Philosophically . . .
3 messages in this thread
I like the Ceramicron. It's a little coarse and fuzzy compared to a
technical pen, but it seems willing to stay in my handbag for weeks on end,
then make a mark when required to — and I can't say that about any
Rapidograph that I've ever known. I think you can get a heavy one, too —
0.7 mm.
Talking to a friend today (also a designer). We generally agreed that we both
use Illustrator and FreeHand to manipulate type and to design logos (because
we can reproduce them in many sizes), but that for most drawing it's easier
and much, much faster just to pick up a pen (or a crayon or charcoal or
whatever). The technical drawings shown in the ads for the PostScript drawing
programs could probably have been done faster by hand — assuming, of course,
there was only one to do and that there would not be an advantage to have an
inventory of basic shapes.
I asked Esther Kletter why Illustrator 88 wasn't going to include pair
kerning and binding type to a path and she said that Adobe has made a
decision to emphasize drawing rather than type manipulation. I wonder: Do
most designers agree with my friend and me? Do illustrators find the program
a useful addition to or substitute for traditional tools? Is the primary
market for the program technical illustrators? Any thoughts?
I used to make my living as a typographer, and I don't pretend to any great
skill as an artist or illustrator. I'm also just "getting my feet wet" with
the Macintosh, and I've never done any real work with Illustrator (old or
new). All that said, I am very impressed with the capabilities of this
program. It does appear strongest in the design of graphic symbols like
logos, and I would like to see some more attention paid to the type
side–pair kerning (automatic and manual) and track kerning are especially
important in large-size logo work. The ability to wrap text to a path
(geometric shape or hand-drawn curve) would certainly be nice to see. As far
as technical illustration, I suspect that the strength of Illustrator would
be most evident in complex figures that are composed of repeated
elements–like the ornate watch shown in Adobe's ads. Speaking as a computer
person and a typesetting person, I am very much in favor of illustration
being done with a computer tool that permits flexible editing and
manipulation, along with output at arbitrarily high levels of image
resolution. I suspect that tools like Illustrator will affect graphic arts
the way computer-based word processors have affected business and personal
writing. This evolution will certainly be aided by feedback in this forum!
I've found a job that allows me the freedom to completly replace all of my
tradional illustration tools with my Mac. There are limitaions to what I can
do, but if I can't do it on the Mac, I don't need to do it. My french
curves, rapidographs, 4 airbrushes, etc. are all gathering dust. I'll keep
them around just in case I ever decide to go freelance again. (By the way, I
do infographics at a large daily newspaper.)
Doug Miller