amigos, "Deke Mc something" in total training has an image at 600 ppi res. but only not even a inch width and one inch high.
However, when he zoom in this thing, you can see that it was vectors, like Illustrator. So how did he do this? If I have a picture with vectors, phats or shapes, if I zoom in , they all look like pixels, all jaggy and just like pixels. I have no idea how he do this. Any way, what exactly is a PostScript printer? Are this thing very expensive? Sorry for been so "new", you know, I truly believe that I knew a lot about Photoshop but the true is that I’m still a begginer.
Thanks for your help.
Uly7
Photoshop is a pixel based application, unlike vector based ones… However, it allows vector shapes (text is a vector shape) also. The only visual representation that PS can give is a pixel based one.
Illustrator is a vector based app that also allows insertion of pixel based data. Many others, perhaps most common being PowerPoint. If you zoom in on vector data on screen you don’t see pixels. You can’t edit pixel based images in those programs (on a pixel level, anyway).
PostScript is a printer language, originally developed by Adobe, and included in many printers (generally, laser printers, although some high end inkets and dye sublimation printers can have PostScript also). There are also software printer RIPs that allow sending PostScript data to some non-PostScript printers.
Main difference here is that a program like PowerPoint (or Freelance Graphics, or Freehand, or Canvas, or etc) can send vector data to non PostScript printers. In other words text or shapes are not "pixel resolution dependent", and print sharp at any size. Photoshop’s special vector capability only works to PostScript devices. Otherwise, its vector output is dependent on the actual pixel density of the image, same as if the vector data had already been rasterized in Photoshop, ie, flattening layer, rasterizing layer, etc.
The whole technology is somewhat even more complicated than this, but this is the basic overview (I’m sure if I muffed any of it, an expert here will chime in).
Mac
Oh, and as far as Deke’s illustrations, at 600ppi, he probably simply didn’t zoom in far enough to get to 1:1 view or more, so individual pixels still aren’t visible yet.
Mac
Hola
Thanks again for all your help.
Mac – I wasnt even trying to make a point about print size vs preview size on screen, the point I was trying to make was "The only visual representation that PS can give is a pixel based one."
….as you put it.
Yes, that’s correct, we agree. And perhaps have been posting at cross purposes.
Mac
