Repainters/designers - what software do you use to texturize or recolor?

[APA-168]

I use Inkscape, don't do much repainting but it's how I process my own kits. The good things are mainly that it's free and has about the same features (maybe even a bit more) as Adobe Illustrator. On the downside, it's not all that intuitive and it has a couple of strange quirks. One is that it will crash entirely at random with no prior warning. So save often. Mostly though, it takes A LOT of trial and error to figure out and I still feel like there's a whole lot of stuff I don't know about it. Fortunately, all you really need for repainting are the most basic functions, which aren't that hard to figure out once you know where everything is. It's a great program, as I said lots of features. I guess, if you are used to figuring out software than you shouldn't have too many issues, and I'd certainly recommend it no matter what. It's a program worth learning.

[cgutzmer]

I gotta go refresh myself on vector vs bitmap...

Thanks! inkscape seems pretty popular

[3Turner]

I have and use Photoshop CS4 which I bought half price upgrade from Elements 7...then two weeks later, CS5 was relased. :|

I do want to start learning Inkscape for the vector stuff. And actually, if anyone can provide pointers in cleaning up and/or redrawing the panel lines to prep for the repaint....it would be very much appriciated.

[hawkman67]

I use Photo Shop. And echo what the others have said about it..Great program to use well worth the cost.
Jeff

[cMags]

Vector graphics use equations and coordinate systems to plot the lines and fields that you see so they are infinitely scalable because the computer basically re-renders the graphic every time you open, zoom, scale, etc.

Raster graphics use a "bitmap" which maps a particular color to every pixel in an image. Because there's nothing in between pixels, when you scale the scaling program has to interpolate what "would" be between them but can only do so much so you get "pixelation". Working with high resolutions (dots/pixels per inch) you can trick the eye to not seeing the pixels and just see smooth lines. On the screen you normally see a resolution of 72 or 96dpi. On print, you normally would want at least 300dpi. Many new printers can handle over 2400 or 4800dpi prints.

[cgutzmer]

Why would you want to use bitmap then at all? does it have any strengths?

Does GIMP do vector - I am a bit familiar there but looking at the screen shots for inkscape I rather like it

[mldixon]

Hey Chris. I use Photoshop and Illustrator for my graphics work. I build in Sketchup Pro ver 8. I use Pepakura for unfolding.

These programs require an investment, but for the most part are very user friendly. I have corel, but very seldom use it.

[mldixon]

Vevtor is the way to go. You can rescale to any size and not give up any qualtiy. Easy!
However Illustrator has a steep learning curve. I use the crash bang method of learnig. I start a project and solve each issue as it comes up by researching that paticular problem. That way I never forget. Sometimes I will just hit different keys and settings in tools just to see how they react in the preview windows. Very effective method.

[Darwin]

I use a combinaton of Photoshop CS2, Image Forge 3.6, and PSP X2. Image Forge is the main workhorse for actual drawing and coloring. PSP is mainly used for straightening images. Photo Shop is used for resizing images, cutting and pasting parts or otherwise rearranging individual parts on their page images, cleanup of scanned images, and reducing images to simple outlines. Maybe I'm just a control freak, or perhaps it is what first introduced me to computer graphics, but I far prefer bitmap format to vector. In those rare occasions I do work with vectors, I use Corel Draw X3.

[cMags]

I think the primary reasons that raster images are still popular is two-fold.

The first is that digital photography, videography, and rendered images from 3d are all raster graphics. So when doing edits and such tools are still required for raster capability. You cannot take a photograph and have the camera calculate all the lines and shade gradients as vectors. The technology just doesn't exist (yet?).

The second is that raster graphics have been the way things have been done for decades, and vector graphics technology (to make decent images*) are still new and come with a steep learning curve. * I add this note because vector graphics have actually been around for a long time, back when "computer graphics" were essentially 60hz line drawings on a CRT screen (think the game Asteroids), but that was the best the technology could do in vector so raster won out (until now).