Illy vectors and rasterizing vs scaling down and quality

[crny1]

I have a rather large file in Illy that has alot of effects in it and a gradient background. All vector no raster images. This is where I start to get lost. Would it be better to scale it way down and then tell the rip to upsize it OR would it be better to build it at full size, flatten and rasterize?
In my newb mind I am thinking that the gradients may band bad from upsizing at the rip stage. Am I off base here?
Or what about exporting as a .tiff at full size? Cannot really afford to compromise quality with this one and naturally I confuse myself with this part.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Johnny Best]

I sometimes do this two ways. Save illy file as .pdf and send to RIP and print. Or select all and place in Photoshop and save as a .pdf or .tiff or as .jpg and save at high res and place back in Illy and save as .pdf in Illy.

 

[Bobby H]

What is going to be the physical size of the job when it is printed? The Illustrator file's document raster effects settings can make a big impact on file sizes, especially if you're using "live" raster-based effects on objects, such as drop shadows. A normal letter size document can get away with the raster effects setting set at 300ppi. Stuff output for large format doesn't need the setting above 72ppi.

I avoid converting any vector-based objects to raster before printing. Some things, such as organic looking textures, are best made in raster format at the appropriate resolution of the final project.

 

[GB2]

I have a rather large file in Illy that has alot of effects in it and a gradient background. All vector no raster images. This is where I start to get lost. Would it be better to scale it way down and then tell the rip to upsize it OR would it be better to build it at full size, flatten and rasterize?
In my newb mind I am thinking that the gradients may band bad from upsizing at the rip stage. Am I off base here?
Or what about exporting as a .tiff at full size? Cannot really afford to compromise quality with this one and naturally I confuse myself with this part.
Thanks in advance.

The problem that you have is the raster effects capability of Illustrator. The way you ask the question, you seem to think there is a problem with the raster effects in your RIP.
Would it be better to scale it way down and then tell the rip to upsize it
The only reason you would scale something down in Illustrator and then up-scale it in the RIP is because it is too large for Illustrator to handle it.
OR would it be better to build it at full size, flatten and rasterize?
If you can create it full size in Illustrator then there is no reason to flatten or rasterize it unless you are having transparency issues when printing. One of the only reasons I would ever rasterize anything in Illustrator is to try to eliminate transparency issues, for example, if you are getting boxes around JPGs that you may have in your Illustrator file then rasterizing it may get rid of that problem. Now, if you are getting undesirable results from Illustrator raster effects such as boxes around gradient effects or drop shadows then rasterizing may help that problem too. If the file is too large to rasterize then you would need to scale it down in order to rasterize it and up-scale it in the RIP.
In my newb mind I am thinking that the gradients may band bad from upsizing at the rip stage. Am I off base here?
I have never experienced any problems when up-scaling files in the RIP
Or what about exporting as a .tiff at full size?
I see no reason to attempt this, especially if you are working with large files.

 

[AKwrapguy]

I have a rather large file in Illy that has alot of effects in it and a gradient background. All vector no raster images. This is where I start to get lost. Would it be better to scale it way down and then tell the rip to upsize it OR would it be better to build it at full size, flatten and rasterize?
In my newb mind I am thinking that the gradients may band bad from upsizing at the rip stage. Am I off base here?
Or what about exporting as a .tiff at full size? Cannot really afford to compromise quality with this one and naturally I confuse myself with this part.
Thanks in advance.

How big is the file? How big is the job you are trying to print? What rip are you using?

 

[crny1]

Ok, Final output size of the artwork is 180" Wide by 100" tall. The RIP is Versa. File is 780mb
The main problem is I have realized now is that there is transparencies and spot colors. Also gradients and a few drop shadows.
Of course the transparencies are showing the white areas around them over the spot colors. If I try to save the file in .PDF the computer will save it fine but when I load it into versa it says corrupted file, yet opens fine other places. If I rasterize I will lose my spot color which may throw the coloring off (or am I wrong here) compared to what I expect or need it to be.

 

[Bobby H]

You may have to convert your spot colors to CMYK. I often don't trust spot colors anyway and if matching a certain PMS color is critical I'll make a number of boxes with tweaks to the original CMYK approximation of the spot color to see which one prints nearest to the one in the physical Pantone swatch book. Getting a perfect match on a bunch of those colors is impossible. I stay away from using spot colors in gradients. They'll transition more smoothly (and predictably) using CMYK mixtures. The same goes for transparency effects.

VersaWorks can be funny when it comes to supporting live raster-based effects in Illustrator and certain kinds of placed imagery from Photoshop (like layered elements with transparency). VersaWorks may refuse to contour cut such artwork. It may not properly recognize EPS files with such artwork, forcing you to use PDF and then that has its own screwy limitations -like bringing in the whole page size rather than the object to be printed. Worst case scenario: you can copy the artwork into Photoshop to create a flattened, high resolution TIFF file. The file might be giant-sized, but you can trash it after printing and/or contour cutting.

 

[AKwrapguy]

Ok, Final output size of the artwork is 180" Wide by 100" tall. The RIP is Versa. File is 780mb
The main problem is I have realized now is that there is transparencies and spot colors. Also gradients and a few drop shadows.
Of course the transparencies are showing the white areas around them over the spot colors. If I try to save the file in .PDF the computer will save it fine but when I load it into versa it says corrupted file, yet opens fine other places. If I rasterize I will lose my spot color which may throw the coloring off (or am I wrong here) compared to what I expect or need it to be.

180"x100" and it's 780mb? I can see why you might be having some issues. While I know it might take a little time but have you gone through the layers to make sure there's not a bunch of extra crap they have buried in there?

 

[eahicks]

180"x100" and it's 780mb? I can see why you might be having some issues. While I know it might take a little time but have you gone through the layers to make sure there's not a bunch of extra crap they have buried in there?

And also what resolution is this being saved as? For a sign that big, 100 DPI would suffice and shouldn't be over 200MB. And if you can save as a slightly compressed JPG I bet you can get down below 100MB easy.

 

[AKwrapguy]

And also what resolution is this being saved as? For a sign that big, 100 DPI would suffice and shouldn't be over 200MB. And if you can save as a slightly compressed JPG I bet you can get down below 100MB easy.

While his issue is file seems to be file size, but he needs quality wouldn't a .png be at 150dpi be better? With the transparency and shadows I would think that the png would have less issues. I could be wrong I just hate jpegs.

 

[crny1]

Yes the quality is very much needed as people will walk up to the panel within inches.

 

[Solventinkjet]

Rasterizing vector graphics should be considered a mortal sin in this industry but I see it as people's standard workflow a lot more than I should. I think this is because of the whole spot color and transparencies thing.

The problem in this situation as I see it is, Versaworks doesn't handle this situation very well and is notorious for having issues with spots and transparencies so the RIP is already part of the problem. There are other RIPs out there that will interpret the file better. I have done it with ease on Flexi and Rasterlink for example.

If you wanted to avoid using a spot colors you can create custom profiles which will make the need for spot colors much less necessary. You can also try using the color replacement tool in the RIP instead of spot colors.

At the end of the day you should try everything you can to keep your vectors. Rasterizing is the easy way out but far less professional in my opinion.

 

[crny1]

You can also try using the color replacement tool in the RIP instead of spot colors.

Can you elaborate on this? I have never done it and not even sure where its at in versa.

 

[Solventinkjet]

Can you elaborate on this? I have never done it and not even sure where its at in versa.

I'm not too familiar with Versaworks but it's a standard feature in most RIPs. Usually the feature shows a preview of the image and you can use an eye dropper to hover over the colors to see what the profile has interpreted the colors as. So when you send C100 Y0 M0 K0 the profile might interpret that as C89 M2 Y5 K3 and when you hover the eye dropper tool over it, that's what it will show. So when you select it, it will allow you to override the profile and use your own values. In this case you would change it to C100 Y0 M0 K0. Now it should print exactly how you want it and it won't care about the transparencies because it is being handled at the profile level rather than the pre-press level. The draw back here is that it doesn't work so well with gradients and transitions. This works best for solid colors.

 

[ColorCrest]

I have a rather large file in Illy that has alot of effects in it and a gradient background. All vector no raster images.

Ok, Final output size of the artwork is 180" Wide by 100" tall. The RIP is Versa. File is 780mb

I find this difficult to believe; the file size of 780mb but having no raster images. Do you know if vector elements in the artwork have already been rasterized in the document? Is this document an original or has some other resources been imported?

I have many complex Illustrator files destined for much larger output and none are anywhere close to 780mb.

 

[crny1]

Well I have not seen a eyedropper tool in versa so I am not sure how this would be accomplished.

I find this difficult to believe; the file size of 780mb but having no raster images. Do you know if vector elements in the artwork have already been rasterized in the document? Is this document an original or has some other resources been imported?

I have many complex Illustrator files destined for much larger output and none are anywhere close to 780mb.

I can tell you with certainty that the file is that size. Nothing was rasterized as the file was built. They are very complex vectors with lots of nodes also. It is a original document that I built.

 

[ColorCrest]

It is a original document that I built.

Good, because that fact eliminates SO MANY other variables! However, because you're not sure of other variables, such as color which is not important right now, you might try proceeding while using the process of elimination. I recommend you first delete half of the Illustrator elements from a copy of your file to see if it RIPs.

Let us know what happens. See where it's going using this process?

 

[Bobby H]

Rasterizing vector graphics should be considered a mortal sin in this industry but I see it as people's standard workflow a lot more than I should. I think this is because of the whole spot color and transparencies thing.

I'm not sure I would call it a "mortal sin," but rasterizing is definitely a last resort. Certain objects should never be rasterized. For instance if someone is printing a display that contains blocks of paragraph text those text objects will look absolutely, unprofessionally horrible if they're converted to a resolution typical of many large format printing jobs (72ppi to 150ppi). Body copy should always be reproduced at the maximum resolution capable of the output device.

Between the capabilities of Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop it is fairly simple to isolate any offending objects that get screwed up in the RIP and rasterize them without dumbing everything else down to the pixel-based domain. Objects can be rasterized within Illustrator. Or the vector-based objects can be placed as paths in a Photoshop document and rendered in pixel-based format with even more control. Then that object gets brought back into the Illustrator layout. It's not hard to set up things so registration remains perfect between the two applications.

Now, squeezing and stretching fonts out of their normal proportions, that's what I consider a mortal sin of graphic design. I see so much Arial Black squished in to fit any space on lots of bad signs. The very least thing the "designer" could do is discover the miracle known as the font menu, scroll through it and notice there are condensed and extended typefaces available that might fit better and be more interesting than that ugly default typeface.

 

[crny1]

Well I have narrowed down the offenders. Without realizing it I had over 100 blends in the drawing and vectors with LOTS of nodes. Looks like eliminating the blends will help alot! Whoops, lesson learned I guess.

 

[AKwrapguy]

Well I have narrowed down the offenders. Without realizing it I had over 100 blends in the drawing and vectors with LOTS of nodes. Looks like eliminating the blends will help alot! Whoops, lesson learned I guess.

What do you mean you had over 100 Blends in the drawing?