Designing for signs

[Rick]

I took three years of AutoCAD classes in college. I worked for Collins Sign Corporation which used AutoCAD for engineering drawings.
I also worked for four years at AD/S and spent many hours trying to coinvince the owners to get AutoCAD and they always balked at the price.
I finally gave up and lef the company. Ten years later they have an engineering department the uses AutoCAD. They would not listen to me.

I have used both CorelDraw and Adobe Illustrator

CorelDraw includes the ability to render scale drawings and to do dimensionsing WITHOUT the added expense of plug ins for Illustrator
9 out of 10 sign corporations in the Los Angeles area use Corel instead of Illustrator in their deisgn departments. I know because I have worked with them.

Totally missed the point, and proof that "experience" can be a crutch... even among good designers such as yourself.

I would say after all the experience I have had, that it's 99% Illustrator in the EGD firms and 50% Corel of the shops I have worked with and again... it's about servicing the clients needs, not clinging on to some loyalty to a software. I'm going to work for people who pay me so that the added expense is more than adequate to make my software payments a non-issue, while still having Corel for shops who would prefer Corel drawings, which is a fine program, at my disposal.... but it's been years since I have been required to do that. I know because I continue to work for them. I was just thinking, I have a network of 5 other freelance sign designers, it's a 50/50 split - and they all have Illustrator with CadTools - just in case... just makes sense from a business standpoint. When (or if) there is a major shift in software use, I can easily migrate to Corel.

I read this thing about expense and think... the only expense we designers have is software, computers and maybe a printer, we have a large format color laser printer/copier and binder. What's the software cost to my business? Because of Auto-Cad it's 16 billable hours a year - otherwise it would be 5 hours a year...... Our printer eats up more money than the software... I spend more money on Starbucks on my way to the office than what my software expenditure is, gotta wonder....

By the way, I don't re-call Collins or AD/S having issues replicating the design work we did when they were supplied Illustrator files.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Software is really only a tool, that's it.

To be honest, there isn't one software package that does it all as it is. I wish there was, but that's just not the case.

Just from my own point of view, people really shouldn't be sending files in the proprietary vendor specific file formats. Not only does one have to worry if they have the same type of software, but may also have to worry about the same version (typically with commercial software packages). Given that there are still issues with people that still don't convert fonts to outlines/curves, my hopes aren't all that high.

Now, nothing in my workflow prevents me from doing the same process regardless if I'm given any vector file format (proprietary or otherwise) or raster file, so I'm probably a little jaded with that ability.

I read this thing about expense and think... the only expense we designers have is software, computers ...

Do to the recent vogue of how software is developed/licensed, especially for programs still installed locally and not some form of "web app", this expense cycle is actually not as long as it used to be. However, expense could be more then just the money aspect of it, but that depends on the individual person.

it's about servicing the clients needs, not clinging on to some loyalty to a software.

This, I firmly agree with. Software, since it is just another tool in your toolbox, should always be evaluated as if it still fits your needs (which does include satisfying your client's needs).

The more one's knowledge is, it helps to not be beholding to any one package. One of the reasons that I try to teach from a software agnostic approach.

Of course, I also went through a major software and OS shift 3 yrs ago. Have to be nimble in business to be able to make changes. But also have to be willing to do so, if not willing, the change is even harder.


Should never be constrained by the software. Software is designed to make work easier, not harder.

 

[Bobby H]

I took three years of AutoCAD classes in college. I worked for Collins Sign Corporation which used AutoCAD for engineering drawings. I also worked for four years at AD/S and spent many hours trying to coinvince the owners to get AutoCAD and they always balked at the price. I finally gave up and lef the company. Ten years later they have an engineering department the uses AutoCAD. They would not listen to me.

AutoCAD is designed primarily for designing everything from building structures to parts for manufacturing. But it is not geared at all for graphic design use. Its type handling is primitive. Object fills are crude. It draws objects only in arcs and lines. No Bezier curve support. And the files it generates contains artwork that is not properly compatible with external graphics programs. Bring a DXF or DWG into CorelDRAW, Adobe Illustrator or even Flexi and you'll find lots of lots of open path segments. Nothing closed. Bunch of useless crap. If a client wants me to create a nice looking color version of their front building elevation for a sign illustration and use their AutoCAD artwork I'll end up having to lock that artwork on one layer and use it as a guide for laying down lots of new closed paths that can actually be filled. It's a pain in the @$$. It's one reason why so many sign companies merely paste an image of a proposed sign on a photograph of a building and call it a day.

CorelDraw includes the ability to render scale drawings and to do dimensionsing WITHOUT the added expense of plug ins for Illustrator 9 out of 10 sign corporations in the Los Angeles area use Corel instead of Illustrator in their deisgn departments. I know because I have worked with them.

We have used BOTH CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator in my shop for over 20 years. Yeah, lots of sign companies use CorelDRAW. But that's just sign companies. Outside the sign industry most firms creating graphics files are doing so using Adobe Illustrator. CorelDRAW is not very good at all at opening Adobe Illustrator files and really stinks at opening PDFs. Illustrator has its own issues opening CDR files or AI files exported from CorelDRAW. When an Illustrator file or PDF has artwork with complex fills, transparency effects, lots of clipping masks and other Illustrator-centric effects it becomes painfully necessary to have Illustrator installed on the computer so the artwork can be opened properly. If anything is amiss it's a lot easier to troubleshoot in Illustrator. When it comes to client-supplied PDFs a copy of Illustrator with the Vector First Aid plug-in installed can be a tremendous time saver.

I'm not a fan of the scale drawing mode in CorelDRAW. I create my production artwork at full size as much as possible. Client sketches are the only thing done at scale. Corel's art board can go up to 1800" X 1800" -which is enough for the vast majority of my projects. I say this having used CorelDRAW all the way back to version 1.1 in 1990 (version 3 was the first decent version of that program). Corel's scale drawing setup is not 100% accurate; I've had issues receiving CDR files from people who created signs in scale. When blown up to full size things would be off a little bit here and there. All sorts of other issues can arise from CDR files made at scale. Effects, line strokes and other things must be made scale-able, but many CorelDRAW users working at scale routinely forget that step. We use a variety of applications from different vendors in my shop. Unless the production artwork has loud, clear labels/call-outs saying it's drawn at scale someone else opening the drawing may not realize it and then make big mistakes in production. To be on the safe side we make everything full size across the board unless the application can't handle the size. I'll send Adobe Illustrator CC files to billboard printing companies at 1" = 1' scale, but I have it very clearly labeled and they're used to receiving artwork in that manner.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Yeah, lots of sign companies use CorelDRAW. But that's just sign companies. Outside the sign industry most firms creating graphics files are doing so using Adobe Illustrator.

It's big in the apparel decorating world as well. One of my digitizing programs came with a copy of DRAW bundled in. Helluva expensive copy of DRAW, I'll tell you what. Especially since haven't used it since V5.

When I was running Ai as my main program, I was one of the oddballs using that for apparel designing.

 

[Rick]

AutoCAD is designed primarily for designing everything from building structures to parts for manufacturing. But it is not geared at all for graphic design use. It's type handling is primitive. Object fills are crude. It draws objects only in arcs and lines. No Bezier curve support. And the files it generates contains artwork that is not properly compatible with external graphics programs. Bring a DXF or DWG into CorelDRAW, Adobe Illustrator or even Flexi and you'll find lots of lots of open path segments. Nothing closed. Bunch of useless crap. If a client wants me to create a nice looking color version of their front building elevation for a sign illustration and use their AutoCAD artwork I'll end up having to lock that artwork on one layer and use it as a guide for laying down lots of new closed paths that can actually be filled. It's a pain in the @$$. It's one reason why so many sign companies merely paste an image of a proposed sign on a photograph of a building and call it a day.

100% agree... designing in Auto-Cad would be one frustrating endeavor. Bad enough taking a drawing into it and making an engineered drawing out of it. When I get a drawing from a designer thats required to be in Auto-Cad, I will double check the scale and proportions in Adobe (or Corel) then dump it into Auto-Cad. The other thing is... insisting on using Auto-Cad as your main drafting program at a company where all the signs designed are done in a graphics program - AD/S uses Corel (obviously) cramps the workflow. It's hard enough trying to find quality sign designers/draftspeople, try finding one that's mastered Auto-Cad. If you require a few years of school to work a program, then how many qualified sign designers might there be? I would expect better pay than what I have seen around here.

I pretty much use mine for location plans, files sent to me by engineers and architects and as part of a complete design bid package and projects where the client requires Auto-Cad files... transportation hubs such as Airports and Mass Transit are a few that required that. But all the design starts in Illustrator, when transferred over.

 

[Bobby H]

It's big in the apparel decorating world as well. One of my digitizing programs came with a copy of DRAW bundled in. Helluva expensive copy of DRAW, I'll tell you what. Especially since haven't used it since V5.

I forgot about embroidery and other types of apparel. But I used the qualifier "most firms" (not all) in my statement regarding graphics work outside the sign industry and their use of Adobe Illustrator.

All these ad agencies, design houses and what not generating Illustrator files and PDFs often don't save down a version or two when sending out files. And then the artwork might use an effect that depends on the latest version. I'm sure the Freeform Gradients feature in AI CC 2019 is going to be really popular. It looks more promising than the old gradient mesh feature. But I think I need to wait til Astute Graphics releases a maintenance update for their plug-ins (which should be very soon), an Onyx Thrive maintenance update as well as a bug-fix update for Illustrator itself before upgrading.

I sometimes get annoyed if I get an AI file with fonts not converted to outlines. It's usually not a problem with PDF as long as the fonts are embedded. The flatten transparency trick can convert missing fonts to outlines. It's not so easy with AI files. A bunch get generated on Mac-based systems; we're all PC here. If they use certain OSX system fonts we'll have to ask for a PDF with fonts embedded or another AI file with all fonts converted to outlines.

100% agree... designing in Auto-Cad would be one frustrating endeavor. Bad enough taking a drawing into it and making an engineered drawing out of it. When I get a drawing from a designer thats required to be in Auto-Cad, I will double check the scale and proportions in Adobe (or Corel) then dump it into Auto-Cad.

Professional level CAD software (AutoCAD, Solidworks, Catia, etc) has its place, but it's tought to justify in a sign shop when it doesn't directly perform the same functions as "CAS" applications such as Flexi or play nicely with mainstream professional graphics applications. 3D is really the only plus I see with a full version of AutoCAD. There's all sorts of other mature options for 3D work which don't cost as much. Form Z is very popular in retail packaging design (products, store displays, trade show displays, etc). Sketch Up is even more popular.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I forgot about embroidery and other types of apparel. But I used the qualifier "most firms" (not all) in my statement regarding graphics work outside the sign industry and their use of Adobe Illustrator.

You did, I was just pointing out another specific niche in which it was highly popular that is all.

The funny thing with qualifiers like "most", "more often then not" etc, only have to happen bare minimum 51% of the time to be accurate. So there is a lot of room to scratch and burp with those qualifiers.

All these ad agencies, design houses and what not generating Illustrator files and PDFs often don't save down a version or two when sending out files. And then the artwork might use an effect that depends on the latest version.

They don't do a lot of things and that's part of the problem.

I'm not saying save down a version, save it in a non software specific version. That can still be hit or miss, but not any more so then what we have now.

I'm sure the Freeform Gradients feature in AI CC 2019 is going to be really popular.

I remember when gradients on strokes was popular but during the "transition years" when some people had software that can handle it and some that didn't, the easiest way around it was convert stroke to outlines. Boom, no issues for those still using software that didn't have that functionality, while still being able to have generated that effect initially. Did anyone do it? Not hardly.

There may or may not be a workaround like that for the effect that you are talking about (I don't have beyond CS6 with regard to Adobe), but I'm just pointing out that it could be possible to still use that effect and then make it to where it will work for those using legacy software or maybe current software that is the "standard" for their industry. Especially when that standard can cost upwards of $15k (without playing the trade up/trade in game or getting a hacked version) and comes bundled in with a software that isn't the "standard" in another trade. Tougher pill to swallow to have yet another software that is basically there with a monthly payment just to open files.





To me, and this might just be me, I do expect a certain level of knowledge about the software as well. Especially if it is used everyday in a business setting. Not just design aspects, but how to use the software. I consider some stuff basic, if they are dealing with outside vendors. If things are all done internally, they can do whatever they want, however, they want.

I guess I should not really expect a certain level of knowledge, after all, despite how dependent we all are with computers for a lot of things, it seems like the general knowledge base has gone down.

I sometimes get annoyed if I get an AI file with fonts not converted to outlines. It's usually not a problem with PDF as long as the fonts are embedded. The flatten transparency trick can convert missing fonts to outlines.

Bring it into Ai or when I did have certain versions of DRAW installed, I've never had it not be a problem. Didn't matter how I tried to open it in those 2 programs. Not once. Now the irony is, if I was using evince or even Okular (although Okular did have it's problems at times with some), they worked on files without doing anything special on opening, but on the commercial software (Ai/DRAW), no bueno.

Here is the thing. Converted to outlines/curves works 100% of the time, PDF embedding does not (even as you mentioned with using "usually", although I've never had it work with customer supplied files), so why do people not use what works all the time, versus a method that only "usually" works? Outside of laziness or maybe ignorance.

A bunch get generated on Mac-based systems; we're all PC here. If they use certain OSX system fonts we'll have to ask for a PDF with fonts embedded or another AI file with all fonts converted to outlines.

Macs are PCs. I know the cult of Mac doesn't like to think that (not talking about you or anyone specifically in this thread), they did alot during the 9x era to market otherwise, but they are still PCs. If the computers in question can perform tasks locally and doesn't have to be hooked up to a server/mainframe they are PCs.

Form Z is very popular in retail packaging design (products, store displays, trade show displays, etc). Sketch Up is even more popular.

More of a fan of Blender, especially with the 2.8 version (even though it is still alpha now). While I mainly do 2D animation (and the new GP tool is really, really good for traditional frame by frame), there is really just a lot one can do with it outside even just 3D design. VSE portion of it, I use for tutorials and youtube videos.

 

[Bobby H]

I'm not saying save down a version, save it in a non software specific version. That can still be hit or miss, but not any more so then what we have now.

Saving art files in a supposedly non-application-specific file format just does not work very well. The only way it can work is if you make your graphics small and plain as possible. When you start incorporating some of the nice bells and whistles from an upgrade of a specific application you get tied into saving work in that application's primary file format or its own "flavor" of an export format.

PDF and EPS are about the closest things we have to non-application-specific graphics file formats for vector-based artwork. Adobe Illustrator can save out to those two formats while keeping most (if not all) of the latest effects and features intact. Unfortunately there is a catch. If you want to open and edit those files you're going to have to use Adobe software to do it. If you try to edit those files elsewhere the artwork in those files is bound to break when the file is opened. Commercial RIP software has to be updated to be able to understand the latest stuff Adobe incorporates into Adobe-generated PDF files. And that's just a read-only option.

I prefer creating my sign designs in CorelDRAW at full size. Many of those layouts go well beyond the 227" X 227" max art board limit of Adobe Illustrator. PDF will crap out between 120" X 120" and 200" X 200" depending on the application creating the file. I've heard of hacks where PDFs could have much larger maximum page sizes, but chances are when you try opening the PDF in Adobe Illustrator (or even CorelDRAW) you'll just see a blank page. No artwork. Corel-generated PDF and EPS files can be problematic; there's no telling what Corel will do to "flatten" that artwork from one file to the next, even when you carefully go through the check points in the dialog box. I've seen all compound paths sliced and diced, fountain fills turned into groups of many thousands of objects and other nonsense. In the end the safer bet seems to be saving CorelDRAW artwork in its own native CDR format.

There may or may not be a workaround like that for the effect that you are talking about (I don't have beyond CS6 with regard to Adobe), but I'm just pointing out that it could be possible to still use that effect and then make it to where it will work for those using legacy software or maybe current software that is the "standard" for their industry.

Both CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator have certain features and effects that will break when saved down to earlier versions. CorelDRAW only just started fully supporting OpenType in version X6. If you have a layout with editable text using extended OTF features all of that will break when saved down to X5 or earlier. Transparency in gradient fills is another new thing that breaks when saved down to earlier versions. It can even break when exported to AI, EPS or PDF. This is yet another reason to have Adobe Illustrator running alongside CorelDRAW. An errant fill can be re-built there and PDF/EPS generated that will print properly.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Saving art files in a supposedly non-application-specific file format just does not work very well. The only way it can work is if you make your graphics small and plain as possible.

I did say it was hit or miss in my original post.

It works better, if you "finalize" the newer features to where they are more at the base form. In other words, like I mentioned before, when gradients on strokes was a big thing, outlining the stroke after the gradient was applied fixes that issue.

When it's going to a vendor, it should be at it's most finalized form. Keep a couple of the master file, but what is sent out to other shops shouldn't be the master file.

PDF and EPS are about the closest things we have to non-application-specific graphics file formats for vector-based artwork. Adobe Illustrator can save out to those two formats while keeping most (if not all) of the latest effects and features intact. Unfortunately there is a catch. If you want to open and edit those files you're going to have to use Adobe software to do it. If you try to edit those files elsewhere the artwork in those files is bound to break when the file is opened. Commercial RIP software has to be updated to be able to understand the latest stuff Adobe incorporates into Adobe-generated PDF files. And that's just a read-only option.

If you are sending out to an outside vendor for replication, it should not have to be editable. In my world, how my workflow is, I can make changes in my process without having to edit the file directly. Or have to go back to the original designer to change 98% of the edits that I would need to make to make it have a quality output.

The outside sent file is nothing more then a source layer (like a sketch that someone takes into Ai/Draw to use the pen tool to create a vector file). That's why if I use raster files (of a good resolution), the results are the same as if it was a vector. File format doesn't actually determine the output or guarantee any type of result.

I prefer creating my sign designs in CorelDRAW at full size. Many of those layouts go well beyond the 227" X 227" max art board limit of Adobe Illustrator. PDF will crap out between 120" X 120" and 200" X 200" depending on the application creating the file. I've heard of hacks where PDFs could have much larger maximum page sizes, but chances are when you try opening the PDF in Adobe Illustrator (or even CorelDRAW) you'll just see a blank page. No artwork. Corel-generated PDF and EPS files can be problematic; there's no telling what Corel will do to "flatten" that artwork from one file to the next, even when you carefully go through the check points in the dialog box. I've seen all compound paths sliced and diced, fountain fills turned into groups of many thousands of objects and other nonsense. In the end the safer bet seems to be saving CorelDRAW artwork in its own native CDR format.

While this is general a none issue with me as no matter what design package I'm working in, majority of my designs are able to be done 1:1. When it isn't, I work in scale. It's no biggie for me and it is clearly marked as being in scale.

Both CorelDRAW and Adobe Illustrator have certain features and effects that will break when saved down to earlier versions. CorelDRAW only just started fully supporting OpenType in version X6. If you have a layout with editable text using extended OTF features all of that will break when saved down to X5 or earlier. Transparency in gradient fills is another new thing that breaks when saved down to earlier versions. It can even break when exported to AI, EPS or PDF. This is yet another reason to have Adobe Illustrator running alongside CorelDRAW. An errant fill can be re-built there and PDF/EPS generated that will print properly.

If you are trying to keep things "active" or as they are directly generated from the new tool, yes it will break saving in legacy versions. That's not what I was talking about. Keep a master file for yourself, but when sending out to vendors, "finalize" aspects that need to be "finalized". A vendor that is solely replicating doesn't need to have editing abilities. At least not in my world.

 

[Bobby H]

A vendor that is solely replicating doesn't need to have editing abilities. At least not in my world.

My biggest need for jobbing art to outside vendors is giant format printing and specialized printing, like billboard faces, prints output directly on certain kinds of material (fabric, metal). I don't want those vendors editing my artwork. The only exception is if there is some odd color issue where an object's fill isn't matching the reference color target.

In order to get the best print quality from art with complex fills/effects those vendors need to be as close to handling the native "master" files as possible. Giving them an AI or PDF with all the effects "flattened" will not look as good. Banding can be a big problem.

With that being said, I do certain things in my master/archive files to "finalize" certain objects & effects as a general rule. I convert type objects in the artwork to outlines once I'm happy with letter size, spacing, etc. I break apart things like text on path effects. I don't leave contour/path offset effects "live." I convert as many things into separate, editable paths as possible. But some effects, complex fills in particular, just don't work so well being flattened/expanded into a whole bunch of flat fill objects.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I don't want those vendors editing my artwork. The only exception is if there is some odd color issue where an object's fill isn't matching the reference color target.

In order to get the best print quality from art with complex fills/effects those vendors need to be as close to handling the native "master" files as possible. Giving them an AI or PDF with all the effects "flattened" will not look as good. Banding can be a big problem.

Yea, differences between the two worlds here. In my world, color is already out there on a spool or it isn't. No two ways about it. Doesn't matter if I'm given a vector file or not. Not going to change that.

The one type where a vector file will throw one for a loop is if there are gradients, doesn't matter if it's simple or a gradient mesh or anything else. That just doesn't translate from a vector. You can do blends and gradients, even at small sizes (I routinely do realistic dog head embroidery at 2.5" while most are done at 4"), but the source file has to be a raster file for that to show up correctly. I surmise that it's related to the auto conversion engine (which is no bueno to begin with, but I digress) and that's why it doesn't translate gradients/blends in vector form.

It's amazing how the differences are.