I'm used so much the open-source software that I often use it for the most part and only do the final touches in Affinity. I also used parts of the Serif legacy series like PagePlus and for a couple of months I use all three Affinity applications now. Therefore I needed other "drugs" in the shape of Inkscape and later Scribus. But even Microsoft Powerpoint and Publisher are (or were at least) very limited. My professional experience is to rule Microsoft Office as office clerk with some single tasks in graphic design. My background is beeing a hobbyist in photography (since early 1990s), videography and communication design. For most simple tasks I have solutions or workarounds but I can't compete with professionals or pro-ams or simply work efficient. But for beginners, amateurs or pro-ams like me it is very useful. If you can do tracing fully manually, fine do that. For professional designers it might be waste of time. Of cause, there is no way to load it once, trace it once and boom - an amazing work is done. It took some hours but the outcome was brilliant. Then I autotraced them several times with several settings and corrected it manually after that. I scanned flyers with a flatbed scanner, blowed the images up that they were about a square metre tall. At that point I was a bloody newbie with almost zero experience in graphic design. They only had small files of GIF and JPEG for letterheads and business cards. Back in 2013/2014 I traced for the company I worked for its logos. But I don't agree that Potrace isn't useful with logos. I agree that Inkscape does a nice job and both applications work well together. Autotrace is next to useless when you need exact paths, like in logos. These can be used as stylistic effects, or with some material they can look pretty close to handmade. It can though do fairly good approximations. Rather ironically, you cannot use autotrace to make exact renderings of pixel images (c omputer cannot calculate exact output!!!).
0 kommentar(er)
