Illustrator and webfiles problem

[Siouxie]

Hiho all you vector artists :)

i found out yesterday that i have a big problem, so heres what it is about

for a website i have to make lots and lots of images of arrows, i tried it with ps, but they where to pixelated, especially when the images (gif`s) where shown one over another (with layers in html).

So i wanted to make them with illustrator. The images have to be 84x87 pixels large, but the arrows are smaller. When i tell illu to save them for weboutput in png format the images are just as big as the arrow (77x8). How can i tell Illustrator to make all the pictures the same size, no matter what is in there?
Normally i would have made a square behind it in the needed size, but the pictures have to be transparent.

Anyone got an idea?

first arrow is the gif one, second the png, third is to see how they are going to be used, and why they have to be same size and tranparent

[Scott]

How can i tell Illustrator to make all the pictures the same size, no matter what is in there?

Two ways Siouxie.

#1) Set your artboard to the final size of the image. In this case you'd set the artboard to be 84 x 87 pixels. Simply place your art on the artboard where you want it in the final image. Then in the Save For Web dialog, hit the Image Size tab and check the "Clip to Artboard" checkbox. This will constrain the image to the size of the artboard, regardless of what is on the artboard.

#2) Draw a box that is the size of your final image requirements (84x87 pixels). Choose Object > Crop Area > Make. Place your artwork inside those crop marks. Save For Web will then use the crop marks as the image size when saving.

You may also want to turn on Pixel Preview in the View Menu so you can see the AI art as it will appear in a raster image.

[Siouxie]

thx sooo much Scott, you are a genius :)

so great to always learn new things from the master, just hope i will remember it until next time i need it :)

[burndog]

On the subject of save for web, why can I save vector art in Illustrator as an SVG...Illustrator can open it, but photoshop can't.

Also, can SVG files be saved with web pages, or should one stick gifs, pngs and jpgs? I think I have found the answer to this part... Firefox can open an svg no problem, netscape has no idea as to what it is, and IExplorer blocks it and then when you allow it it has to download software to view it. It kind of sounds like SVG files are on their way out by 2009, or at least the viewer is.

[Scott]

SVG = Scalable Vector Graphics. They are in a vector format. The closest related format would be SWF.

SVG hit the scene around the same time as SWF did.. SWF took off.. SVG didn't. Adobe strongly supported SVG at first because.. well Macromedia owned SWF. Now, who knows. Adobe doesn't own SVG it's open source GPL technology. So there's no money in pushing it over SWF for Adobe now.

The SVG browser plug in is a rare thing to see. Which is why people stick to SWF. Flash is everywhere. It wouldn't surprise me if SVG was just abandoned now that Adobe owns SWF.

[burndog]

Thanks Scott, SWF sounds interesting. Adobe sure is swallowing up a lot of graphics software companies. Not sure that is a good thing or not.

[Scott]

I think it's a good thing in terms of development of the software. It can only mean better integrating between Photoshop/Illustrator and Flash/Dreamweaver. and hopefully some good features of Freehand and Flash built into Illustrator. SWF is Flash by the way.

It's a bad thing in terms of pricing. No competition can lead the MS way of thinking or the Quark way... unfortunately. Adobe owners are bit more responsible than the Quark people, thank God.

[burndog]

You're probably right. The mostly seamless integration that Adobe develops can only be a good thing. And you're likely right about the pricing, without much competition they could bump up prices, but let's face it they are in the business to make money like the rest of us. With practically everyone buying their products these days you would hope that if anything they could bring their prices down a bit.

I can see packages of software being pretty much the norm, both premium and standard editions, like they are doing it now, but even more so in the future, and that is good for people who are buying a range of software to start with, but not great for people who only want to upgrade only one or two programs rather than upgrade the entire package.

[Scott]

I think the whole "Studio" or "Creative Suite" packages are bad.

Imagine that Photoshop CS3 is ready to ship right now! Addressing a lot of bugs and adding some really nice new features. But they won't release it until Illustrator CS3 is ready, Indesign CS3 is ready and the rest. It basically means delays to get customers better products. Then like you posted... you have to upgrade the entire package for $500+ rather than one application at a time for $169. I still don't own the Creative Suite. I own every application in the Suite, just not the "package" the main reason for this is that I can upgrade Illustrator one month, then Photoshop the next, etc rather than paying the full price all at once. I do own Studio 8 though. But I only upgrade that every other version since I rarely even use it.

[burndog]

I sometimes wonder if upgrades are always worth it. In PS I went from 7 to CS2 and of course there are quite a few new tools and a few really useful things, but to be honest, I find that I still use most of the same tools that I used in PS 4. Likely I am like a dinosaur refusing to change, but I find most of the new "auto" type tools rarely save much time. Maybe if I knew them better I would think differently. I guess I just like to stick with what I have had success with in the past. Yup I'm a PS dinosaur.

for example I only used the layer adjustment thingie for the first time the other day when following a tutorial. I know it can be a good thing, but I prefer to just do my best to start with, and hopefully I do not have to tweak it later. Now there is a tool that has been around for some time, but I can easily get along without it, I would sooner just copy the layer if I needed to experiment, that is what I did before layer adjustments.

as far as the newer tools, magic this and auto that...I prefer to have more control, kind of like having manual control when using an automatic camera, it may be ever so slightly slower, but I know what I will get, rather than rely upon the program to give me it's version.

I'm guessing it will be a long time until I upgrade my PS at home...same for the rest of the suite. Until I master them I can not see paying more for the latest. Of course if you use it professionally then I can understand that every little bit of improved production can pay for itself quickly.

Whoa, I must be bored...sorry for the novel:)

[Scott]

For me.. upgrades are more about correcting bugs and improving work-flows. True not all the new features are used a whole lot. I still haven't needed Vanishing Point. But if I did it's nice to know it's there. Smart Objects are FAN-FREAKIN-TASTIC that alone was a reason to upgrade to Photoshop CS2. But they need major improvements.. therefore CS3 will be worth it.

It all comes down to what you do I guess :)