Boonish,
It’s a default that PhotoShop doesn’t "snap" to individual pixels.
If you set your gridlines to 1 pixel subdivisions, you can get close. (Preferences>Guides, Grid and Slices) Be sure to view your grid with the "snap to grid" turned on.
But even if you’ve done all this, you’re still going to fight the "half-rendered" edge line now and again. Simply transform the edge or point of the vector shape until— with MAJOR zoom— the line looks like it’s playing nicely.
I agree that it’s the most frustrating thing ever from a graphic program, but if your wanting pixel-for-pixel accuracy from Adobe, it won’t happen in either PhotoShop, or illustrator (although Illustrator is close, the smart guides don’t always snap to the right place, and the user is allowed to drag a point to rest in-between pixels, even with the snap grid set to a whole pixel)
I’m not speaking for the recently acquired MM products, though, as they (used to?) snap to each pixel, if needed.
I did on-screen graphics for 6 years, and I don’t know of a current paint program that gives px-for-px accuracy at all (consistently), but I’ve never used JSAC’s old PaintShopPro.
As far as crisp borders, look into the "inside" Stroke option of the layer effects. Provided you get the edges of the shape to look like you want them, this option strokes the inside of the shape, giving cleaner lines than using the "center" option.
§¦: } theartist
Do the math … count your blessings.
Boonish wrote:
I’m wondering if Photoshop has some sort of pixel snapping feature? When I draw a vector shape (rectangle for example) it seems there are positions on screen that the points land on that are inbetween actual pixels, resulting in muddy borders. This is really apparent when drawing a vector line with the line tool. I can fix this by nudging them with the direct selection tool, but this is a pain.
There’s no "pixel" option in the view > snap to menu, so I’m wondering if I’m looking in the wrong space or if this feature doesn’t exist? I just want to draw shapes with crisp borders. 🙁