Vector Shapes in PHOTO-PAINT

Don't you think it's about time PHOTO-PAINT had vector shapes? I mean, PP already does a great job with text in this way. Why not treat shapes the same way?

I don't know who thought of it first, but Microsoft PhotoDraw 2000 boasted their combination of vector/raster features all in one program and Adobe eventually incorporated vector shapes into Photoshop as well, but still lacking features IMO.

Here's how I would propose vector shapes work in Corel PHOTO-PAINT:

First off, we should have all the same shapes available to us that are available in CorelDRAW! This includes the star tool, spiral tool, arrow shapes, etc.
Once a shape is created within PP it shouldn't rasterize, but stay a vector shape until the user chooses to rasterize it. This way, border/fill information can still be altered and upscaling the shape won't cause pixelation around the edges.
If someone has one of these vector shapes selected and tries to paint directly on top of it, a new object should be created for that paint stroke instead of prompting the user about whether to rasterize the shape. They can always merge the two objects together later if they want to, which would inevitably rasterize the shape (with a warning prompt).
Even though these shapes are vector shapes, they should still be displayed at their current raster resolution (i.e. zooming in will still show pixelation). Why do I say this? Because any raster graphics editor should always show specific pixel information, especially for those working on low-resolution imagery (e.g. web graphics, icons, texture maps).

Parents

David Milisock over 14 years ago

I agree that Photo-PAINT needs improved tools and your suggestions are reasonable ones. Adobe loves the fact the people think that there are true vectors in PS, when even in Indesign most imported PSD files fail to output. Photo-PAINT should maintain the shape container in CPT fomat but utilize a seperate CPT format that cannot be imported to Draw until all objects are rasterized.

Try this take a 4" wide x 6" high image at 300 dpi add several layers with shapes and text in PS then res that file up to 60" wide x 40" high at 200 dpi. Feel free to use Genuine Fractals or PS itself and then tell me about the vectors in PS.

This is the kind of stuff we successfully do with high quality original captures all the time in Photo-PAINT.
Cancel
Up 0 Down

Reply

Cancel

Reply

Yani over 14 years ago in reply to David Milisock

It's inefficient because of the relationship between Draw and PP. That where the effort needs to go as a priority. Then bit depth in key tools.

As long as something can be done then focus should go on what can't be done at all and what is broken or not that great.

What you say is valid but PP needs some work on its foundations.

Keep up the good work but. We like seeing people push Corel to do more.
Cancel
Up 0 Down

Reply

Cancel

Children

Jed Mao over 14 years ago in reply to Yani

The relationship between Draw and PP is pretty good IMO – it's the fact that they are separate applications that inclines me to judge your supposed solution.

Yani said:
As long as something can be done then focus should go on what can't be done at all and what is broken or not that great.

I totally disagree with this statement and this is generally the attitude I see on the Adobe forums as well. The reason why I have such a problem with this statement is because it absolutely voids out all workflow and efficiency requests. These requests, although small, are sometimes the most important things to incorportate into software! Why? Because the entire point of software is to make us do things faster.

Hell, I used to make drop shadows by myself. Just create a black rectangle, guassian blur and bam! There it is! But do I use the drop shadow tool? You bet I do! It saves me so much time! Granted, it only saves me seconds, but this time really ads up when you think about all the many techniques you use in your day-to-day workflow.

I could just delete my rounded-corner rectangle and create a new one at a higher resolution, but that takes time! Unnecessary time!

That's what this feature request is about. Time!

Honestly, if X5 came out with absolutely no new features? But they really got down and fixed many of the bugs and made a bunch of little things easier that they previously had on low priority? I would TOTALLY buy it! In fact, though I normally buy every 2 versions (I'm on X3 now), I would have bought X4 if it had this type of improvement.
- Cancel
- Up 0 Down
- Reply
- Cancel

David Milisock over 14 years ago in reply to Jed Mao

Jed Hunsaker said:

Honestly, if X5 came out with absolutely no new features? But they really got down and fixed many of the bugs and made a bunch of little things easier that they previously had on low priority? I would TOTALLY buy it! In fact, though I normally buy every 2 versions (I'm on X3 now), I would have bought X4 if it had this type of improvement.

I agree FIX WHAT PARTIALLY WORKS! Color management updates for easier professional level use, drop shadow fixes. The list of features that Corel has is extensive, it needs more but as you say fixing those that have issues is reason to upgrade for me.

For example I have X3 and then X4 for true spot color work in Photo-PAINT and spot color transparency in Draw, along with expanded gamut printing support in Corel Published PDF files. These features alone are well worth the cost of the upgrades.

As far as the interface between CorelDRAW, Photo-PAINT and Trace it is well received and used hard by me. First Corel beat Adobe to it by two or three releases and Corel still does a much better job then the Adobe CS3.