3 ms·

Certainly an applicable analogy - all the people whose standards are low enough to use a doctored-up JPEG as a logo now have a free solution. The rest of us who

by z3c0 4y ago

Certainly an applicable analogy - all the people whose standards are low enough to use a doctored-up JPEG as a logo now have a free solution. The rest of us who'd prefer a vector graphic, or maybe a .ai or .psd, will continue paying for quality output and the ability to have a rapport about aesthetics. When you pay a person, you're paying for more than the output. Maybe they'll use a GPT/LLM model behind the scenes, but I also use bucket-loads of coffee behind the scenes. That doesn't mean a bag of Stumptown can build your analytics architecture.

commitpizza 4y ago
Well if you already have an image you're satisfied with, it's really easy to make it into vector graphics. Either you can map it yourself or just use a tool for it. As an example of this I generated an image of a dog with an AI and then I put it in the vectormagic.com's tool. The result is very good since the image is not a logo style but an advanced image with a lot of detail. https://vectormagic.com/images/kvzrgcxyjp45m/edit/p24qfcqegjjk111diih0uaofjgk2n5hs99ha67pu0ib23pjl8bec https://vectormagic.com/images/kvzrgcxyjp45m/edit/p24qfcqegj...
- z3c0 4y ago
  Yes, many image editors support converting a raster image to a vector, even high-fidelity images like the one you've shown. But creating a usable vector is more than just dropping an image into vectorizer and cleaning up the results. Every angle and point in a vector is handled like a unique object, and thus, the image you've shown would be a nightmare to work with. Often times, there will be numerous duplicate points and hidden angles that can be impossible to sniff out. That's why Illustrator is distinct from Photoshop - creating vectors from scratch is not the same process as converting a raster, and the result is typically far more clean. So yeah, still stands. If you can stomach messy, unpredictable outputs, use an automated solution. If you want something lean and usable, use a human-being.

by z3c0 4y ago

commitpizza 4y ago

Well if you already have an image you're satisfied with, it's really easy to make it into vector graphics. Either you can map it yourself or just use a tool for it. As an example of this I generated an image of a dog with an AI and then I put it in the vectormagic.com's tool. The result is very good since the image is not a logo style but an advanced image with a lot of detail. https://vectormagic.com/images/kvzrgcxyjp45m/edit/p24qfcqegjjk111diih0uaofjgk2n5hs99ha67pu0ib23pjl8bec https://vectormagic.com/images/kvzrgcxyjp45m/edit/p24qfcqegj...

z3c0 4y ago
Yes, many image editors support converting a raster image to a vector, even high-fidelity images like the one you've shown. But creating a usable vector is more than just dropping an image into vectorizer and cleaning up the results. Every angle and point in a vector is handled like a unique object, and thus, the image you've shown would be a nightmare to work with. Often times, there will be numerous duplicate points and hidden angles that can be impossible to sniff out. That's why Illustrator is distinct from Photoshop - creating vectors from scratch is not the same process as converting a raster, and the result is typically far more clean. So yeah, still stands. If you can stomach messy, unpredictable outputs, use an automated solution. If you want something lean and usable, use a human-being.